Sitting of 4 June 1991

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

    Oil Fires, Kuwait
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the medical qualifications of those responsible for monitoring the health of sappers engaged in support of those fighting oil fires in Kuwait; how many doctors are engaged in this work; how frequently checks of the lungs are conducted; what conclusions have been drawn from the appearance of black spots on dissected sheep; what expertise is available on the consequences of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulphide in the atmosphere; and what plans he has for rotational use of sappers.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): There are six doctors and 46 medical support personnel with our forces in Kuwait. In addition, a military public health physician is regularly monitoring the lung function of service personnel in the area of the oil fires and expert advice has been sought on atmospheric pollutants. There are no plans for the roulement of Royal Engineers in Kuwait. I have no information about black spots on dissected sheep.
    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, the Minister should have such information. In view of expert medical opinion on the findings on sheep's lungs, what do we suppose is happening to human lungs? Is not it the truth that military personnel and civilians are at dire risk on account of aromatic hydrocarbons, of getting cancer over 10 years?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am told that the most likely cause of the black spots is soot and that they are, therefore, similar to the black spots to be found on the lungs of coal miners or of people living in London at the time of smog. The hon. Gentleman referred to the carcinogenic effects of the air that is being inhaled in Kuwait. The effects are basically thought to be long term rather than short term and, in the short term, are not reckoned to be any worse on our people in Kuwait than are the effects of smoking 20 cigarettes a day or of suffering from passive smoking.
    Mr. Adley: Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that increasing numbers of people, including many diplomats in the Gulf, have the impression that the American company Bechtel is somehow preventing British companies and other European companies from tackling the fires in Kuwait far more effectively? Although I recognise my hon. Friend's ministerial responsibility, will he at least
    138
    have a word with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether the problem can be tackled? For the sake of all of us, the fires must be put out as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hamilton: I can assure my hon. Friend that a tremendous amount of work has been done to ensure that British firms play a big role in the reconstruction of Kuwait. A number of British firms are now involved in putting out fires.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement about the replacement of the Royal Air Force SA R Wessex helicopters.
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department last placed an order for Sea King helicopters.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): We last placed an order for Sea King helicopters in November 1987. All seven aircraft ordered have now been delivered.
    As I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 10 May, we are examining the case for the Wessex's replacement as part of the normal equipment planning process of the Ministry of Defence. An announcement will be made once a decision has been taken.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an early decision is now required in view of the fact that the Wessex helicopter is operationally inferior to, for example, the Sea King? Indeed, some of the Wessex fleet is approaching 30 years old. In addition to that, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have ruled out the possibility of the sole use of a civilian contractor to provide that service?
    Mr. Clark: I should very much like to dispose of a budget that would allow me to comply with all my hon. Friends' requests about defence equipment procurement. As my hon. Friend knows well, we are under constraints at present and all these matters must be considered carefully. No decision on the civilian operation of the search and rescue service will be made until the options exercise has been completed. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will always take the wartime requirement fully into account in retaining a core capability.
    Mr. Speller: May I take my right hon. Friend on a slightly different tack? Summer is with us. The Wessex helicopter, although excellent in the past, is no longer the all-weather, all-year-round or all-radar-equipped aircraft that we need along the Bristol channel and the north Devon coast. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider the matter for two purposes: the first is the safety of our tourists and the second is, perhaps, the continuance of a British-built helicopter fleet for the future. My right hon. Friend must make his mind up and make a change fairly soon.
    Mr. Clark: I take my hon. Friend's point. The Sea King is more capable, and, with its night flying capability, operating from RAF Brawdy, it will provide cover for the Bristol channel.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister clearly understands, the replacement of the Wessex with the Sea King is intimately bound up with the contractorisation of search and rescue. Does he understand the dismay, both within the Royal Air Force and outside it, that contractorisation is once again under consideration? What has changed in the three years since contractorisation was successfully defeated by a campaign both inside and outside the House? Why will not the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to the RAF and the Royal Navy by rejecting contractorisation outright now?
    Mr. Clark: The commitment in sea-air rescue is to those at risk. I am entirely confident that, however future arrangements may differ from existing arrangements, the risk to seafarers will not be aggravated. We shall continue to meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North a core capability to deal with the wartime requirement will always be retained.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that before both the 1983 and the 1987 general elections the Tory Government lambasted the Opposition, saying that Labour would cut defence spending if ever the Labour party got into power? Now the Tory Government cannot even satisfy their own Back Benchers. As somebody else said recently, this is a "funny old world".
    Mr. Clark: I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's new-found interest in sea-air rescue helicopters. I can tell him that, whatever contraction may take place as part of the restructuring of our defences, it will be as nothing compared with what would happen if the Labour party got its hands on defence. If the hon. Gentleman is honest, he will admit that many studies are flying round on how the Labour party can plunder the defence budget to pay for its glib strings of promises.
    Mr. Barry Field: When my right hon. Friend considers bids for the replacement of search and rescue helicopters, will he bear it in mind that an order with Westland would bring work to Westland Aerospace at West Cowes in my constituency? Westland Aerospace has an enviable international reputation for composite technology and for exporting aerospace technology from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend's point is well taken. Certainly that is one consideration that we keep to the forefront of our mind when considering the placing of a successor order.
    Mr. Rogers: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, it is a "funny old world". None the less, we are pleased that the Minister has reaffirmed that he will defer an announcement on helicopters until after he has made a decision. Some time ago, in answer to a question on the cancellation of Tornados, the Minister replied that the job losses incurred were not his responsibility, nor that of the Government. Since then about 75,000 jobs have been lost in the defence industry. Does not the Minister understand that his procrastination and dithering over the orders for helicopters will now cost thousands of jobs in Tory constituencies and that that will cost the Tories seats at the next election?
    Mr. Clark: I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman who had a carefully prepared supplementary to the question tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), but was forced to attach it instead to a question about helicopters. As you, Mr. Speaker, judge his question to be in order, I am glad to face it. As I said to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), if Labour Members were honest, they would admit that the present scale of redundancies and job losses in the defence industry are as nothing compared with what we would suffer if the Labour party ever got its hands on the defence budget and plundered it to pay for all their promises of expenditure in every other area.

    Trident
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of the Trident nuclear missile system.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The Government are satisfied with the safety of the Trident nuclear missile system. The missile and its nuclear warhead will undergo a comprehensive series of trials, independent assessments and safety checks before it enters service with the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that on both the construction and weaponry sides of the project, Trident is turning into an extremely dangerous and expensive white elephant? Will he confirm a report in the Glasgow Herald that the Trident project has been subject to an external audit commissioned by his Department because of the extreme anxiety that the project is in chaos on many fronts?
    Will the Secretary of State give us his views on the Drell panel report from the United States which singled out the Trident warhead as a particular source of anxiety? The committee was set up by the United States House of Representatives, which found that there was no fireproof screen between the nuclear warheads and the weapon fuel. On the latter point, will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that before there is any question of Trident being brought into use in Britain, there will be an independent assessment of all the safety elements? Why do we have to receive such information from the United States, rather than from our own Government?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman covered two entirely separate points in his question. In response to the second one, I have made clear our confidence in the safety aspects of the system. I can confirm again that we attach the highest importance, for the most obvious reasons, as successive Governments have done, to ensuring at all times scrupulous attention to safety in the operation and handling of our nuclear deterrent.
    The first matter that the hon. Gentleman raised was about the construction projects that are in operation, especially at Faslane. Considerable progress has been made. They are major projects. Again, scrupulous attention to ensuring the highest standards of safety has meant reconsideration of certain issues. Those issues have been carefully examined. However, we would not describe the projects in the extravagant language that the hon. Gentleman used when he said that they were a shambles. The construction that is taking place at Faslane is a remarkable achievement.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sniping at Trident by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) shows the true face of the Labour party at work and that the Labour party still stands for one-sided disarmament which would put the defence of Britain very much at risk?
    Mr. King: The whole House realised by the very length of the question asked by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that he was searching for every possible way of attacking the nuclear deterrent. That is obviously contrary to the policy which we have officially been told is now espoused by the Opposition Front Bench team and the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with my hon. Friend that the question by the hon. Member for Cunninghame., North is much more indicative of the true voice of the Labour party.
    Mr. Boyes: May I make it absolutely clear to the Secretary of State for Defence that the Trident programme is an integral and important part of Labour party defence policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Further to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), according to the Drell report, the United States navy has been granted permission to use insensitive high explosives and the most volatile propellant, and to position warheads around the third rocket motors. That will enable maximum range warhead yield and increase the number of warheads, thereby dramatically reducing safety. Why will not the Secretary of State agree with my hon. Friend and Opposition Front-Bench Members that it is necessary to set up an independent inquiry, as the United States did, and report in public? Why will he not have that independent inquiry?
    Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman had been studying matters carefully, he would have noticed that the Drell report commented favourably on the safety review arrangements that operate in Britain and recommended the introduction of similar arrangements in the United States. I make it clear that we attach the highest importance to safety. We shall take any steps that we think appropriate to ensure that safety is assessed and, if necessary, reviewed independently to an extent sufficient to create public confidence.
    The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said in his introductory comment that Trident was an integral and important part of the Labour defence programme. I did not hear echoes round the Floor of the House of agreement with that amazing new policy statement. It is all very well to try to cover up Labour embarrassment on nuclear policy, but to go over the op to the extent that the hon. Gentleman did can lead only to the deep unhappiness that I see reflected in one or two faces on the Opposition Benches.

    Arms Trade
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent policy changes he has made regarding the assistance given by his Department to enable arms manufacturers to participate in the international arms trade.
    Mr. Alan Clark: None.
    Mr. Canavan: As the unchecked international arms trade, which includes a contribution from Britain, has
    142
    created monsters such as Saddam Hussein, who caused the Gulf war that killed more than 100,000 people, how can the Government possibily justify allowing a butcher such as General Pinochet to come to this country to arrange a British-Chilean arms contract? He was responsible for killing and torturing thousands of people. That contract means that British arms technology will be freely available worldwide, even to countries such as Iraq.
    Mr. Clark: It is untrue to say that the arms trade is unchecked. The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that it is subject to careful checks and scrutiny through our export licence procedure and a careful scrutiny of all applicants, deals and contracts. The visit of General Pinochet was nothing to do with the Government. He did not come as an official visitor; he came to look at a British commercial concern in which he has an interest. There was no question of the Government's having any power to exclude him.

    Challenger Tank
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision about the Challenger tank order.
    Mr. Alan Clark: As hon. Members will know, a wide range of factors must be taken into account in reaching a decision as important as that on the equipment of the future main battle tank fleet. I recognise the concern of the House that that decision should not be delayed unnecessarily. Although I cannot be drawn into a discussion of detail at this stage, I can say that it is our intention to make a further announcement before the end of this month.
    Mr. Battle: Will the Minister confirm that his military advisers have already recommended to the Government that they should take the German Leopard tank on a leasing arrangement? Will he put an end to the charade of stringing along the Vickers company in Leeds, its work force and his Back-Bench colleagues with promises of decisions tomorrow?
    Mr. Clark: I stand by what I just said—a further announcement will be made this month. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by our military advisers—there is no such body. We take opinion from a variety of different people.
    Mr. Batiste: Is it not clear from the Gulf war that the Challenger tank is the best tank available in the world? It would be a charade were the British Army to have any other equipment. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the current quotations from the four contenders for the Chieftain replacement contract will expire towards the end of this month and that his announcement will precede that date?
    Mr. Clark: Yes, I certainly can and that is why I told the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that an announcement will be made before the end of this month.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Dithering is rapidly becoming a hallmark of this Government. Why can the Minister not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government will buy British?
    Mr. Clark: As I told the House, this is an extremely important decision and a range of different factors must be taken into account. It is one of the most fundamental decisions on re-equipping the Army and we must consider all the relevant factors before we reach that decision. A further announcement is not far away and, if the hon. Gentleman remains patient, he will hear something in due course.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he would need to have the tongue of a Cicero to convince even his own hon. Friends to buy the German Leopard tank or any other foreign tank for the British armed forces? Let us stop procrastinating. Let us say today that there will be one tank for the British armed forces and it will be Challenger. Why not say that now? Why must we wait?
    Mr. Clark: I welcome what my hon. Friend says—[Interruption]—and I welcome the mood that I seem to be sensing from hon. Members on both sides. I certainly agree that nobody could possibly relish the task of explaining to the House that we were to buy a German tank.

    Manpower Levels
    Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future role of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers within the defence requirements of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposed manpower levels for NATO.
    Mr. Tom King: Last week's meeting of NATO Defence Ministers agreed a new role for the United Kingdom, to assign forces to and lead the new multinational rapid reaction corps. In accordance with my "Options for Change" statement last July, and under this new strategy agreed by NATO, we shall move to an Army of 116,000 by the mid-1990s. On that basis, consultation within the Army on the future structure of regiments and corps will now proceed. Although the reduction in the size of the Army will inevitably involve changes for many units, whether amalgamation or in some cases, possibly, disbandment, I can confirm that the basis of the consultation will be that the regimental system will be kept.
    Mr. Garrett: The Secretary of State will be pleased to hear that his last remarks give me some reassurance. I recall the events of 1968, the defence review and the tragic decision to curtail the traditions of some of the most famous regiments in the British Army. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is still possible to keep those traditions, even at the one battalion level? The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which has three regular battalions, could perhaps have two battalions—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Garrett: I will do my best. Perhaps the first battalion could have in brackets after that title, "Northumberland"; the second, "Lancashire"; and, if there were a third, it could be called, "Royal Fusiliers".
    Mr. King: The matter is for consultation within the Army, as I said, and I shall report back to the House as
    144
    soon as I can on the decisions that are reached. I echo what the hon. Gentleman said and appreciate his recognition of the situation. Like every other major country, there is scope for a reduction in the scale of our armed forces. It can be done sensitively and intelligently, remembering and recognising the advantage and tremendous benefits that flow from the deep traditions of the regimental system that mean so much to so many of our fellow citizens.
    Mr. Wiggin: In view of my right hon. Friend's important announcement about the reduction in the Regular Army, will he recognise the increased importance of the Territorial Army and resist the blandishments of the generals to reduce either its numbers or resources, since the reserves are even more important when our regulars are fewer in number?
    Mr. King: I appreciate why my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the subject, raises that point. We shall be addressing—indeed, we are considering—the position of the Territorial Army. As I made it clear in my original statement on "Options for Change", I value the contribution made by our volunteer reserve forces and am anxious to see the right basis on which the appropriate need, retention and recruitment can be addressed so that the forces continue to play and, in some respects, play an enhanced role in the defence of our country.
    Mr. Dunn: Is not the leadership of British forces in the rapid reaction corps a tremendous complement to our forces and a major step forward in the provision and supply of a self-sufficient modern military force?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with what he said. He will know that the Army welcomes the new role that has been identified for United Kingdom forces within NATO. The leadership and the majority of the members of the Rapid Reaction Corps will give it a significant and important role for the future, which will be appropriate to our high-standard professional army.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Rapid Reaction Corps will not only be good news for Britain, because, as the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Dartford, (Mr. Dunn) said, it will be British led and dominated, but will be welcomed within our alliance and not unwelcome in eastern Europe? When does he expect to make a statement on the financial arrangements for the new corps?
    Mr. King: On the general set-up, I hope to publish a defence White Paper before the summer recess to bring together the developments taking place in the defence area. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the subject, says. The hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not use the word "dominated" in relation to that multi-national corps as it will include elements from a number of other countries, which will be very welcome in that new, more flexible and mobile multi-national approach to the lower force levels but important defence needs of the new NATO strategy.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: I hope that the announcement of the reduction in the regular Army will not affect the Royal Irish Rangers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the reduction will not affect the presence of our regular Army in Northern Ireland, where it has been involved in a big

    145
    operation for the past 20 years? If he cannot confirm that, will he assure us that he will consider the urgent extension of the Ulster Defence Regiment as an alternative?
    Mr. King: For obvious reasons, I do not propose to deal with individual regiments today. Those are matters for discussion within the Army and the right hon. Gentleman will accept that consultation should take place. I can confirm, however, that, although the change will be reflected principally within the central region of NATO, there is absolutely no change in the commitment, role and tasks of the United Kingdom Army and its responsibility in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be widespread disappointment at the limited nature of today's statement? A great deal of press speculation and hype, obviously encouraged by his Department, preceded his announcement. Ten months after the statement of 25 July we have no more details, no exact figures, no timetable and no indication of what is happening to the troops. There are 170.000 civil servants in the Ministry of Defence and there are 330,000 troops. Surely the Government are capable of assembling a better package in the time available.
    The Secretary of State says that he hopes to have consulted the forces before the end of the Session. In his statement of 25 July he said that he had a duty to the troops, but that duty is taking a long time to fulfil. He must end the uncertainty and difficulty confronting so many members of our armed services and their families. The present situation is not good enough, and the House should recognise that.
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's behaviour is disgraceful. He stands at the Dispatch Box and speaks as though the Gulf war had never occurred and as though there had been no events whatever between 25 July last year and now. He knows that in a military situation for obvious reasons, the first priority was to deal with the Gulf war. The hon. Gentleman's criticism that we should have made an earlier announcement would be valid if he were prepared totally to ignore the interests of our NATO allies and to drive ahead without conducting proper discussions on the NATO strategy. Before I take criticism from the hon. Gentleman, who should be ashamed of his defence policy because it will leave this country naked as his party has voted overwhelmingly for huge reductions in defence expenditure, I should simply say that NATO agreed that strategy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. King: Many people in the armed forces are concerned about their future. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and his hon. Friends make all the noise that they can to interrupt matters of great importance. The people involved will be watching those Opposition Members and be aware of their attitude. NATO took the decision last Tuesday and Wednesday, and I am announcing the consequences of it so that we can proceed immediately with consultation. If we had been prepared, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan seems to be, to ignore our NATO allies and consultation, we could have made a fuller statement. I am not prepared to do that.
    Sir Hector Monro: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to the regimental system. Will he bear in mind in future the high standard of recruitment in the north of England and Scotland? Will he also bear in mind the tremendous commitment throughout the United Kingdom to our county and Scottish regiments?
    Mr. King: I well appreciate that and I know that the capability of regiments to recruit is bound to be one of the criteria that the arms directors involved will wish to bear in mind when considering which future structure to recommend.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the situation in the Gulf with General Colin Powell.
    Mr. Tom King: I met General Powell with Secretary Cheney in Brussels last week, when a number of current topics, including our co-operation in the Gulf, were discussed.
    Mr. Mullin: When the Secretary of State was pouring scorn on those of us who took the view that sanctions rather than war would be the best way of coping with Saddam Hussein, was he aware that General Powell took the same view? With the oil wells still blazing, a tyranny installed in Kuwait, untold misery being inflicted on millions of people and Saddam Hussein still in power, does the Secretary of State agree that General Powell might have been right after all?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman attributes those comments to General Powell, but he knows perfectly well that General Powell made clear his support for the actions of the President of the United States. The hon. Gentleman is seeking, after the event, to rationalise the totally impossible position that he himself adopted. I do not think any serious observer of the scene would doubt that if we had taken that view Saddam Hussein would still be sitting in Kuwait, willing to impose on his people whatever suffering sanctions might bring, and the intolerable persecution of the Iraqis would still be continuing.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Are we not paying the price of a job half done in the Gulf war? Will my right hon. Friend comment on General Powell's recent statement to the effect that the United Nations forces will be withdrawn from northern Iraq sooner rather than later? In those circumstances, how is the security of the Kurds to be assured against Saddam Hussein's forces and what will the role of the British be?
    Mr. King: Without anticipating the next question on the Order Paper, may I say that in our humanitarian work for the relief of the Kurds we have sought to work closely with the United States and our other allies. We shall continue to do that and seek to concert our actions with them.
    Sir Cyril Smith: When the Secretary of State had discussions with General Powell, did he discuss the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the fusiliers killed in the Gulf at the end of February? Did he, for example, suggest to General Powell that the result of the inquiry, which we understand that the Americans have had, should be made public to the relatives of those killed, who included a 17-year-old boy in my constituency? Do the

    147
    Government have any plans to release that report, which could be the subject of legal action once it is produced? Does he know that the mother of that 17-year-old boy was visited this weekend by her son's colleagues who were present when the accident involving the Americans took place? Those boys told the parents that the officers had instructed that they must not discuss this matter with them—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a very long question. Perhaps it is a subject for an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a serious and tragic matter. I know that the concern of General Powell and the allied commanders about the events is real. The hon. Gentleman will know that a formal board of inquiry has been set up. He will also know that the United States has promised to give all the help that it can. I do not wish to comment further now on this serious and tragic matter.

    Iraq (Kurds)
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of Royal Marines to Northern Iraq.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the British forces present in Iraq to protect the Kurds.
    Mr. Tom King: Three Commando Brigade was deployed to northern Iraq as a temporary measure to help provide humanitarian assistance to Kurdish refugees and the necessary reassurance to persuade the Kurds that it would be safe for them to come down from the mountains and return home. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the efforts of all allied forces, the majority of refugees along the Turkey-Iraq border have now come down from the mountains and are returning to their homes.
    Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the pride of my constituents, and my own pride as the son of a former Royal Marine, at the magnificent contribution made by the Royal Marines to this massive humanitarian effort. In my local newspaper, Lance Cpl. Bateman of 40 Commando reported on the Kurdish refugees' great appreciation of the marines. He said that the Kurds offered the marines hospitality, even if it meant offering the last of their food and drink. Could my right hon. Friend say—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Such long questions are becoming a bad habit. These matters would also be better raised in an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. King: There is no question but that we asked our commando brigade to undertake an incredibly difficult task. The brilliant way in which it discharged its duties is a measure of its confidence, training and absolute commitment. Others have played their part, but none was better than 3 Commando Brigade. I hope that the whole House shares my admiration for the way in which that brigade carried out an incredibly difficult job. Its efforts and those of others undoubtedly saved the lives of hundreds of thousands.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decisive action by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
    148
    and his Department saved thousands of Kurds from certain death from appalling weather and the tyranny of Saddam Hussein? Will he pay tribute to the Royal Air Force and the Chinook pilots for their magnificent work? In adverse weather, they made sure that vital supplies were airlifted to the refugees on the mountain tops.
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Chinook and other RAF pilots who were engaged in the air drop. As I think that the House knows, some of those who volunteered had just returned from the Gulf and had barely a few days leave. They as much as anyone are responsible for saving a fantastic number of lives. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked for Operation Haven to be launched, and we owe a great debt to our pilots and the marine commandos and the other forces involved. It is thought that 15,000 Kurds died. That is tragic, but very many more could have died.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Now that the Iraqi Government have clearly breached resolution 688 by sending troops into the towns of Salumaniya, Dihok, Dahuk, Sahko and Arbil, and the repression of the population has begun once again, how is it possible for the British and American Governments to begin withdrawing troops when clearly the Kurds do not feel that they will be secure in future with only United Nations forces carrying side arms available for their protection?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is making a challenge and condemning a Government who took the quite unprecedented step of making forces available to go to the relief of millions of people whose lives were in desperate jeopardy. We do not have to prove our credentials. We went there for humanitarian purposes and to save lives. We shall certainly be anxious to see that the benefits of what has been achieved are not lost.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: We record our appreciation for the excellent and important work carried out by the Royal Marines. Can the Secretary of State say when they will be coming home as their relatives are anxious to know?
    Mr. King: I understand that, and that thought is very much in our minds. Having met the commandos concerned, I know that they understand and are proud of the contribution that they have been able to make. As soon as it is possible for them to come home, they will come home. They have had a very important job to do and they have done it outstandingly well.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern that in certain cases banks have not been fully passing on, particularly to smaller businesses, the full very recent and welcome reduction in bank base rate?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am very concerned about the growing level of complaints from small businesses that they are being harshly treated by their banks. I discussed that matter with the Governor of the Bank of England 10 days ago and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking this forward with the individual chairman of each of the clearing banks. The banks themselves can be in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling on this, and they are as aware as anyone that their interests lie in having a sound base of small firms around for the future.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty will improve or make worse the health of the nation?
    The Prime Minister: The health of the nation is improving. The policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be announcing in a few moments about preventive health medicine will also make further improvements. No one I know of with any experience or knowledge whatever doubts the improving quality, quantity or nature of health of the people in this country at the present time.
    Mr. Kinnock: I hope that the forthcoming Green Paper will therefore include specific policies to combat unemployment and poverty, although I very much doubt it. The Government have brought us two recessions in 12 years. Unemployment is higher and poverty is more widespread. As there is a very definite link between low income and high rates of death and illness in poor families, will the Prime Minister now do something effective to combat unemployment and recession instead of saying that it is a price well worth paying?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will soon learn, there are specific targets in the health proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce in a few moments. We set targets in other contexts a year or so ago, which have been met by doctors in terms of improving health care, and the targets will be met on this occasion as well.
    As for unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman's comments were rich when every time his own party has been in government, when that Government left office unemployment was twice as high as it was when they entered government. The right hon. Gentleman's present policies would have the same effect. His minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, his penal tax proposals would destroy incentives, and Labour's tax on savings would destroy investment. What would then happen to jobs?
    Mr. Kinnock: Clearly, when the Prime Minister cannot give a straight answer to a straight question, his last refuge is to try to sound like the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—no wonder she said at the weekend, "I chose him."
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, week after week, sinks to a new low. We shall see how low he can sink. We shall see how far he can sink in the months ahead.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not passing on the reduction in the base rate to small businesses is damaging to the economy? Would it not be a
    150
    good idea for the British Bankers Association to make it mandatory for its members immediately to reflect any reduction in the base rate?
    The Prime Minister: A large amount of lending is, of course, tied specifically to the base rate and is therefore amended automatically. It is those loans that are renegotiated that I think cause the particular problems. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is examining that matter with the chairmen of the clearing banks.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: In view of the horrific attacks by dangerous dogs that have taken place in the past two weeks or so, and the Government's dithering about what measures to implement to take account of those attacks, will the Prime Minister now agree that in the interests of responsible dog ownership a dog registration scheme should be introduced? Will he introduce such a scheme at the earliest possible opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: So decisive have the Government been that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a Bill later this week to deal with the problem of dangerous dogs. On the specific point of general dog registration, I continue to hold the view that such a scheme would be ineffective, bureaucratic, expensive to operate and difficult to enforce.
    Sir Gerrard Neale: Has my right hon. Friend seen—and, if so, will he comment on—the report by the respected City institution, the Nomura Research Institute, that if interest rates were 11 per cent. at the next general election they would rise to 16 per cent. in the unlikely event of a Labour victory?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption] I will wait for a little silence—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is taking up a lot of time. I call the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend and the analysis that Nomura has made are right. Financial markets have no confidence whatever in Labour's ability to keep down inflation and no confidence in its capacity to protect our competitive position. By contrast, the major independent forecasters agree with us that we shall have inflation at 4 per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year. The other point about Nomura's analysis is very clear—it shows that Labour's first priority would not be pensions and child benefit, but an immediate and necessary hike in interest rates and mortgage rates.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many in the House about the events of last night in Vilnius? Will he take the opportunity both now and in July to impress upon Mr. Gorbachev and his generals that western economic co-operation and

    151
    assistance depend upon a recognition of human rights and an acceptance of the right of self-determination for the people of Lithuania and of the other Baltic states?
    The Prime Minister: I can say nothing more to the hon. and learned Gentleman other than that I agree with him.
    Mr. John Browne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 776—about Grenadier guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray who, in 1989, had their legs blown off in Canada—which has now been signed by more than 200 right hon. and hon. Members on a cross-party basis, including the Secretary of State for Defence of 1989? It calls on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to look personally into the case with a view to granting an ex-gratia compensation payment, thus creating a good precedent. What progress has been made in the past month?
    The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to tell my hon. Friend precisely what the outcome will be, but I am satisfied that the proper grounds for compensation should be on the basis of legal liability, and it is upon that basis that I shall examine the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hood—no, Mr. John Garrett—[Interruption] Order. I am looking for an hon. Gentleman who has not asked a question. Let us have Mr. Garrett.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does not Britain deserve better than a lame duck Government, limping from one public relations fiasco to another?
    The Prime Minister: As it has a Government who are announcing new and fresh policies every day, the question does not arise.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: During the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend been able to read the comments of Mr. Gavin Laird about a minimum wage? Does he agree that a minimum wage would be cruel and heartless because it would lead to much higher prices and to an increase of 50 per cent. in the level of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I have, of course, read them. I enjoyed them and I agree with them, as do many other people. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition's plan for a minimum wage has very few friends left: the Fabian Society has said that there would be massive job losses; Mr. Laird thinks that the plan is nonsense; the engineers and electricians recognise that Labour's policy is nonsense; and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said that himself in the past. Even the Sunday People, which is hardly a Conservative news sheet, stated in its editorial:
    "Labour's plan for a national minimum wage is not the answer. It would only cause more unemployment and deny jobs to those who need them"—
    [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that because they know that it is true.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has rightly criticised the banks, but does he not accept that small business failures have increased by 68 per cent. with nearly 8,000
    152
    mainly small firms going to the wall in the first quarter of this year? The Prime Minister has criticised the banks, but does he feel any personal responsibility for this?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, very many additional small firms have grown and thrived in recent years. All Conservative Members, including myself, regret the loss of small businesses in the past year or so. However, what is essential is to create the circumstances in which businesses can thrive and survive and in which fresh businesses can be created, as has happened so widely in the past 10 years. That requires reducing inflation to a low level and keeping it there. That is the policy we are pursuing, and every independent commentator now acknowledges that we are succeeding in that policy.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to visit north-west Hertfordshire to see for himself the £40 million worth of new investment in the national health service that has been made under this Government? Will he contrast the fact that at this very moment a new maternity unit is being completed in which babies can be born in the 1990s with the fact that, under the last Labour Government, babies had to be born in the clapped-out facilities of the former workhouse?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Capital expenditure on hospitals in England has grown in real terms in the past 12 years by 62 per cent. to £1·7 billion. In contrast, as the House well recalls, under the last Labour Government capital spending on hospitals in the national health service was cut by nearly 16 per cent. because the Labour Government lost control of the economy and inflation and would not take the necessary decisions to bring inflation down.
    Mr. Clelland: Did the Prime Minister see the recent "Panorama" programme entitled, "Scuppering British Shipbuilders", which demonstrated how the Government have killed off merchant shipbuilding in Britain? Is he aware that unless the right decision is made about Challenger 2, "Panorama" will soon be making another programme about the killing off of the British tank manufacturing industry? Will he ensure that the decision that we now understand is to be made before the end of this month is made not only in favour of the British Army but in favour of British manufacturing and British workers?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no, I did not see the programme to which he referred, but on his substantive point—the question of a new tank for the Army—I hope that a decision on equipment for our future main battle tank fleet will not be delayed too long. When the appropriate military conditions are right for us to make the decision, we shall do so.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which shows that for the past year Britain's strike record has been at its lowest for 56 years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to legalise secondary strikes, unofficial strikes and flying pickets, that strike record would be undone? Is it not odd that that is precisely the policy of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. It is also the case that our employment legislation, which was opposed at every step by the Opposition has helped to transform industrial relations in Britain. But the Opposition do not care about industrial relations—they are obsessed with public relations.

Strategy for Health
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am today publishing a Green Paper "The Health of the Nation" setting out the Government's proposals for the development of a strategy for health for England. In the light of responses and consultation, I shall publish a White Paper early next year setting out our definitive proposals.
This is the first time that an explicit health strategy has been proposed for England. At its heart is the proposal to set challenging health objectives and targets to improve the overall health of the nation. Their scope reflects the fact that my task as Secretary of State is to focus on better health just as much as better health care. The Green Paper enshrines that wider health objective. I am happy to tell the House that our approach has been endorsed in warm terms by the World Health Organisation whose "Health For All by the Year 2000" programme started the production of such strategies world wide.
The NHS contribution to such a strategy is derived from the NHS reforms, which require local and therefore national health strategies to be explicitly discussed and adopted. Debate in recent weeks has focused on one aspect of the changes—the role of the providers. We are convinced of the benefits to patients that will flow from the clear separation of responsibility for commissioning health care by health authorities on the one side and, on the other side, the provision of health care by hospitals and others. That separation is already producing better management in directly managed hospitals and services and in NHS trusts. Freeing hospitals from unnecessary interference in day-to-day management produces obvious benefits. Equally important, however, are the benefits flowing from the new and strategic role for the health authorities and indeed for the Department of Health itself.
In the past, both the Department of Health and health authorities have been preoccupied with issues of day-to-day local management. That has been to the detriment of the need, locally and nationally, to take a far more strategic view of what is needed to improve health. What is more, the reforms put in place a clear mechanism by which that strategy can be turned into reality. The new contracting process provides for the authorities an open and powerful means by which they can specify and check the content, the quality and the quantity of the health services for which they are paying. Concentrating on their strategic role allows health authorities to base those contracts on a proper assessment of what is needed both by way of services and by way of other action to improve the health of the local population.
However, our administrative and financial reforms of the health service are a means to an end—better health and better health care—not an end in themselves. We now have in place district health authorities and family health service authorities, together with fund-holding general practit ioners, whose duty is to identify local health needs and then to deploy their money in the best way to meet those needs. Most priorities will quite properly be set locally —though, of course, I remain accountable as Secretary of State for seeing that those local health strategies are comprehensive and set in a reasonable way. But it is also
156
right that some national priorities should be set where it is obvious that England as a whole has a common interest in a nationwide improvement.
Clearly a health strategy needs to go wider than the NHS, and wider than my own immediate responsibilities as Secretary of State for Health. The Green Paper addresses these wider health issues and responsibilities. It builds on other recent developments such as the recent reforms of food safety laws and last year's environment White Paper.
However, if this strategy is to work it cannot be just for Government and the NHS; it must be for the nation as a whole. In achieving our targets, we shall ask all those with a concern for health to play a part—the NHS in health promotion, treatment and rehabilitation; schools in educating young people on health and encouraging physical activity; local authorities across a range of statutory services.
In addition, there are the vital roles of voluntary groups, community health councils, employers, trade unions and the media. They can help to get across to people the facts about, for example, how to avoid coronary heart disease, and giving them opportunties to put knowledge into practice. A lot of what needs to be done is for the citizen individually to do—stopping smoking, having a healthy diet, taking the exercise that we need. The strategy must therefore command widespread support if it is to work. Such support and involvement will be crucial to its success. That is why we are consulting widely.
The proposed approach has two main elements: first, the selection of key areas for health improvements—these will be causes of significant preventable and premature death or ill health; secondly, the setting of clear objectives and targets in each key area, and monitoring progress.
The health of the people of England is already very good. Life expectancy is now 73 years for men and 78 for women, compared to 44 and 47 only a century ago. There has been an increase of two years in life expectancy in the last decade alone. This means that we have already met the WHO target for life expectancy for the year 2000. Perinatal and infant mortality rates—key indicators of any nation's health—are steadily improving. Both have fallen dramatically since 1979, again enabling us to meet the WHO target. That is what we have achieved so far. It shows what we can do. Our task now is to improve still further our record in these and other areas.
"The Health of the Nation" examines the key areas for further improvements. They range from major causes of premature death such as coronary heart disease, cancers, stroke and accidents through risks to health such as smoking, unhealthy diet and drinking too much, to major causes of ill health such as diabetes, asthma and mental illness. The Green Paper also looks at other areas of importance such as the health of pregnant women, infants and children, rehabilitation services, and food safety.
The discipline of target setting is central to the strategy. In each key area the Green Paper discusses targets, both national and local. They cover such things as a 30 per cent. reduction in death from both coronary heart disease and stroke below age 65 by the year 2000; a one third cut in cigarette smoking by the year 2000; and a 95 per cent. target for childhood immunisations by 1995. There will also be quality of service targets. In particular, health authorities must set targets to meet hospital appointment times.

157
Although we have taken care to suggest a range of objectives which we believe will win support from most professionals, it is essential that it is understood that today's Green Paper is the beginning of an intensive five-month discussion process. It is aimed at achieving, as nearly as possible, national consensus. Simply to impose a shopping list of proposals without true consultation will not work. Success will depend not only on the commitment of Government, the professions and the 1 million staff whom we employ in the NHS, but on real commitment by the public.
Following the consultation period, which will last until the end of October, we shall publish a White Paper setting out a definitive statement of strategy. It will set out what we will do to meet the targets. We hope to receive a wide range of suggestions about how different fields of activity can contribute to the strategy. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters are of considerable concern to those who listen to our proceedings. The Secretary of State should be given a fair hearing.
Mr. Waldegrave: As the strategy develops, more key areas will be added. It is important that we begin with a manageable and achievable list of targets. To be successful, we must be realistic. I intend to make sure that there is a clear lead from the centre. This strategy must be backed by a firm commitment from Government as a whole and from the Secretary of State for Health in particular. I—along with my colleagues in the many other Departments that have a key role to play—will give it that unequivocal backing.
My role as Secretary of State for Health, having launched the strategy process, will be to assess what needs to be done, monitor progress and ensure action. To help me to drive forward the strategy and secure strong support for it, I shall be establishing an English health strategy steering group with a wide membership from both outside and within the NHS. It will be supported by various working groups, including membership from across Whitehall. They will begin work during the consultation period, and continue after the White Paper to help to implement and monitor the strategy.
Finally, let me return to my earlier point. Getting the organisation of the NHS right has been vital. But the final yardstick must be the quality of health care that the NHS provides—and, even more, the health of the nation it serves. Those are the ultimate tests that must be applied to our policies as a Government; it is on them that we shall gladly be judged.
The production of a strategy for health set into motion by this Green Paper, and the action that follows, will secure further improvements in the country's health. It complements our commitment to high-quality health care with a wider commitment to the nation's health. This health strategy is an important new undertaking—the first ever strategy for England. The Government are determined to make it a success. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Robin Cook: Let me begin by welcoming, on behalf of the Opposition, the Government's decision to set targets for health promotion. As the Green Paper fairly admits, the Government have come to that task later than many other countries, but it is all the more
158
welcome because of that. There will be broad support, not just in the House but outside, for a health strategy that embraces health and not just disease.
The Secretary of State, however, will want today to mark the beginning of a debate on his proposals, not the end. May I therefore press him on three aspects of his statement?
First, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he arrived at the targets? So that we can judge how challenging they really are, will he tell the House what reduction in the incidence of heart disease and strokes he expects, judging by current trends? Is he aware that his figures, in his Green Paper, show that his targets for heart disease and strokes are lower than the reduction in the past decade, when there were no targets? The Secretary of State shakes his head. His own annex, however, shows that., in 1980 and 1989, coronary heart disease went down by 28 per cent.—an annual rate of more than 3 per cent. The Secretary of State proposes a reduction of 30 per cent. between 1988 and 2000, which is an annual reduction of 2·5 per cent. Similarly, his own annex shows that in 1980 and 1989 there was a 31 per cent. reduction in the incidence of strokes—an annual rate of 31½2 per cent. He proposes a reduction of 30 per cent. between 1988 and 2000. That is not only less than 31 per cent.; it is an annual rate of 2·5 per cent.
Britain has one of the worst heart disease records in Europe. Is the Secretary of State really satisfied with those targets, which set a lower rate of reduction than is currently being achieved?
Mr. Richard Holt: It is a mistake. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not permissible for our proceedings to come to a stop in the middle of the response to a statement.
Mr. Cook: It is a matter of great regret to me that we cannot hear the explanation of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that, although the setting of targets will be welcomed, there will be disappointment that the Green Paper proposes no new Government action to achieve them? If it is a strategy for health, it needs both targets and policies to match. If Ministers want people to give up smoking, will they give up Britain's resistance in Europe to tougher controls on tobacco advertising? Will the Secretary of State confirm that today—the very day on which he is talking about targets on smoking—the Under-Secretary of State for Health in another place is speaking out in Luxembourg against precisely those tougher controls on tobacco?
If Ministers want people to adopt a healthier diet, will they begin at the beginning and bring back nutritional guidelines on school meals, which they scrapped? If Ministers want to cut down on alcohol abuse and preventable accidents, will they now accept the case for random breath testing? If Ministers, especially the Secretary of State, are serious about screening targets, will the right hon. Gentleman bring back the free eye test and drop the charges that, in two years, have stopped 5 million people getting that health check? Will the Secretary of State recognise that it is not enough to urge the public to change their life style if the Government are not prepared to change their policies?

159
Thirdly, a gaping hole in the statement was the absence of the word "poverty". Does the Secretary of State accept that his own tables in the Green Paper show that, as long as people remain poor, they are likely to remain in poor health, that those on the lowest incomes have more chance of a heart attack and that children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have higher rates of respiratory disease? Will he study with care the shaming report published yesterday which confirmed that many children on income support go hungry and that all of them have a poor diet? Will he tell his colleagues at the Department of Social Security that the health of those children needs a better response than it got yesterday from Ministers who blamed the children's mothers? Cannot the Government admit that, in doubling the number of children in poverty, they have damaged the health of those children?
I want to end on a note of consensus by congratulating the Secretary of State on his decision to publish the document as a Green Paper for consultation. Does he now recognise that if the Government had been prepared to consult on their proposals for the NHS, he might not have run smack into so many of his problems of the past couple of months? As this is a document for consultation, may I assure the Secretary of State that we will strengthen his targets with our policies when we announce our response as the next Labour Government?
Mr. Waldegrave: There is an easy answer to the hon. Gentleman's facile first point. As one makes progress, it becomes more difficult to maintain the trend. That is not a difficult concept for the hon. Gentleman to understand. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the targets that we propose are challenging, and would not be met simply by present trends on the best predictions. That is a straightforward answer to his question. It is not difficult for him to understand that it is easier to make the first step to progress and that it gets more difficult as one goes on.
The hon. Gentleman then quoted from the rag-bag of uncosted old policies which Labour raked up again yesterday to make a number of points. The fundamental point about Labour's rather feeble document is that it does not address the World Health Organisation's targets. It contains no objectives and no targets; it simply collects together a number of uncosted policies of dubious merit.
The action on our targets is related to the whole structure of the reforms that we have introduced. For the first time in the history of this country, we have a capacity to set health strategies and to enforce them. There is nothing in the hon. Gentleman's half-baked proposals which would enable him to deliver any health outcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about tobacco advertising. The German, Dutch and Danish Governments today, with us, have put it to the Greek Commissioner concerned that it ill behoves the country that lobbies for the maintenance of subsidies for the growing of tobacco to lecture the rest of us about tobacco advertising. There is no correlation whatever between the countries in Europe that have banned tobacco advertising and progress on diminishing smoking—rather, the contrary—so I think that the hon. Gentleman's hasty advocacy of that policy will turn out to have been badly based.
I believe that serious civil liberties issues are involved with random breath testing. The authoritarianism of the
160
Labour party is showing itself again. I served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs with many Labour Members who argued passionately against the sus law, and the ability of the police to stop people at random. Yet now the Labour party is arguing for exactly that policy.
As the House knows, 40 per cent. of people are exempt from the charges for eye tests and there is no evidence of a long-term drop in referrals to eye hospitals as a result of our policy.
The hon. Gentleman's final substantial point is in one sense correct. Everybody knows that an increase in wealth is generally good for one's health—although with one or two diseases, such as breast cancer, the correlation is the other way round. We, like other countries, have been making progress throughout the income levels—for example, on perinatal mortality—but we, and they, still have more to do. Sweden is among the countries in Europe which spend the most—it employs 9 per cent. of its GDP and 10 per cent. of its total work force in health—yet it has widening disparities in health, according to the latest evidence. It is true that differences still exist, but such discrepancies are profoundly difficult to attack.
It is clear that the Conservatives stand for more successful economic policies, which over the lifetime of Governments always increase wealth far more speedily than do those of Labour Governments. In the NHS we now have the capacity, which the hon. Gentleman opposed in every respect, to target health resources towards deprived areas. The hon. Gentleman opposed the GP contract, which enables us to do that, and every other similar step in our health reforms.
We have specifically targeted £500 billion to the poorest families in the past two years. Since the survey that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there has been an 8 per cent. increase in support for the poorest families. Families in difficulty have even greater need of the help which we can give through better education, information and support for a healthy diet.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has, as so often, failed to rise to the scale of the challenge offered to him today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Second Reading of the Child Support Bill is to take place today, and there is a great demand to take part in that important debate. I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to asking questions rather than making statements about a document, which as the Secretary of State for Health has said, is a Green Paper to which we shall doubtless return on numerous occasions.
Dame Jill Knight: As none of the steps on health would have been possible without the work on the reforms and on the doctors' contract, which have led to so much immunisation and checks on older people, does not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State find it strange that not only the Opposition but the medical profession have fought both the reforms and the contract tooth and nail for a long time?
While my right hon. Friend's mind is on the question of preventive medicine, please will he think again about the Government's policy that has led to so many people not going for eye tests? Already hundreds of thousands of old people simply cannot afford to have their eyes tested. Early signs of cancer, heart disease and a number of other

161
conditions are being missed. Will my right hon. Friend please think specifically about bringing back free eye tests for older people?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It would be impossible to talk sensibly about developing a health strategy for England if we did not have in place the reforms that we have introduced. It would be simply to whistle in the wind if we did not have the delivery mechanism that we now have through the local health strategies and local health contracts between purchasers and providers. The hon. Member for Livingston probably knows that because in his rag-bag document there is a sort of acknowledgement of it. He says that he would have performance contracts, or something of the sort, in what he calls a medical market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has been a doughty campaigner for eye tests. The £100 million which has come back into the health service is being better applied in other areas than if it was spent on the 60 per cent. of people who no longer receive free eye tests. As I said, 40 per cent. of people are exempt from the charges. I believe that the other 60 per cent. can afford the small charge for eye tests. The trends in the numbers attending for eye tests are now up again.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The objectives which the Secretary of State outlined have more potential to achieve cross-party consensus than the institutional changes in the health service which are being carried out at present. When the Secretary of State promises wide consultation, does he mean consultation with other political parties, as happened, for example, on the poll tax? Does he understand that many people in other political parties would take his promise of wide consultation more seriously if he had displayed willingness to listen to the overwhelming evidence on the institutional changes in the health service? The consultation on the institutional changes produced an emphatic no to the Government's proposals.
What are the implications of the statement for Scotland? How do the Government propose to follow the approach outlined today within a Scottish health context?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who is on the Bench beside me, is pursuing parallel initiatives.
On the institutional changes, it is typical of the hon. Gentleman's party to oppose what it takes to be the unpopular aspects, which are necessary. If we are to shift priorities, there will have to be changes in the institutional arrangements. We are putting in place mechanisms to make a reality of what I have talked about today. Under the present system, it would not be possible to make a reality of the health strategy that I have proposed. But the hon. Gentleman supports the objectives. If one supports the objectives, one must support the means to make them a reality.
Mr. Conal Gregory: I welcome the Green Paper. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are two principal matters? The first is the resources which go into the national health service. Will he confirm that the resources have increased by some 50 per cent. since the Labour years up to 1979? Secondly, and even more importantly, the number of patients going through the
162
hospitals underlies the strategy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the number has increased by 41 per cent. in the York health authority and by 40 per cent. in the Yorkshire region since Labour was in power? Do not those two local and regional examples stand well in the light of the paper that my right hon. Friend presented to the House today?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is worth remembering that we have increased by a full percentage point the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health. In 1978–79 the proportion was 4·7 per cent. and in 1991–92 the proportion of GDP put into the NHS is 5·7 per cent. The proportion fell by 0·1 per cent. under Labour when it was last in office.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) is also right about the excellent performance of the health service in increasing treatment in recent years. It is in order to maintain that progress that we need further to improve the organisation of the health service.
Mr. Ken Eastham: In his statement the Secretary of State made special reference to the importance of diet. We readily concur with that sentiment. As a result of his statement, will instructions go to the Department of Education and Science to provide once again adequate midday meal for hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who have been denied that facility for several years? Many school kitchens have been closed down. For a start, will the Secretary of State at least make a move in that direction to ensure that children do not go outside school and buy bags of crisps and so on for lunch but receive a balanced meal planned by a dietician?
Mr. Waldegrave: Local authorities employ dietary advisers and many schools provide very good, healthy meals. However, I do not believe that many of the traditional school meals would score highly according to modern dietary reckoning.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general practitioners' contract is the major step forward in terms of monitoring, health promotion and protecting the frail and the elderly? Is he therefore surprised that the Labour party wants to abolish it? Is that because it is more eager to win the battle of the headlines rather than the battle for health?
Mr. Waldegrave: I thought that the Opposition's document was rather a damp squib because, as the newspapers knew, it had all been published before and it did not address the issue in question—the production of World Health Organisation-type health objectives. My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the Opposition's record on health objectives and making them real is extremely bad. They opposed the GP contract, saying it could not be done—they were wrong. We are now discussing whether we should raise further some of those targets, for example, a target of up to 95 per cent. for immunisation. We are putting the mechanisms in place to make those health gains real.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that many people at present working in primary health care will think that his statement is nothing more than party-political hype?
Recently the director of public health in the Rotherham borough published his second annual report, which was

163
drawn up through the family health services authorities and in conjunction with the area health authority and the community health council. That report clearly outlines the problems in terms of the need for primary health care, but the authority does not have the resources to do things about the high incidence of heart disease and other illnesses in South Yorkshire. When will the right hon. Gentleman's Department resource the current health service so that it can do many of the things that I do not believe a committee in Whitehall can do?
Mr. Waldegrave: I have the advantage over the hon. Gentleman of already having talked to a large number of senior health professionals about this matter. He will find that he is wrong. I applaud the fact that strategies of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described are being identified—which is because of the reforms that we have put in place. We shall now have the mechanisms to make a reality of the improvements that are needed. Those improvements would not be possible under the old system that the Labour party is defending.
Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the country has two documents before it purporting to set out the strategy for primary health care, the country is entitled to judge their relative merits? In that regard it is worth contrasting that, whereas there are no objectives set in the Labour party's document, that of my right hon. Friend courageously sets
specific objectives for health improvement. It is also worth remembering that, although capital expenditure under this Government has risen by 62 per cent., under the Labour Government it fell by 16 per cent.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. We are serious about improving the mechanisms for the delivery of health care and about producing, for the first time, a commitment across Whitehall, involving all Government Departments, to improve the health of the nation. It is obvious to anyone who looks at the two documents that that produced by the Opposition is not a WHO-type document. It would not be received as such, and it would not contribute much to discussions of this issue.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: May I remind the Minister that it is now more than three years since I introduced a Bill to compel public houses to have no-smoking areas? It was approved by a vote. Since then successive Ministers for Health have done nothing about it, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Will the Government now give an assurance that, in common with restaurants, planes, trains and the tube, pubs will be compelled to have no-smoking areas—or will the right hon. Gentleman still listen to his paymasters, the brewers, at the next election and refuse to introduce such areas?
Mr. Waldegrave: Today we are concerned with setting objectives; we shall then move on to discuss the best means by which to achieve them. Great progress has been made by means of voluntary agreements in the sensible direction for which the hon. Gentleman argues. Whether that needs statutory back-up will need analysis. We shall then see whether or not we can achieve the objectives we have agreed.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has made me a very happy lady today? He is on exactly the right lines. I warmly congratulate him, and I will support him in all his efforts to improve the health of the nation. Does he agree that Labour Members have it all wrong about the main diseases, in dealing with which we lead the world, such as heart disease? Does he further agree that they are diseases not so much of poverty but of affluence, which will be amply demonstrated later today in the bars and restaurants of the House as hon. Members proceed either to celebrate or commiserate, whichever is their preference, with cream cakes and double brandies?
Mr. Waldegrave: It gives me great pleasure to have given pleasure to my hon. Friend. I welcome her support. She is correct to say that some of the issues—for example, alcohol abuse and smoking—cannot be correlated with poverty. I urge her to agree also that another real issue —there is no point in denying it—is that if we can maintain progress in the economy so that people are better off, all the indications are that general health will also improve against most, though not all, diseases.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am disappointed that the Minister has not said that many people can contract heart complaints and hearing and breathing difficulties as a result of their occupations. If he is serious about prevention rather than cure, he will take his health team into factories where, in this day and age, men and women are having to work with asbestos, near
welding techniques which can give them emphysema, where there is excessive noise and where sometimes they must handle oils and other substances which give them dermatitis. It is clear that the men who died on Piper Alpha died because of lack of safety. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the health and longevity of the people, he will want to examine some of the factories in which they have to work.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman should not be disappointed in that respect because he will be happy to find, on reading the document, that we have given a high priority to occupational health and discuss the objective of an accident avoidance target, a complex issue about which we are serious. Let us not forget that a Conservative Government took decisive action against asbestos, and the numbers of health and safety inspectors are set to increase rapidly in future months.
Sir Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend rightly identified heart disease as a major health problem for the nation. He will have noticed, as the House did, the deplorable hilarity with which the matter was dealt with by Opposition Members when it was raised. Does he agree that it is essential to preserve the excellence of hospitals, such as the world famous Papworth hospital in my constituency, in dealing with the situation? May we have an assurance that nothing in the policy is likely to cause the break-up of those excellent institutions, with their work being passed on in some other way?
Mr. Waldegrave: I appreciate that my hon. Friend takes a particular view of any proposals that might be made for the reorganisation of Papworth, and I note his advocacy yet again. The performance of Opposition Members today

165
has been shoddy—[Interruption.]—and I suggest that even some Labour Members believe that to have been the case. The puppies yap as the caravan passes on.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Will the Secretary of State undertake, as part of his review, to pay particular attention to the correlation between damp and black mould in homes and health? I believe it to be a contributory, if not a major, factor in cot and infant deaths, a problem in many parts of the country.
Mr. Waldegrave: The tragedy of cot deaths still baffles scientists to some extent. The hon. Lady will welcome the fact that in the document—the first time that it has ever happened in this country—we are presenting a strategy that runs across Government, with a major contribution from the Department of the Environment. It is difficult to set targets related exactly to housing, but the concentration of resources on improving the worst housing must be part of a general strategy for health.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about a strategy for the nation's health, looking to the future. That, in turn, must raise the profile of health education. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I am a little disappointed that kidney patients, particularly elderly ones, are not mentioned. I am even more surprised that we do not yet feel that we can do anything for AIDS patients on the basis that more information is required. Will my right hon. Friend fill out that point?
Mr. Waldegrave: On my hon. Friend's first point, it is vital to emphasise that the comprehensive nature of health care must be maintained, including the care of kidney patients. We are dealing with priorities because, in some areas, compared with other countries, Britain needs to do better and in others, although we are doing well, with reasonable extra efforts we could do even better. Road traffic accidents are an example of the latter.
The Government are spending large sums on the terrible disease of AIDS. The difficulty about setting the objective to which my hon. Friend refers is that, with science as it is, we do not yet know what would be a sensible objective in terms of eradicating that disease. It may be sensible to develop subsidiary objectives to care for those who have the disease.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is the Minister aware that there has been a huge increase in the number of cockroaches and ants in this country, perhaps because of the introduction of central heating? Will he look into the question of the extermination of such insects and the use of chemicals for extermination which will not damage the people who handle them or those whose houses are affected?
Mr. Waldegrave: I remember from my time as Minister for Housing the problem of pharaoh ants and other insects—
Mr. Graham Allen: That was probably when the problem started.
Mr. Waldegrave: It was not caused by my presence in that office; it was due to the reasons referred to by the hon. Lady. I cannot give a full response from the housing department to that point today, but I shall draw it to the attention of my colleagues.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Given the fact that a royal commission established under a previous Labour Government found that, even if 100 per cent. of GDP was spent on health, there would still be unsatisfied demand, and given that the Labour party is not offering one penny more for health should it come to power, is it not a valuable exercise for consumers to be consulted about t he future direction of their health service and the targets that should be set? In that way, they can not only judge the system but see how well it is delivering the service for the first time since its inception.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the most fundamental point. After the reforms, there will be not only a requirement but a need for an explicit health strategy, locally and nationally. That will derive from the reforms. We are discussing that matter today to begin to deal with the problem. The matter is of great importance in the long-term history of the national health service and in the country.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Secretary of State said that the charges for eye tests bring in £100 million. Will he admit that that figure tells us nothing about the people who cannot contribute to that figure—those who are too poor but are not exempted from the charge? Would it not be better for the Government to recoup the £100 million by abolishing the eye sight test fees and the tax relief that was given to people such as the Secretary of State, who can afford private health insurance?
Mr. Waldegrave: I have not yet retired, so I do not benefit from that relief. The arguments that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbasi on (Dame J. Knight) seem to be powerful. The charges are small and 40 per cent. of the population are exempt. Evidence shows that the number of people having eye tests is now up again. There seems to have been no falling off in the number of referrals to eye hospitals in the past year. I know that the hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend, has been a campaigner on those matters.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his extremely impressive statement, which was in stark contrast to the hot air that we heard yesterday. Does he feel that, within his health strategy, there is a role for alternative medicine, and above all for the study of allergies?
Mr. Waldegrave: I should not want to make those matters a primary objective of health care. However, as a constituency member representing the Bristol homeopathic hospital, it behoves me to make available—in that case on the national health service, if possible—the treatment required by many people.
On my hon. Friend's second point, may I warn the House that, true to form, in about a month's time, the Labour party will once again publish the document that it has published three times before and the BBC will, yet again, fall for it as a news story.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a relationship between poverty and ill health? Does he also accept that the high unemployment suffered in this country during the past 11 years has contributed in many towns and cities to the deterioration in the health of many families? Will he

167
convey that message to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Departments of Industry and Employment to ensure that that aspect of ill health is considered?
Mr. Waldegrave: I have already spoken about inequalities in health. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that wins a remarkable double in such matters. A Labour Government have never left lower unemployment or lower waiting lists than they found, so I think that some modesty on that issue might be in order from the Labour party.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on this brilliant initiative? Not only is it sheer common sense to set targets and objectives that can be measured, but the spin-off that will occur in coming months as we roll on with the debate will cause many people to think and perhaps use a bit of self-discipline. I might cut down my weight, so watch this space.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and I would welcome more congruity in shape with my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), but we would not want to lose his contributions to our discussions in the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. Now that there is a proper management structure in the health service, it is sensible to set objectives towards which the service can work to enable the I million people employed in the service throughout the United Kingdom to begin to feel that the service has aims.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: In the past few days, the Secretary of State will have received from the district health authority that covers both his and my constituencies an identification of the crisis in health care in south Bristol—high mortality rates, very high infant mortality rates and a remoteness from the national health service. Indeed, on every criterion geared to identify health care, Bristol, South scores the highest. As a result of the reorganisation, there have been cuts in the numbers of intensive care beds and budgets, and a refusal to build the new Bristol, South hospital; and now there are to be redundancies. Will the Secretary of State explain to the people of Bristol how the document that he has presented today will improve their access to health care when it is built on reforms that have made access more difficult, not easier?
Mr. Waldegrave: The 30 or 40-year-old battle for a major hospital in south Bristol is the only factor that unites the hon. Lady and her predecessor. The hon. Lady should make the point that when we consider the distribution of health resources throughout the country —about which we hear a lot from Opposition Members —we realise that the Government are taking steps to ensure the fairer distribution of such resources nationally. That is partly what our travail is about. She should welcome that.
Mr. John Greenway: The setting up of the health strategy steering group is the most positive of the measures announced today. Will the group include members of the dental profession? Given that diet can play such a large part in improving our health and that without
168
teeth one cannot eat, surely dental practitioners have a major role to play in improving the nation's health by giving advice about diet.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Contributions from dentists will certainly be included. The document also considers setting objectives for child dental caries. That is not because this country's record on that issue compares poorly internationally—in fact, we do well —but because we believe that it would be relatively easy to make further progress in that sphere and attach a high priority to it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister spoke about the incidence of ill health in factories. Does not he realise that factory inspections are at an all-time low and that the Department of Employment does not even enforce the notification of occupation of factory premises? The Secretary of State seems to be obsessed with changes in the institutions. Will it benefit the people of Bradford when Bradford NHS trust makes 300 people redundant and closes the baby unit at St. Luke's hospital and two other hospitals in Bradford? Surely that denies people access to medical facilities.
In terms of more NHS trusts, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in his consultation process he will agree to a ballot of local people? If he is not satisfied with that and is convinced about the marvellous nature of his proposals, will he have the guts to tell the Prime Minister to have a general election about them?
Mr. Waldegrave: That was a characteristic contribution. The hon. Gentleman should realise that our capacity to look across the board at the health needs in his constituency and city has enabled us to make great advances in primary care in Bradford where there has been a dramatic reduction in lists. Health care in Bradford or Bristol, or anywhere else, cannot be improved simply by concentrating on acute hospitals. There must be a comprehensive local health strategy, and resources must be deployed across the board.
Mr. Richard Holt: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am sure that it will not take long for him to write a short note to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) giving an exposition of the law of diminishing returns because, plainly, the hon. Gentleman does not understand that law.
Will my right hon. Friend help me with a small problem which landed on my desk today? As a diabetic, I received a letter from consultants in diabetes telling me that the Government have withdrawn the free medical facilities that were previously available to all diabetics, even those who were not receiving medication. A confirmed diabetic being treated by diet alone was able to obtain the necessary testing equipment free. I am now told by the consultants who have written to me that you have changed that arrangement. If that is true, will you please reverse it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not address his question to me.
Mr. Holt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what the consultants have said in that letter is correct, in which case will he reverse his decision? If it is incorrect, the consultants should be ashamed of writing such a letter.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) understands the law of diminishing returns, because each time he publishes the same old proposal it seems to get less coverage.
It would have been helpful if my hon. Friend had given me notice of his question about his letter from consultants. I shall he happy to discuss it with him. He will be pleased to discover that the document states that we wish to develop targets for diabetes and asthma. I shall certainly discuss the consultants' letter with my hon. Friend and discover what lies behind it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has not the Secretary of State got the intellectual capacity to understand that for 12 years the Government have undermined the national health service, and spoken against intervention in a public service? He is electioneering to the British people and is substituting waffle for resources. Tory Members may be conned by that, but he can rest assured that people outside are not. It is time that he took his hook back to the senior common room and took all his Front-Bench colleagues with him.
Mr. Waldegrave: Of course electioneering is the last thing that the hon. Gentleman would do and would regard it as a disreputable activity. He seemed to betray one of the finest of the old Labour traditions, which was to value education. Perhaps I should not rebuke him for that.
Mr. John Butterfill: When my right hon. Friend consults on targets, will he please take no account of the appallingly low expectations of the Labour party? Does he recall that the chief Opposition spokesman on health said when we were negotiating the GP contract that the demands on doctors were so heroic that most of them would give up trying? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that four out of five of them have now succeeded in meeting those targets on child immunity? How many children might have died or now be suffering from crippling diseases if the Labour party had been setting the targets?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is a fair point. The Labour party is still standing by its ridiculous position that it will repeal that contract. It will allow the standards of immunisation and the targeting for cervical smears to go backwards and that will put many people at risk. That is very irresponsible, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is right to continue to rub the nose of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in it. By making a very short-term alliance with the British Medical Association at the time, the hon. Member for Livingston has got himself hooked on a very irresponsible policy, just as he did in an alliance with the drug companies when he opposed the limited list. He was wrong also on that.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Given that the Secretary of State mentioned tobacco as a serious factor in relation to deaths and ill health in this country, why is he not prepared to take on the tobacco lobby specifically when we know that the tobacco companies have, in advertising terms, successfully targeted young people and especially young women? Is it not time that we took action against that advertising? Why will the Department of Health and the Government be opposing an EEC-wide ban on tobacco advertising? When drugs are such a scourge among young
170
people, why has there been scarcely a mention of a proper attack on drugs in our society or of the need to provide a proper health programme for young people?
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the Chamber earlier when I answered a question about advertising. The issue is more complex. .A further aspect that I did not mention earlier, but which I will refer to now, is that the countries that are in favour of a total advertising ban are among those with nationally controlled monopolies in the production of cigarettes. Some people believe that the suppression of advertising is not unconnected with the fact that they wish to protect those monopolies. There is no connection at all between those countries which have banned advertising and those which have done well in diminishing smoking. As I said earlier, the first thing for the European Community to do is to withdraw its subsidies from the growing of tobacco. That would be a much better first objective.
Drugs may be an area which should be targeted and perhaps the hon. Member for Stretford would propose that. We have not included drugs among the initial main targets in our discussion document because—and I make this point to everyone who wants to add additional targets —if we make everything a priority, then nothing is a priority.
Mr. James Paice: My right hon. Friend deserves widespread congratulation on having the courage to lay down targets so that we can assess later in the decade how well the Government are progressing towards achieving what my right hon. Friend has set out today. Is it not significant that the Opposition have refused to set out any targets not only so that they can simply snipe at the Government's targets, but, more importantly perhaps, because they are pledged to repeal the structural reforms which would be the only way to assess whether they had ever reached those targets?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is absolutely true. The connection between the reforms and the kind of targeting procedure that we are now undertaking must be emphasised. Unless we have the capacity to deliver, it is no good talking about objectives. The Labour party must have realised that it was in some danger here or it would not have gone to all the trouble of regurgitating its document yesterday and giving it to the press.
Mr. Simon Coombs: At last the Government have produced a strategy for health promotion and have offered the nation targets by which that strategy can be judged. That action will be widely welcomed both inside and outside the House. Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend accept that a large proportion of the population of this country is frankly suicidal in the sense that they will ignore all the advice of the Health Education Authority and health education officers and advice that they should moderate their diets, intake of alcohol and cigarettes and advice about healthy exercise? Given that the Government are not in favour of a nanny state, how does my right hon. Friend propose to meet the targets in the light of that opposition from such a large proportion of the population?
Will my right hon. Friend also consider the targets for eating and drinking? The Green Paper states that those targets should be reached by the year 2005. Will he

171
consider aiming to reach those targets by the year 2000, as that is important? Also, why is there no target in respect of the level of cholesterol in that range of targets?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, in the discussion we shall certainly consider whether those targets should be brought forward, raised or lowered. That is exactly what the discussions are now meant to do. We have issued a report about cholesterol testing and surveying.
My hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on these issues, and I pay tribute to his contribution. It is true that in a free country we cannot compel people to good health. I made that clear at the beginning of the Green Paper. There are some pressures, however, that both sides of the House regard as legitimate, and one of those is price. In relation to cigarettes and alcohol—this relates also to the question by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) —we must ensure that the European Community, by the harmonisation of taxation levels, does not lower the levels of taxation on cigarettes and alcohol in 1992.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome targets that he has set today will be achieved only if there is a full partnership between the Government, local government, employers and voluntary organisations, and that, for that partnership to be meaningful, they can play their full part only if they have targets and objectives to which to work? Is it not a fact that the Labour party's document which was published yesterday, without such targets and objectives, was designed to be meaningless, is meaningless and, like the rest of its health policy, means absolutely nothing to anyone?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is true. That document was not a great contribution to the debate, and I do not think that it will be long remembered. I agree with my hon. Friend. I specifically mentioned voluntary organisations in my statement. If the strategy is to work, it will not be done simply by Government or simply by the national health service. It must be done by persuading people in a range of organisations and by persuading individuals that it is worth doing. That is why it is worth having a proper consultation period and having discussions throughout the country to get people committed to the kind of targets that we are proposing.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the consultations that are to take place on these excellent proposals, will my right hon. Friend reject some of the more facile and easy solutions that are sometimes offered? Does he agree that it is not an adequate response to the fact that many epidemiological surveys show that smoking is associated with various lung conditions and that other lifestyle factors may be every bit as relevant? Should not that sort of thing be borne in mind as well, otherwise merely to opt for the easy option of a total ban on advertising may miss some factors that are every bit as relevant?
Mr. Waldegrave: In my scepticism about the effectiveness of a general ban on advertising, I would not want to mislead the House into thinking that I did not believe that a continued, rapid fall in smoking would not be one of the best things that we could do for health. It would be one of the best things that we could do for health. Nobody knows the exact causation between lung cancer
172
and smoking, but no one now doubts the absolutely clear statistical evidence that one goes with the other. It is central to our strategy to set a challenging target for the further diminution of smoking and to see that it comes about.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Is the Secretary of State aware that his hon. Friends are wrong in suggesting that he has courage in deciding on targets? They are 12 years too late. Will he have the courage, however, to deal with one target, and that is the practice of health service consultants saying to patients that they must wait 12 months or more for treatment, but end up treating them if those same patients go private?
Mr. Waldegrave: Everything that we are doing in the reorganisation of the health service is aimed at getting more health care for the money—the increasing amounts of money—that we are spending. Our record on health spending and on the number of people treated stands easy comparison with that of the hon. Gentleman's party, which, as I remind him once again, has never left waiting lists lower than it found them.
Sir Ian Lloyd: If, as I believe, the health of the population is the result of the careful and considered application of science, medicine, compassion and resources, is not the population much more likely to be served by the calm and courteous rationality that my right hon. Friend has exhibited this afternoon than it is by shouting and leering and the kind of intellectual nonsense that has been exhibited by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Perhaps one day the hon. Gentleman will become a fellow of All Souls. I shall look forward to that day.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is very kind. I am sure that the House would not want to miss the contributions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). My hon. Friend must be careful because it is more dire an insult for him to describe the hon. Gentleman as "an intellectual" than for my hon. Friends to describe me as such.
Mr. Robin Cook: No doubt through oversight, the Secretary of State omitted to give us the figures, on current trends, for the reduction in coronary heart disease and strokes by the year 2000. Will he now tell the House those figures?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with those figures, but of course they will be speculative. However, I assure him that the targets that we are setting are challenging. That is what challenging means. They are not simply predictions.

BILL PRESENTED

  DANGEROUS DOGS
  Mr. Secretary Baker, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Attorney-General and Mrs. Angela Rumbold, presented a Bill to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under

  173
  proper control; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 5 June and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Cinemas (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 99 (2) (Northern Ireland Committee),
NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

  ELECTRICITY
  That the Proposal for a draft Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 published on 19th April 1991, being a Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

Employment of Children Act 1973 (Amendment)
4.35 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Employment of Children Act 1973 in respect of the definition of "child"; and to make fresh provision for its commencement.
Most people think that if children find a job in which to earn a little pocket money, that is good. Indeed, many children do a few hours' work which they enjoy. It gives them a degree of independence, provides them with some money for extra clothing and helps them to keep up with their friends. The money that children from poor families earn is often important for the family's survival.
I agree with the prevailing public opinion that we would not want to prevent children from getting a taste of the world of work, but I am sure that hon. Members agree that that work must be properly regulated. It is our duty to see that children are not allowed to undertake work that involves lifting heavy loads or endangers their physical well-being in any way. We do not want children to work such long hours that they cannot benefit from their education. We do not want children to have accidents because of undertaking unsuitable work, and we do not want them exploited as a source of cheap labour in an adult job at a fraction of the adult wage.
The present laws date back to the very different world of the 1920s and 1930s and, in some ways, are inadequate for today's conditions. The entertainment industry, for example, has been fairly well regulated, but modelling, which has expanded enormously since the growth of television, is wide open to abuse. Those old national laws exist in conjunction with a plethora of local government byelaws, some of which look fine on paper, but are flouted throughout the country.
In 1970, considerable public anxiety was aroused as a result of research sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Security. It showed a lack of uniformity in the local byelaws and serious problems of enforcement. Following that, a private Member's Bill, which was considered uncontroversial, was passed unopposed, becoming the Employment of Children Act 1973. Its primary purpose was to provide a rational, uniform pattern of law-making throughout the country by removing the local authorities' powers to enact local byelaws and by giving the Secretary of State regulatory powers so that, after consultation, regulations could be made centrally for the whole country. The second purpose of the 1973 Act was to enable local authorities to appraise the work which boys and girls go into before they actually begin that work. The Act has never been implemented.
In answer to questions which hon. Members have asked from time to time, the Government have said that almost all local authorities have byelaws, but in January this year they said that they would look again at the 1973 Act if evidence should be forthcoming that children are being exploited.
Recent research by the Low Pay Units in Scotland and England and the Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights has shown that there is a need for the 1973 Act to be enforced now. It has proved that need up to the

175
hilt, which is why I am presenting my Bill today. The Bill would bring up to date the Act's definition of a child and would provide for its implementation by January 1992.
Recent research shows that 43 per cent. of children in Britain between the ages of 10 and 16 have some type of paid work. That is almost 2 million children. They have been called the hidden army. Of those children, 74 per cent. are employed illegally, either working illegal hours, employed in work prohibited for children or working without a local authority permit under which education authorities are supposed to ensure that medical health checks are carried out and that conditions of work are not harmful to the child involved. Only one child out of 65 children interviewed from two schools in Strathclyde had such a permit.
Children on milk rounds start long before the legally permitted time of 7 am. Therefore, all children doing early morning milk rounds are working illegally. If I had the time, I could cite many other examples. Children are lifting heavy loads in street markets and heavy bags of soil in garden centres. Newspaper rounds are considered a suitable form of employment and 30 per cent. of children who have jobs do one. Many have benefited financially from such work and have come to no harm, but Sunday papers can weight up to 60 lb—far more than a postman is allowed to carry on his round. Children are working illegally in kitchens which have slippery floors and pans of hot oil or boiling water.
Unfortunately, hospital accident and emergency departments are not required to record accidents to children at work, but they should be. Hon. Members will be horrified to learn that research shows that one third of working children have accidents at work, such as a sewing machine needle going through a finger, losing the end of a finger in a bacon slicing machine, breaking limbs and spraining backs. Answers that children give about their accidents at work make sad reading.
It is not surprising that weary children have accidents at work. If one adds up the number of hours spent at school, the two or three hours' homework a night in the run-up to exams, the number of legally permitted hours of paid work and time helping the family in the house, it often comes to a long week of 50 to 60 hours—more than most adults undertake.
I have taught classes of children, many of whom were too tired to concentrate, and that is when I first became aware and concerned about the problem. It is clear that,
176
although some children just do odd jobs which they enjoy and from which they benefit, many are used as a source of cheap, easily disposable labour, often to replace school leavers and part-time women workers.
On average, children earn about £1·80 per hour. About 500,000 children—24 per cent.—earn less than £1 an hour and 7 per cent.—a significant number when nearly 2 million children are working—earn less than 50p an hour. One hapless 16-year-old boy earned £1·50 after 20 hours of door-to-door selling—7p an hour.
Parents, children, teachers and employers are all woefully ignorant of the byelaws that are being honoured in the breach throughout Britain, leaving our children without the protection that we would all wish them to have. Children look to us for help and we are failing them. Our inaction is not fair to them.
Many aspects of child employment need to be reviewed, but the most immediate requirement is to replace the existing confusing patchwork of local regulations with national statutes which standardise practice and provide protection across the board. We need regulations which everyone will understand and know about and which will be properly publicised, monitored and enforced by the provision of a sufficient number of child employment officers. The few whom we have are trying valiantly to do an impossible task.
My Bill will not require precious parliamentary time. The 1973 Act is already on the statute book. We need to rectify the disgraceful negligence of all Governments who have left the Act unenforced for almost two decades.
I end with the words with which I ended my speech on Second Reading of the Children Bill two years ago when I first addressed the subject:
"Our children are our stake in the future, and it is our duty to protect them from exploitation of all kinds."—[Official Report, 27 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 1151.]
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. John Hughes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Tony Benn and Ms. Joyce Quin.

Employment of Children Act 1973 (Amendment)
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT)
  Ms. Mildred Gordon accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Employment of Children Act 1973 in respect of the definition of "child"; and to make fresh provision for its commencement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 14 June and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

Lloyd's of London
4.47 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, some 50 Members of the House are members of Lloyd's and four of those are members of the Government. I understand that Government orders for Ministers do not require them to divest themselves of their membership of Lloyd's while they are in office.
The Finance Bill is before the House—part of it, as usual, being taken on the Floor of the House and part of it in Committee. A letter from Lloyd's of London, signed by the chairman of that body, has come into my possession. I am anxious to notify you of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the section of the Bill which is dealt with in the letter could come before the House at any time.
The chairman of Lloyd's says:
"Thirdly, I have been pursuing with the Government for some time certain aspects of the tax arrangements for names. I had a meeting with the Chancellor last week when I received a sympathetic hearing. We discussed both reserving and the extension of the relief proposed in the Budget to Names."
It is with that latter point that I wish to deal now.
The letter refers to an extension of a concession to companies proposed in the Budget to members of Lloyd's. That would mean that rules in "Erskine May" which preclude an hon. Member voting when there is a clear pecuniary interest would apply both to members who are Conservative Back Benchers—the 50 members concerned are exclusively Conservatives—and to members of the Government.
The amendment in question could come before the House at any time, and as the chairman of Lloyd's has made it clear that he has
"received, as I have said, a sympathetic hearing, and I hope that I shall be able to report a successful outcome to you in my June address",
he clearly anticipates success.
I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will report my comments to Mr. Speaker—so that he can make a statement at the earliest opportunity—and make it clear that none of the right hon. or hon. Members who have an involvement in Lloyd's will be allowed to vote on that matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It appears from the hon. Member's remarks that the case that he puts is hypothetical at the moment. I am not sure whether Mr. Speaker has seen the letter to which the hon. Member referred, and I shall be grateful if he will let me have it. I can then draw it to the attention of Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

  Child Support Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.50 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the House knows, the Bill follows from the White Paper published last autumn entitled "Children Come First"—itself in its title expressing a sentiment which I know right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise and support. Our proposals aim at benefiting children and those who care for them. In society today, increasing numbers of relationships are breaking down, but the breakdown of a relationship between parents does not remove the responsibility of the parents towards the children of that relationship. Having said that, I firmly acknowledge that parenthood is of course about much more than just financial responsibility. But financial provision is one very important part of the responsibility which parents owe to their children, and payments of child maintenance are a way of meeting that responsibility.
  Regular maintenance benefits children. It provides a regular income, and serves, in a literal sense, to bring home the responsibilities that family members owe to one another. It also benefits parents looking after children, by providing a regular basis of what is sometimes called "portable" income which the parent can take with her when she moves, as so many lone parents want to do, from dependence on benefit into work. While it is a point of a somewhat different kind, it should not be ignored that, where maintenance can reasonably be expected but is not paid, the effect is to transfer the responsibility to taxpayers, many of whom will themselves be families who are bringing up their own children on perhaps quite modest incomes.
  It is very widely—I might almost say universally—agreed that the present system of child maintenance is not working as it should. It is fragmented. It involves several different levels of courts, together, in many cases, with offices of my Department. It is too often slow. For example, a quarter of cases in magistrates courts take more than 70 days, or more than two months. It is unreliable. Payments not infrequently fall into arrears, the caring parent has to ask the courts to take action, and it can take weeks, or much longer, to re-establish payment. It is increasingly ineffective. In 1989, only 23 per cent. of lone parents on income support received regular maintenance, whereas 10 years before the figure was some 50 per cent. Lastly, it is inconsistent. People cannot predict with any certainty what their liabilities will be, and some variations in the levels of awards appear to have no systematic relationship to differences in circumstances.
  Having considered all this, we concluded that significant change was needed, and the Bill represents the legislative framework within which we plan to bring about that change. That framework has been worked out in close co-operation between a variety of Government

  179
  Departments—although the legislation comes before the House today as a DSS Bill. In particular, it had the close involvement of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who introduced the Bill in another place. If I may say this without causing offence to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, that interest is reflected in my right hon. and learned Friend's presence in the Chamber today and his interest in the Bill.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The child maintenance formula takes no account of the extra cost of caring for a disabled child, and the Bill makes no special provision for families with disabled children. That is a matter of deep concern to Mencap. I ask the Secretary of State sympathetically to address that concern, and to explain how he intends to cope with what is viewed as a serious problem by the organisations that represent the interests of disabled children.
  Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman shows slightly less than his usual patience. I thought he might have realised that I have barely got beyond the preamble to my speech. I am aware of the concern to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and I promise to address it later in my speech.
  The Bill's provisions cover the whole of Great Britain, and we intend to make comparable provision for Northern Ireland. As the White Paper made clear, proposals have been informed by the results of research commissioned by the Department, which has for some time been available in the Library, and has now been published in the normal way.
  The principles behind our proposals have had widespread support from many quarters—including, I think, from all parts of the House. Our strategy has three main features, two of which are provided for in the Bill. First—this touches on the right hon. Gentleman's point —we shall introduce a clear and consistent formula by which maintenance assessments will be made, and rules by which those assessments will be reviewed, to take account of changing circumstances. The key features of that formula appear on the face of the Bill, and I shall come to a fuller explanation of them in a moment.
  Secondly, we intend to set up a Child Support Agency, accountable through me to Parliament, which will bring together in one organisation all matters to do with the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance in the great majority of cases. That will be a new, specialised organisation to do a specific and important task. Because its powers and duties fall to be expressed as belonging to the Secretary of State, there is no explicit reference to the Child Support Agency as such in the Bill itself.
  The third part of our strategy does not appear in the Bill itself, for different reasons, but it is an integral part of our proposals. I refer to the benefit proposals, which are designed to make it easier to combine working with the responsibilities of looking after children. We intend to introduce regulations reducing the number of hours of work needed to qualify for family credit from 24 to 16 hours a week. In addition, parents with care who are receiving family credit, housing benefit, community charge
  180
  benefit and disability working allowance will have the first £15 of their maintenance ignored in working out their benefit.
  I hope that it may be for the convenience of the House if I outline the main provisions of the Bill itself. It sets out all the main elements of our policy, and contains much detailed material, and also a considerable number of powers to make regulations. That structure reflects the need to strike the right balance between two considerations.
  On the one hand, it is obviously right to ensure that the main features of the new system are plainly set out in the Bill and are open to full debate at this stage. On the other, it is also obviously sensible not to burden the Bill itself with detailed, technical or procedural matters—not least because of the need to retain flexibility to adjust the detail in the light of practical experience once the new scheme has come into operation. [Interruption.] I notice that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is giggling. However, as a former Social Security Minister, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the parallel that I must draw. The approach we have adopted is similar to one with which the House is familiar in respect of social security legislation, where most of the detailed provisions governing the administration are set out in regulations. Over the years, that has generally been thought to be sensible.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: It should be said that hon. Members are becoming familiar with the procedure precisely because the present Government have taken such action repeatedly. Other Governments—including Conservative Governments—have not acted in the same way. The fact that so many important decisions will be left to regulation and discretion after the House has dealt with the primary legislation, rather than being contained in that legislation, represents a major flaw in the Bill.
  Mr. Newton: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at some of the social security legislation that was passed while he was a Social Security Minister—or, at least, under the Government in which he was a Social Security Minister. He will find that there is nothing new about the general pattern that I have described. It has been felt under Governments of all kinds, over most of the period since the war, that this is a sensible way to deal with much of the detail of social security and comparable legislation, especially when it is subject to change.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State cannot blame me for any past misdemeanours in this respect—
  Mr. Graham Allen: Lloyd George started it.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Lloyd George may well have started it. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to expect to be able to present the House—as he so often does nowadays—with Bills from which so much secondary legislation consequentially flows and expect to get away with it. I have said that before. There will come a time, I believe, when the House will throw some of this primary legislation back in the right hon. Gentleman's face—and so it should.
  Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I note also that he fell somewhat short of giving a clear undertaking on behalf of his party—for whatever that would be worth—
  Mr. Kirkwood: What a swingeing attack.
  Mr. Newton: It is not a swingeing attack; it is merely a light-hearted comment, addressed to an hon. Member for whom I have considerable respect. I hope that I have not ruined his chances in the Scottish borders by attempting to be nice to him. If, however, such a thing as a Liberal Democrat Government were ever to appear, I should wait with bated breath for that Government's assurance that no social security legislation would include any powers for secondary legislation.
  I intend shortly to provide a note for hon. Members, explaining in fuller detail the intentions behind the provisions that will determine the way in which the regulation-making powers are used. I hope that that will be useful in informing discussion at later stages if the Bill is given its Second Reading. That does not, of course, go as far as the hon. Member for Oldham, West or the hon. Gentleman from the Borders—whose constituency I always find it difficult to remember, because it is such a long name—would like; nevertheless, I trust that they will consider it at least a constructive response to the points that they have raised.
  The opening clauses of the Bill set out the basic principles in terms of what might be called the "usual case". By that I mean only that it is what most often happens: a man and a woman have a family, their own relationship breaks up and the woman is left with the care of the children. Although, in discussing the Bill, we shall probably need to use language that reflects that "usual case", we should of course acknowledge that roles are sometimes reversed. Of more than 1 million lone parents, however, only about 10 per cent. are men, and I therefore think it reasonable to use the lone mother as our starting point—although the Bill applies equally to lone fathers who are caring for their children.
  The Bill establishes that the absent parent has a duty to maintain the children of the relationship, and that that duty may be discharged by the making of periodic payments fixed by the Bill. It also contains a power for regulations to be made covering precisely how the formula will apply to cases that diverge from the "usual case"—for example, a case in which the child is looked after by a third party and there are therefore two absent parents, or the care of the child is shared between both parents.
  Child maintenance is not, in the general case, a public debt, but a private liability owed to the child and the person caring for him. We therefore intend the services of the new Child Support Agency to be available to all parties where child maintenance is an issue—apart from a relatively small number of cases, to which I shall refer later, which will remain for the courts' discretion. Parties will continue to be able to make private arrangements about child maintenance, but if they want to use the services of the agency instead they will be able to. In those cases, fees will, where appropriate, be charged for voluntary use of the agency's services.
  As we have always made clear, there are particular considerations where the lone parent is in receipt of social security income-related benefits. A responsibility which should be borne, at least in part, by the absent parent is
  182
  being picked up by taxpayers instead. We therefore believe that, in general, lone parents on benefit should be expected to co-operate in using the services of the agency to trace the absent parent and recover maintenance from him. That is the purpose of clause 6.
  Clause 6 has been the focus of much discussion in another place. Indeed, the other place removed an associated clause designed to secure that, when a lone parent unreasonably failed to co-operate, a sanction could be applied by way of a reduction in her own personal allowance in her benefit payment. We have listened carefully to the arguments, and, as my noble Friend Lord Henley said in another place on 16 May, we are continuing to explore ways in which we might more fully describe the circumstances in which the obligation to co-operate in clause 6 would not apply.
  In our view, that is best achieved not by a list of the kind that some have urged us to adopt, but by a more general definition that focuses on adverse consequences that could be held likely to occur if an application for maintenance proceeds, and on assessing the likelihood—which we expect to arise only rarely—of the parent with care, or her children, suffering distress or harm because she is required to co-operate. Expressing that in legislative terms will be a difficult drafting task, but we hope to present an amendment in Committee.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State has said that he is listening carefully to the arguments, and that he will table an amendment. Will he be confident enough to allow the House a free vote on whether to accept it?
  Mr. Newton: I have, I think, made it clear that the Government regard this as an important point of principle in establishing the Bill's general objectives. I do not, therefore, expect to be able to respond to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in quite so friendly a fashion as I did to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
  In view of some of the concern that has been expressed, it is particularly important to be clear about some aspects of the way in which the agency will work. In particular, it will be able to act as a buffer between the parents. It is the agency that will approach the absent parent and assess his ability to pay maintenance, and set up arrangements for payment. If necessary, it will collect on behalf of the parent with care, and will take enforcement action. I strongly emphasise that there need be no direct contact between the parents if they do not wish it, and that there will be no question of the agency's passing on confidential information, such as the family's whereabouts, to the absent parent.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: First, let me say how much I welcome the Bill. Secondly, let me say how glad I am that my right hon. Friend has decided to locate the child support agencies throughout the United Kingdom, not just in London.
  My right hon. Friend will, however, be aware of the disappointment that I feel about the announcement of the siting of the agencies, and the fact that there will not be one in Wolverhampton. Will he take this opportunity to put the record straight? I know that he has tried his very best: he has telephoned me late at night many times [Laughter]— to ask my advice about Wolverhampton's difficulty in providing premises.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: A likely story.
  Mrs. Hicks: Jealousy, jealousy.
  Wolverhampton had difficulty in providing premises in which to locate the agency. As I know of my right hon. Friend's commitment, I am disappointed to read today in the local paper that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) has already damned the Government for turning their back on Wolverhampton. I know for a fact that the local Labour council could not come up with a site. I ask my right hon. Friend to put the record straight.
  Mr. Newton: This is another matter to which I had intended to come later in my speech—and I will do so. I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) and I have had a number of conversations about the matter, both on the telephone and in other ways, because of the very proper way in which she has vigorously sought to represent the interests of her constituency in respect of siting one of the agency offices. I share her disappointment that it has not been possible to respond in the way in which I should have liked to respond to her representations on the matter. She will be aware that our proposal for the siting of one of the proposed agency offices is well within the area in which recruitment in Wolverhampton would be a possibility. We will seek to encourage that.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend is spelling out the details of his proposal with the skill and sensitivity that the House has come to expect of him. He confirmed a few moments ago that the mechanisms and proposals would apply to the minority of cases, some of which have been raised with me by constituents. In such cases, it is the father who has been left as the lone parent and the mother, unusually but with developing social pressures, who has abandoned her children. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is confident that the mechanisms will work in that minority of cases? Have he and his Department studied the practice in other countries that have similar systems to ensure that we can learn from them how to make our system most effective?
  Mr. Newton: The answer to all three parts of my hon. Friend's question is yes. The first question was whether the arrangements would apply even-handedly, and the answer is yes. Secondly, he asked whether I am confident that the arrangements will work as effectively in what I have called "absent mother" cases as in "absent father" cases. The answer to that is yes. Thirdly, he asked whether we had studied the experience in other countries—notably, I must mention, Australia and some parts of the United States. The answer to that is yes. In many respects, our proposals represent an improvement, not least in connection with the points with which my hon. Friend is concerned, as a result of the lessons that we have drawn from that study.
  I hope that I have left no doubt of our wish to ensure that there should be proper definition of the circumstances in which the obligation to co-operate will not apply. However, we remain convinced that, when lone parents do not have reasonable grounds for refusing to co-operate —in other words, when they are, in effect, simply choosing to pass the bill to the community at large—it is right that there should be some limited sanction in respect of their personal allowance in the benefit system—although not, of course, in respect of any benefit payable in respect of the
  184
  children. We have carefully considered the points made in another place when the provision was removed from the Bill. However, we believe that an important principle is involved, so we propose to seek the restoration of such a power.
  I must emphasise that there will be no question of any reduction in benefit until there has been the most thorough consideration of the reasons for the parent's refusal to seek maintenance for her child. A parent with care of the child who believes that she has good reason not to authorise the recovery of maintenance will have a full opportunity to make her case. She will then be given time to reflect and to make further representations before the issues are considered by a different child support officer—a review within the agency.
  Only if at that second stage it is still considered that the mother does not have reasonable grounds for her refusal will there be any question of a reduction in her benefit. She will then still have the right of appeal to an independent child support appeal tribunal. We shall table the necessary amendments in Committee which—I must make this clear because I am responding to one specific concern raised in another place—will include a time limit on the duration of any reduction.
  It may be convenient at this point to refer to clause 39.
  Mr. Meacher: Can the Secretary of State tell the House why, a month after clause 22 was deleted in another place, the Government still have not come up with a clear formula to insert in the Bill their decision on this point? The right hon. Gentleman referred a few minutes ago to consultations. He will know that every organisation is opposed to the reintroduction of a deduction of benefit for this purpose. It is perfectly clear from what he has just said that the Government have made up their mind, irrespective of any consultations. I ask again why the Secretary of State has come to the House so unprepared that he cannot produce the formula for the House to examine.
  Mr. Newton: Two separate points are involved. The point that he has raised goes back to what I was saying about clause 6—that is, whether we can find a way in which to insert material into the Bill which will more fully express the definition of the circumstances in which a judgment will be made about whether a refusal is reasonable. I thought that I had already said enough to show that, although the matter is clear in general layman's terms—what we seek to achieve, for example, in cases in which there is good reason to believe that distress or harm may be caused by the pursuit of maintenance—there is a difficult drafting problem. I am anxious, as is the parliamentary draftsman, to ensure that the point is considered as fully and carefully as possible before it is included in the Bill.
  There is a somewhat separate point about the circumstances and arrangements under which whatever grounds are in the Bill, or in any other form, are then considered, and about the procedures that are gone through before any question of a deduction arises. I am concentrating on those points at the moment, and I hope that that is reasonably clear.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for displaying his characteristic courtesy. I should be pleased if he would accept my apologies for my failing to be here for the first

  185
  few minutes of his speech. I must inform the House that a large engineering company in my constituency is facing closure, and I had to speak to people who are directly threatened. That is why I was away from the Chamber.
  I have a serious question for the Secretary of State—I have no wish to score so-called "party political" points on the matter. Clause 7(1) uses the words:
  "In Scotland, a child

  (a) who is a qualifying child; and

  (b) who is not a pupil".

  When the clause was framed, was cognisance taken of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill, which is at present passing through the other place? That Bill removes the distinction between a pupil and a child. On that technical question, at what age can someone representing a child in Scotland who is a non-pupil seek assistance in these matters?
  Mr. Newton: By that curious process of osmosis which sometimes enables information to reach Ministers—that is, by a nod from a quarter to which I am not allowed to refer—I am already informed that the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. The Bill takes account of the measure to which he referred.
  I am at a somewhat greater disadvantage on the second part of the hon. Member's question. The right course for me to take is to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who will reply at the end of the debate, will seek to deal with the point. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Rather than attempt to digest in these circumstances what may be a complicated piece of information, which I have just been handed, I shall ensure that the matter is covered later in the debate.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: The Bill's focus on the child, rather than parental needs, as the priority is welcome. With regard to such matters as naming the father, I remind the House that the Secretary of State is giving an identity to the child in need. That is what the children of lone parents, where fathers or mothers do not pay maintenance, tell me is missing. They feel rootless and without identity when the missing parent does not pay for their support. Therefore, I support the Bill and the naming of the missing parent wherever that is feasible and practical.
  Mr. Newton: In many cases, that is indeed an important perspective.
  I was about to refer to clause 39. I have said that we do not think it right that the parent with care should be able just to choose to pass responsibility for the children to the taxpayer. The same argument applies in principle to absent parents: their responsibility needs to be recognised. For that reason, even if the absent parent is on benefit, we think that, in general, he should at least make a small contribution to meeting his maintenance liability. This would be by a deduction from his benefit at the same level as those which can currently be made, for example, to meet arrears on various bills, and within the existing limits for such deductions. I look particularly at the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe when I say that, where the absent parent is sick or disabled, or has dependent children, liability will be established, but the contribution will be zero-rated.
  We believe that, in general, equity and consistency can be brought to child maintenance by an objective formula.
  186
  There has been much support, both inside and outside the House, for that. But we recognise that there will be situations where this does not apply, and I therefore draw the House's attention briefly to clause 8, which deals with the remaining jurisdiction of the courts. It provides a "principle of mutual exclusivity"; where maintenance may be sought under the formula, it cannot be sought from the courts, but the classes of case covered by the Bill are more limited than those currently covered by the courts, so existing court powers will continue to apply to cases not covered by the new scheme—for example, those involving stepchildren, where the court would need to decide whether the child was, in fact, treated as a child of the family and therefore eligible for an award of maintenance.
  The courts will also retain jurisdiction to cover some elements of maintenance not covered by the formula. The first of these is the child's right to share in higher levels of income. The operation of the formula will be limited at the upper end to prevent excessively high payments of maintenance becoming due, but the courts will be able to award maintenance over and above any formula assessment. The courts will also have a top-up power allowing them to make an order in addition to the normal formula award, for education costs, which are not covered by the formula.
  Thirdly—I look even more closely at the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe—in response to arguments which have suggested that special allowance needed to be made for disabled children, we have concluded that the courts should have a power to make discretionary additional awards in such cases also, and we plan to introduce an amendment to provide for that.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that Mencap has said that the Government may decide to take all families with disabled children out of the new system and leave them with the courts, and that Mencap is resisting the suggestion? To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman consulting Mencap and other organisations which take a particular interest in the question?
  Mr. Newton: Both before and, more especially, since the publication of "Children Come First" last autumn, we have received many representations, including some from Mencap, I am sure, as well as from a wide range of child care and other organisations. We have taken, and continue to take, those representations very much into account in working out what use should be made of the secondary powers to which reference has already been made.
  Certainly, if Mencap wishes to make further representations along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, I undertake that they will be considered, although I hope that what I have just announced goes some way to meeting their concern. Certainly it was intended to do so.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I have been listening carefully to the Secretary of State, and many of the provisions of the Bill are about the enforcement of child maintenance orders. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Army Acts lay down that a commanding officer of a serving soldier has the right to set aside a court maintenance order it he thinks that the man concerned does not have enough income to meet it?
  Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been dealing with a constituency case in which the sheriff court in Falkirk made a child maintenance order but, because the

  187
  absent parent happens to be a serving soldier, his commanding officer has time and again set aside the court order, and there is nothing that the mother of the two children concerned can do about it?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that, rather than attempt to comment now—apart from anything else, that would entail my knowing more about a specific case than I could conceivably pretend to here and now—I shall undertake to look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. I should be grateful if he would provide me with the necessary identifying details, if he has not already done so. I suspect that such a case is best looked into specifically rather than commented on in general terms.
  Clauses 10 and 11 deal with maintenance assessments and the basis on which they are to be made. Clause 10 gives effect to schedule 1, where the detailed structure of the formula is set out. I should perhaps say—wryly—that the algebraic form in which it appears seemed to offer advantages of conciseness and clarity, but I am not sure that it is entirely transparent, so it may be convenient to remind hon. Members of the main features of the formula.
  There are four elements. The first is the maintenance requirement. That is the minimum amount which all parents will be required to contribute to the maintenance of their child if they can afford to. It represents the weekly cost of maintaining each child, based on allowances in the income support scheme.
  The second element is the exempt income, which is worked out for each responsible parent. It represents the parents' own personal essential expenses which must be met before any maintenance at all is paid. The starting point, again, is the allowances in the income support scheme, plus—this is important—reasonable housing costs and the costs of any other natural children for whom parents are liable and who are living with them. The exempt income produced by this calculation will then be deducted from net income—income after tax and national insurance—producing as a result what we have called assessable income—net income minus exempt income—which will then be used to calculate how much maintenance is to be paid. Exempt income does not include allowances for any new partner because that would mean an adult taking priority over children.
  The third element is the deduction rate applied to the assessable income to determine the minimum amount of maintenance to be paid. Until the maintenance requirement is met, the proposition is that assessable income will be shared equally between the qualifying children and the parent. After that, until a further ceiling is reached above which the formula will not apply, a lower rate will have effect. We have been giving much thought to what this should be, and have listened with particular care to comments made in another place.
  The White Paper suggested for illustrative purposes a rate, above that minimum level, of 15 per cent. It is clearly right that the deduction rate at that stage should be lower. That reflects the normal reality that, at higher levels of income, a lower proportion of the total is likely to be spent on the children. But we nevertheless agree that it should still represent a significant contribution to the maintenance of children, and, while we are still considering the precise details of the additional element which will be needed in
  188
  the formula, I can say that it is likely to be more than 15 per cent., as has been pressed on us from a number of quarters.
  The fourth element is protected income. This will also be set by reference to income support rates, but with a margin above them in order not to discourage absent parents from working or provide a stimulus to default. It will produce an income level which no person liable to maintain a child will be allowed to fall below as a result of meeting both maintenance obligations and the essential expenses of himself and his new family.
  The formula is thus very flexible. It deals with the circumstances of the parties as they are, and it adapts to changes in those circumstances. Indeed, the proposals for periodic review are a significant innovation. The formula also deals specifically with the housing circumstances of the parties, and reflects the financial consequences of any property settlement which may be made, or may have been made. Hon. Members and certainly the hon. Member for Birkenhead will know that the Social Security Select Committee has commented on this aspect, and we are, of course, considering carefully the points that it has made.
  As I said, the courts will be able to award an additional amount to provide for disabled children. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is still here, although he has moved his position. I am coming to another point which will be of interest to him. We have also given thought to how to provide for cases where one or more of the adults involved incurs extra costs as a result of a disability. We have decided that in such cases we shall include in the exempt or protected income the various disability-related premiums which would be payable if income support were claimed.
  We shall also disregard as income the allowances which would be ignored if income support were payable. That will mean that a parent with a disability will still be assessed for maintenance but will receive an income advantage over a non-disabled adult. That income advantage will exactly equal the value of the premiums and allowances which recognise the person's need in respect of a disability. All our evidence suggests—I believe that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe will agree—that people with disabilities want account to be taken of their disabilities, as the allowances and premiums seek to do, but otherwise wish to be treated like everyone else. Therefore, we believe that what I have outlined is the right approach.
  Mr. Alfred Morris indicated assent.
  Mr. Newton: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding.
  The formula is the basis on which full assessments will be made, but in some cases the agency may not have all the information that it needs to effect a full assessment—perhaps because one of the parties is being deliberately difficult. The Bill therefore allows for an enforceable interim assessment to be made in those cases. That is designed to assist in obtaining early payment of maintenance. It should also act as an incentive for the liable parent to provide information.
  The bulk of the remaining clauses in the Bill provide for the powers which the Child Support Agency will need if it is to do its job effectively. Undoubtedly, those powers will

  189
  receive a good deal of consideration in Committee, so this afternoon I shall simply outline some of the major features.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: On the earlier point, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the exempt income—the income kept back for the absent parent—will be only the income essential for the upkeep of the parent? Even the existence of that exempt income puts the child second. In the child's mind, surely the child is the priority and should always come first.
  Mr. Newton: The immediate and obvious answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, but in one sense it begs what will undoubtedly be the subject of further discussion precisely what is essential and inessential. If we are both allowed to beg that question for the moment, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is undoubtedly yes.
  Clause 12 creates officers to be known as child support officers. All staff of the Child Support Agency will be officers of the Child Support Agency and as such civil servants in the Department of Social Security. But in applying the formula to make decisions about how much maintenance individuals are to pay, they will be acting under the statutory authority of this Bill, independent of the political process; that is why, just as individual decisions are made in the benefit system by independent adjudication officers, so in the Child Support Agency, decisions will be made by statutorily independent child support officers. There will also be an independent appeal system, about which I shall say more in a few moments.
  The practical work involved under the new scheme will be done by a Child Support Agency. I have announced previously that we hope to have the agency up and running early in 1993. I am pleased to confirm that we seem on course for the agency to begin operations by spring of 1993 with work being taken on in a phased way thereafter. The agency will be a next steps agency accountable to Parliament through me. My Department is already much involved in work to recover maintenance from people known in the trade—as some hon. Members will be aware as liable relatives. Apart from using my Department's experience in dealing with complex questions about people's income and circumstances, it is sensible for the Child Support Agency to build on the Department's specific expertise in liable relative work. Indeed, we have some 2,500 posts assigned to that work already, out of the total staffing of the Child Support Agency, which we currently expect to amount to about 4,700.
  I shall now answer some of the points made in interventions about locations.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State said that he had 2,400 posts in the liable relative section of his Department. How many people occupy those posts?
  Mr. Newton: The people are there. The issue is to what extent they do liable relative work or whether under certain circumstances they are diverted to other tasks within the Benefits Agency. That might as well be openly acknowledged, because it is well known by several hon. Members. One of the advantages of the proposals that we are making, as well as of the measures already in effect to create a Contributions Agency alongside the Benefits Agency, is that there is a degree of what is called, in the jargon of the trade, ring fencing of the resource for that particular purpose.
  Mr. Kirkwood: This is an important question. Can the Secretary of State estimate how much money the liable relative section generates at present from liable parents?
  Mr. Newton: Yes. The amount has increased substantially as a result of the extra effort that has been made and, indeed, the deployment of additional staff resources in the past couple of years. The figure is substantially in excess of £200 million a year. However, I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman an exact estimate of the outturn in the year which has just ended. If the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, can assist the hon. Gentleman further when he replies to the debate, I am sure that he will do so.
  The total staffing of the Child Support Agency will amount to some 4,700. A significant proportion of those staff will be grouped in six centres in various parts of the country where they will do the bulk of processing and assessment work which does not require face-to-face contact with the customer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) mentioned, we have said in a parliamentary answer that the Department is currently negotiating for centres in Hastings, Belfast, Falkirk, Birkenhead, Plymouth and the Dudley area in the black country.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Secretary of State may be aware that I have campaigned for years for civil service jobs to be located in Falkirk. Although I have grave reservations about the Bill because it will do virtually nothing to give additional support to single parents or to children, I welcome the Government's recognition that Callendar Park is an excellent location for civil service jobs. I look forward to the location in Falkirk of more meaningful civil service jobs in genuine child welfare, social security, and, indeed, overseas development, for which I have campaigned for some time.
  Mr. Newton: I can best respond by saying that I am glad at least to have created a dilemma for the hon. Gentleman and to have attracted probably his first reasonably friendly comments in a decade to a Conservative Social Security Minister.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend must accept the thanks not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and myself, but of those of our many constituents who work at Ashdown house in Hastings for his willingness to consider those premises as part of his plans and to negotiate for their use. I just hope that the Property Services Agency proves to be sensible and realistic in those negotiations.
  Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in November 1989, I wrote to the Department of the Environment asking it to circulate all other Government Departments with the details of Ashdown house and the qualifications of the staff with the sort of eventuality that my right hon. Friend now envisages in mind? I hope that that practice becomes a precedent whenever a Government Department vacates premises in the hope that it can be used by another Government Department.
  Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), who is unwell and, unhappily, is unable to be here today. My hon. Friends, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for

  191
  Wolverhampton, North-East, have vigorously and properly represented the interests of their constituents in this matter. From their point of view, I am glad that a successful outcome has been reached, as we are now negotiating for the use of the premises in Hastings.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am retiring at the next election and, in my usual generous manner, I can afford to give all the credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for attracting the jobs to Falkirk. I share my hon. Friend's reservations about the Bill, but I welcome those jobs with open arms. If ever an area needed new jobs and a broadened economic base, it is Falkirk. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has tremendous influence with his Cabinet colleagues and if he could persuade each one of them to give me a gift of 500 jobs before I retire, I will leave this place a happy man.
  Mr. Newton: I am almost overwhelmed by the encomiums that are being heaped upon me by the Opposition. I am duly grateful for the generosity with which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has spoken.
  As a number of hon. Friends have said, the six centres that we plan to locate around the country depend to some degree on the successful passage of the Bill. I should also make it clear that the agency will also have a presence on the ground, more locally, consisting of trained staff who will conduct interviews, visit customers, pursue inquiries locally and offer advice and guidance about the agency's services. I anticipate that, normally, those staff will be co-located with the Benefits Agency officers, as that will probably be for everyone's convenience.
  In making assessments, the agency will need certain sorts of information—particularly relating to the financial and family circumstances of the parties. The Bill provides for this, subject to strict specifications about what information may be required for the purpose, and to rigorous controls over what information may be disclosed, in strictly limited circumstances, by the officers of the agency. We intend that, in cases where information about parties' incomes is not forthcoming from their employer after every other avenue has been tried, officers of the agency will have access to powers similar to those of officers of my Department who inspect premises in connection with national insurance matters.
  Clause 14, as it stands, is the basis of the provision we seek, but, in the light of concerns expressed in another place, we shall table amendments to make explicit that the powers referred to are to be used only when specifically authorised on my behalf in particular difficult cases.
  In addition to the provision for assessments to be automatically reviewed at regular intervals to which I have already referred, it is essential to provide for a right of appeal where any of the parties to an assessment made by the agency has reason to question it. The detailed provisions for this were added to the Bill during its passage in another place. At a first stage, the Bill provides that the parties may ask for the assessment to be looked at again, within the Child Support Agency, so as to provide a quick and relatively informal way of putting mistakes right. That first-stage review will be done by a different officer from the one who made the original decision.
  192
  Appeals from that process will go to specialist dedicated tribunals, along the lines of those which hear appeals against decisions of social security adjudication. Further appeals on points of law will go to specialist commissioners and thence to the Court of Appeal. Where the matter at issue is whether the alleged liable parent is in fact the father, the question will go, as now, to the courts for determination.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: When a reduced benefit direction is issued, will the decision on the amount and duration of that deduction be decided by the child support officer or by the existing DSS adjudication officer?
  Mr. Newton: We shall seek to give fuller definition to the circumstances in which that may occur. In the legislation, we expect to define the nature and duration of the deduction that would be made in particular circumstances. The decision about whether a deduction was appropriate would be taken by the child support officer following the review and the reconsideration that I outlined earlier. That decision will be subject to an appeal to the child support appeal tribunal. At that point, however, it would simply be a fact that the Benefits Agency would take into account in determining the appropriate rate of benefit. That is our thinking on the matter at this stage, and I hope that it is reasonably clear.
  The remaining substantial group of clauses in the Bill deal with the collection and enforcement of assessments. The House will be aware that the Maintenance Enforcement Bill now before Parliament seeks to improve the efficiency with which maintenance orders are collected and enforced by the courts by giving them a wider range of powers to order particular methods of payment when the order is made or dealt with. That reform, which, subject to parliamentary approval, will come into effect quite quickly, will be a valuable improvement to the present system.
  In framing the proposals for collection and enforcement under this new system, we have been guided by two principles. The first is that the Child Support Agency should have wide powers to come to arrangements about the payment of maintenance which suit all parties and which give reasonable assurance that payments will actually be made. As a general rule, our preferred method will be the least intrusive one possible—that is, an arrangement between the parties. Where that presents problems, however, it will be possible for payments to be made by a range of methods, including cash payments at local offices, cheque, bank transfer, or standing order. It will be possible for the agency to make orders deducting money at source from a liable person's earnings where that appears the best way in which to secure payments. Very importantly, especially in view of one point in the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, the existing arrangements whereby caring parents on income support can have their benefit paid gross will continue as now. In those cases, the agency will take responsibility for recovering maintenance.
  The second guiding principle has been that enforcement provisions should mirror those at present available for maintenance debt. Where the normal range of payment methods—including deductions from earnings—has failed, the agency will be able to apply to a magistrates court for a liability order which will permit the distraint of the liable person's goods to meet the debt. It is our

  193
  intention that the Bill will contain powers for the agency to apply, in the usual way, to the county court for garnishee and charging orders whereby money can be recovered, for example, from a liable person's bank account and from other third parties who in turn owe him money, or by a charge on the liable person's property, to meet the debt.
  As a last resort, the Bill contains a power under which the agency may apply to a magistrates court for a warrant committing a liable person to prison if his failure to pay is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. That sanction, already available under current law for maintenance default, will be used very rarely, as it is now, and only where the court is satisfied that the debtor has the means to pay but simply refuses to do so.
  Dr. Godman: It seems under clause 35 that the Government are authorising warrant sales, or the poinding process, yet are not anxious to initiate wage arrestment orders in such cases. It is important to note that clause 26 is concerned with the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to initiate or defend actions of declarator. Will the Minister confirm that, under clause 26(1)(c)—remembering the relationship of all this to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which allows for, among other things, DNA testing in certain civil cases—a DNA test could be imposed on a person who claimed not to be the parent of the child in question?
  Mr. Newton: Despite the years I have spent dealing with social security matters, 1 am reluctant to pretend to have comparable experience with the detailed provisions of Scottish law. I will remit the hon. Gentleman's question to my hon. Friend, who may answer when replying to the debate. Otherwise, one of us will write to him on what sounds like a complicated and technical point.
  Mr. Allen: I have an easier question for the right hon. Gentleman. Where a benefit reduction order is placed against a person's income support and an appeal is launched immediately, will the benefit reduction order be operative immediately, or will it be suspended until the appeal process has been exhausted? If the benefit were reduced immediately, the person concerned would suffer great hardship in the interim because of a decision which should not have been taken in the first place.
  Mr. Newton: I would expect the arrangements in that respect to be parallel with those in the most obviously roughly comparable example of voluntary unemployment deductions, where normally the deduction would not go into effect until the appeal had been heard, as it were, and overturned at that stage. We can discuss the point further in Committee, but that is what I would envisage, according to our present thinking.
  Most of the clauses to which I have not referred cover matters of technical detail, with which I will not weary the House at this stage.
  Miss Joan Lestor: The right hon. Gentleman's answer to a question I have could help me in winding up, and some of my hon. Friends in their consideration of the issues involved.
  What consideration is being given to private arrangements that are made between couples where, for example, the man—it might be the woman, but usually it is the man—has left the other spouse in the matrimonial
  194
  home with the children but pays no maintenance by arrangement? Often the man in such a case will pay no maintenance, because he may not be able to pay it, but will have the child every weekend and often in the school holidays. What consideration is being given to such private arrangements? Will they be liable to the law when they are working well and the child is being maintained, albeit not in the way in which the Bill suggests?
  Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Lady heard the recognition I gave earlier to the recent interim report of the Select Committee which dealt with some of those points and to which I said we were giving consideration. I hope it is clear that the formula takes substantial account of such circumstances because of the inclusion of reasonable housing costs. To put the point at its simplest, if the absent parent has assigned interest in the matrimonial home, other things being equal, his own reasonable housing costs will now be significantly higher than they would otherwise have been, and that will be taken into account, because his reasonable housing costs will be allowed for. That will then be reflected, in effect, in reducing the amount of maintenance that he could be expected to pay, because his reasonable housing costs will be taken into account first.
  The matter is not as simple as it has been presented in some quarters. I acknowledge that the hon. Lady will wish to comment on the subject in winding up. We shall examine carefully any points that she makes, as we shall look carefully at the report of the Select Committee. The formula seems to take account of such arrangements to a substantial extent. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady help in devising her winding-up speech. I am in a very helpful mood this afternoon.
  The Bill reforms a difficult and fragmented area of legal provision which has clearly been failing to secure the interests of children. It is based on the clear principle of ensuring, so far as we can, that parents fulfil their responsibilities to their children. It is designed to bring consistency, certainty and reliability to the financial arrangements which are one important reflection of those responsibilities. Alongside the Children Act, it is a substantial step forward in protecting the interests of children, and I commend it to the House.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while providing that absent parents should contribute to the support of their children, leaves lone parents on Income Support not one penny better off, makes lone parents worse off where they receive maintenance just above Income Support levels and thus lose access to passported benefits, allows maintenance payments to be disrupted if the absent parent defaults, does not take account of property settlements which could lead to an increase in orders for the home to be sold, leaves unclear in which cases the lone parent will be exempt from the requirement to help the agency trace the absent parent and therefore from the penalty of loss of benefit imposed on the caring parent, and does not tackle more serious problems facing lone parents and their children, notably the provision of better child care facilities.
  The Opposition strongly support the principle that absent parents should, within their means, contribute to the support of their children. Indeed, one might have assumed that that principle commanded universal acceptance. It is sad, if also ironic, that the one exception seems to be the Secretary of State's Department.

  195
  The Government are flaunting the demand that every absent father shall be forced to pay maintenance on pain of attachment of earnings or loss of benefit and that every mother on income support shall be forced to name the father or lose a sizeable chunk of the only income she has. It is sobering to discover that under the Conservatives the Department of Social Security has presided over a 50 per cent. cut in the proportion of children on benefit receiving maintenance.
  That did not happen by accident. Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, which were moved to examine the issue, put the blame explicitly on DSS neglect. Indeed, they could hardly do otherwise. The DSS had actually reduced the staff devoted to the collection of child maintenance by one third during the 1980s. So although the number of lone parents on benefit doubled, the DSS collected 9 per cent. less in real terms in 1988–89 than in 1981–82. That was why public expenditure on benefit for those children nearly tripled in real terms. The National Audit Office was clear that it was deliberate Government policy and said in its document, "Support for Lone Parent Families":
  "The National Audit Office found that among their representative sample of 42 local offices, the practice of transferring staff—
  to which the Secretary of State referred—
  "from liable relatives work to help with other pressing tasks was widespread during the period examined. In 88 per cent. of the offices in the sample, staff were withdrawn from this work to help undertake work of higher priority. Seventeen of the offices in the sample were more than 25 per cent. below their complement for liable relatives work; seven had shortfalls of over 50 per cent."
  The Public Accounts Committee was clearer still and condemned the Government outright. It said in its document, "Support for Lone Parent Families:
  "One of the main factors contributing to the steady decline in the number of lone parent families on supplementary benefit or income support also receiving maintenance has been the parallel reduction since 1981 in the resources devoted to liable relatives work by Department of Social Security local offices."
  It went on:
  "We consider that their neglect of this important area of local office activity was regrettable."
  That was in the modest language of civil service comment.
  That drift and neglect through the 1980s was interrupted only when, on new year's day 1990, the Labour party published a consultation paper proposing new procedures to enforce maintenance orders. Apparently, it shamed the Government into action. I say that because that was the opinion of a thoroughly independent source —the Daily Mail— which considered the Opposition's proposals important enough to give them the front page lead on that day. Two paragraphs are worth quoting. It said that Tory Back Benchers
  "fear the Government will be caught on the hop by Labour promises to hunt down the fathers. Opposition social security spokesman Michael Meacher has said Labour's next election manifesto will include a scheme to improve the legal and tax systems to help single mothers claim cash from their former partners".
  The Daily Mail also said:
  "But the Government has no plans to make them pay, Whitehall admitted yesterday".
  That is a significant statement coming from that source.
  Thus the Government were condemned by the auditors of public expenditure for giving child maintenance
  196
  contributions too low a priority and by their most loyalist tabloid poodle for being caught on the hop. However, it had its effect because three weeks later it prompted the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), to make a speech which included the statement:
  "No father should be able to escape from his responsibilities".
  One might have expected that, at long last, the Department for Social Security would then have allotted the enforcement of child maintenance collection the priority that everyone else agreed it should have. It is somewhat dismaying to learn that even the former Prime Minister's admonition still has not made the DSS act in line with the principle that it is proclaiming so loudly today. It is still true that, even when introducing the White Paper last October, which roundly declared that all fathers should be made to pay up, the DSS was still thoroughly laid back about the whole exercise.
  In a parliamentary question on 25 February this year I asked about the number of staff days allocated for liable relatives' work in each DSS region in the last nine months of last year—precisely the period when the Government were promoting the White Paper—and what proportion of the days allocated for that work was actually used. I was told that not one region used as much as three quarters of the days allocated for that work and that one—London south—used less than half.
  Although the central principle enunciated in the Bill is undoubtedly excellent—the Opposition have already shown their support for it—it would be helpful if the Department of Social Security acted as though it also believed it, because it has still not done so. We are concerned that the Bill is still flawed in several of its applications.
  By far the most important is the punitive approach to mothers who refuse to name the absent parent. Clause 22 of the original Bill, which enabled the Department to withdraw benefit from the lone parent if she failed to co-operate, was rightly deleted in another place. The biggest question that the Secretary of State needs to answer today is whether he intends to reintroduce a benefit deduction as a sanction on the mother to comply. Having listened to him for an hour, it is clear that he intends to do so. It is extraordinary that, a month after clause 22 was deleted, the Government—despite all the consultations about which they talk—have still not come up with a formula. That is a deplorable admission to make to the House today.
  The Opposition's view is clear. There are several reasons why that course should be vigorously opposed. One is that it is impossible for a deduction in family income of 20 per cent. of the adult personal allowance —I remind the House that that comes to £7·93 per week at current rates—to be carried out without harming the child. In some cases, it might lead to children being taken into care because the mother could no longer afford to look after them. That alone should be a decisive reason for not reintroducing that benefit reduction. Another reason is that there are a number of circumstances—other than rape or incest, which were mentioned in the original White Paper—such as domestic violence or child abuse, where the pursuit of maintenance could damage the child. Those may be covered by the formula at which the Secretary of State hinted today. A third important reason, however, is that only a very small proportion of mothers refuse to

  197
  name the father of their child. Lord Henley has already admitted in another place that the benefit savings will be extremely small. He said:
  "I would he the first to admit that the benefit savings will be insignificant".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 1991; Vol. 527, c. 544.]
  In that case, why reintroduce the clause? Why penalise a tiny number of mothers and children who have reason not to name the father when the gains to the Government are "insignificant"? That is exactly the argument used by all the relevant organisations in their letter to The Times today, of which I have a copy. They are unanimous in their support of that principle, which is why the question of consultation is so bogus.
  If the Treasury has been so dominant over the Bill as to secure and demand the reintroduction of that clause, the Secretary of State, who is a polite and generous person, has been pretty feeble in defending the interests of his clients. It is a great pity that he cannot be as rude to the Treasury as the shop-worn Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), was yesterday about poor families, whom she accused of going hungry only because they did not shop around and bought the wrong food. She shoots her mouth off about what she patently does not understand, while the Secretary of State, I suspect, understands perfectly well but cannot raise his voice enough to make his presence felt with the Treasury.
  Why are the Government so obsessed with punitive measures that will harm children? Why do the Government always give incentives to the rich but punish the poor? Why do they not provide instead an incentive to mothers to co-operate with the Child Support Agency? Why do they not provide a small disregard of maintenance for those on income support? Mothers on income support will not be a penny better off as a result of the enforced collection of maintenance under the Bill. It is curious, but typical, that the Government can afford thousands of pounds as an incentive to make Lord Hanson co-operate, but cannot afford one penny to win the co-operation of vulnerable mothers and children.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: 'Will the hon. Gentleman make clear exactly what he means by a small amount? Has he costed the process and would his suggestion be a definite Labour commitment?
  Mr. Meacher: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as there will be an election between now and the full implementation of the Bill—certainly before the Child Support Agency is set up and running—there will be a significant number of changes. We do not believe in a punitive social policy, but we believe in incentives—not only for people who are well off, which is fair enough, but for those members of society who are less well endowed and less privileged. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] We are discussing the Government's Bill—that is what is before the House, and I shall continue to talk about it.
  Mr. Newton: That is all very well, but the hon. Gentleman is speaking to a motion which has been formally put on the Order Paper and which contains the proposal to which he has adverted. We are entitled to know whether an income support disregard—the cost of
  198
  which would run into tens of millions of pounds—is or is not an official Labour party policy commitment. Is it a priority?
  Mr. Meacher: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. I said that in our social policy we do not believe in punishing people, but in giving them incentives. He cannot be right in fantasising about the cost because he can have no idea about the level at which the disregard might operate. If one provides a firm base on which the lone parent can build, there is a far greater possibility—particularly in conjunction with other measures to which I shall refer—that as long as his or her children are not very young, the lone parent will be able to get back to work and the cost to the taxpayer in the medium and long run will be less, not more.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred vaguely to the formula of harm and distress. In another place, Lord Henley, also referred to it and I shall rehearse to the House the phrase used by Lord Henley about a month ago. He said:
  "If we were reasonably satisfied that the consequences might harm or distress the caring parent or her children, or something of that kind, that would be the trigger for the Secretary of State not to require co-operation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 May 1991; Vol. 528, c. 1777.]
  As the Government have not come up with a formula since then, we are entitled to ask for a clear answer to a number of questions because the Government have certainly had long enough to think about it. What exactly is included in the phrase, "harm and distress", particularly as the Minister in the other place also referred to something of that kind? Presumably, the phrase includes domestic violence. But does it include the threat of violence? How will that be proved, particularly if the claim is challenged?
  The Public Accounts Committee was certainly aware of the intention of the DSS to increase liable relatives work. It said:
  "We recommend too that the Department monitor the way in which this work is undertaken to ensure that the pressure on officers to achieve a substantial increase in maintenance recoveries does not lead to undue pressure being put on lone parents to co-operate in liable relatives work."
  How will the Secretary of State avoid undue pressure being brought to bear? Whether we use the formula suggested or another one, there will clearly be a demand from the Treasury and from DSS headquarters to increase maintenance recoveries. How is undue pressure to be avoided?
  Does the Secretary of State accept that fine judgments will be required and a heavy burden of responsibility will fall on social security officers in a sphere which, we all understand, is one of intimate and complex human relationships? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his officials—fine body of persons though they no doubt are —can exercise that degree of sensitivity, given the experience that we have all had of the social fund in the past three years? If he is satisfied, all I can say is that many of us beg leave to doubt his confidence.
  Is giving information for maintenance pursuit a condition of benefit receipt? There seems to be some genuine uncertainty about that. Perhaps we could be told in the wind-up speech whether the Secretary of State will publish revised guidance to DSS officials so that the legal process is made quite clear.
  Having expressed our strong opposition both to the right hon. Gentleman's craven retention of benefit

  199
  deduction as a form of sanction and the specific formula that he seems to have in mind, I turn to the maintenance formula in the Bill, which has several faults. First, it is regressive and does not ensure that those on lower incomes pay least, which we believe is an essential requirement. The absent father of a child under five who earns £120 per week net might, under the formula, typically pay about 27 per cent. of that income, while a father with £350 assessed income—nearly three times as much—would pay a significantly lower proportion at about 21 per cent. The Bill is wrong in that the 15 per cent. illustrative deduction level—I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman says that the figure could well be above 15 per cent., so let us assume that it is about 20 per cent.—for those who can afford more than the basic maintenance bill is clearly insufficient to ensure that the child shares the absent parent's living standards. But surely the philosophy of child maintenance in family law is that it has always contained a relationship to the standard of living that the child would have enjoyed. We strongly object to the fact that the Government are tying maintenance too closely to income support levels.
  At the other end of the scale, the Bill is as harsh on low-earner absent parents as it is lax on high earners. If there is to be an incentive to work, the protected income needs to include work-related expenses as well as some significant reward for working, but it does not. If the protected income is not set at a high enough level, many second families may well end up living below the subsistence level of income support—a point that appeared to be lost on the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), and I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not make more of that. Clause 35 deliberately creates that result by requiring absent parents on income support to contribute a proportion—it might be 5 per cent.—of their benefit in maintenance. To impose that on every unemployed father who clearly cannot afford it when, in the past, the DSS has been so negligent in collecting it from those who clearly can afford it surely smacks more of Thatcherite dogmatism than of workable social policy.
  We believe that the principles of financial liability towards children should be recognised, but we also believe that the deduction should be zero rated—to use a phrase that is coming into the trade—while the absent father remains on income support. One of the most worrying aspects of the Bill is the way in which it will contribute further to a disturbing proliferation of deductions from benefit. There are already almost half a million claimants who are forced to live below income support subsistence levels due to social fund loan repayments. Some 250,000 are forced to live below those levels because of deductions for gas and electricity arrears, about 50,000 suffer because of poll tax liability orders, and 150,000 suffer because of deductions of pay off rent and water charge arrears. There are also those who are subject to the so-called voluntary unemployment deduction, which operates for up to six months at a time. That accounts for more than 1 million people who are compelled to live below income support levels, and the Secretary of State is adding to the list by including those who will pay deductions for maintenance. The list is far too big already. It should be cut and certainly not be increased.
  200
  Enforcement will be crucial to this enterprise, and in that respect the Bill has a number of weaknesses. Deduction from earnings orders can be evaded by changing employment. Payment by the self-employed cannot be ensured when for them deduction from earnings is an inappropriate measure. Surely the simplest, most cost-effective and reliable means of ensuring maintenance for the caring parent would be for the DSS to provide guaranteed maintenance payments. The DSS already does that in some cases, and Sweden and a number of states in the United States operate a guaranteed maintenance system. Why cannot such a system be made available for all lone parents in the United Kingdom? That is the only certain way to ensure that a lone parent who has used increased maintenance as a springboard to return to work will not be forced to give up the job as soon as the absent parent defaults on maintenance.
  Why is such a system not in the Bill? I suspect that it is because once again the Bill is not so much about ensuring that lone parents get their maintenance as ensuring that the Treasury gets a reduction in public expenditure.
  If the DSS provided guaranteed maintenance payments it would have to be sure that the Bill's enforcement procedures were effective, but they are nowhere near watertight. Child maintenance is thought to be relevant to about 2 million families, and each year our courts handle only 4 per cent. of that total in maintenance enforcement cases. Therefore, the Child Support Agency will have a vast clientele. The only effective instrument of enforcement is the Inland Revenue. Automatic maintenance deductions could be made by changing tax codes, and that would make it much harder for the liable person to avoid payment by switching jobs.
  I take no credit for originality, because such a system has been adopted in Australia and has a high level of compliance. Why is it not in the Bill? I suspect that it is because of the inveterate intransigence of the Inland Revenue in refusing to become involved in what it always regards as marginal and messy social policy. I may be wrong about that; if I am the right hon. Gentleman can put me right. Whatever the reason, the failure to use Inland Revenue tax coding, which is the only really effective instrument against evasive fathers who consistently fail to pay or who regularly move both job and home, is a huge gap at the centre of the Bill.
  We are concerned about other serious issues in the Bill, but I can deal with them only briefly. I shall mention two. Ministers have argued, perhaps rather curiously, that there is no connection between what happens to the family home and the provisions of the Bill. The Secretary of State said that housing expenditure could be exempt. If the new system does not allow substitution, there will be a real risk that more absent parents will insist on the home being sold. That would certainly place great strains on the child and the caring parent and, possibly, on the local authority which could have an obligation to rehouse. Despite what the Secretary of State said at the end of his speech, it is worrying that the Bill does not provide for cash maintenance payments to be reduced where a property transfer is agreed.
  Another problem is that, while the Bill proposes that caring parents on low wages who claim family credit will get a £15 maintenance disregard, it does not begin to address the real obstacles in making the transition from home to work. A lone parent who stays at home on income support and gets her mortgage payments covered does not

  201
  receive that benefit in family credit if she goes to work. The Bill says nothing about the shortage and the cost of suitable child care for the lone parent who tries to get a job.
  The Bill is useful, and to that extent we welcome it, but its detail and application are seriously flawed. It enshrines a principle that we strongly support, but it would gain considerable credibility if the Secretary of State and his Department were already acting in a way that suggested that they also believed strongly in that principle. It addresses the problem of lone parenthood, the solution to which is a major deficiency in the area of social policy, but it does it in a halfhearted and lopsided way. It reflects priority for the interests of the Treasury rather than for the welfare of the mother and child and it requires substantial amendment and improvement. For those reasons, we shall vote in support of our reasoned amendment.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) quoted from the Daily Mail which reported that the Government had been caught on the hop. We were not caught on the hop, but it is right to say that millions of taxpayers throughout the United Kingdom must foot the bill for other people's children. I support the Bill because many of those taxpayers have wives and children of their own, and many of them earn a great deal less than the parent who has abandoned his children. That cannot be fair, right or just and we must do something about it.
  Only lone parents who are receiving social security benefits will be required to name the father, and about three quarters of them already do. There are some reasons for exempting them from doing that, but I shall not give them publicity because some people would quickly play the system.
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) never does that.
  Mr. Dickens: No. There are certainly avenues of exemption, but they are few.
  Absent parents must accept responsibility for their children, and the Bill supports the children. Maintenance payments help the lone parent, even if she is on income support. I use the word "she", as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did, because we know that most of those involved are lone mothers and just a small percentage are lone fathers. Nevertheless, the principle applies in both directions. It would be easier for a lone mother than a lone father to enter employment, particularly as £15 a week of maintenance will be ignored for calculating entitlement to family credit, community charge benefit or housing benefit. No reference has been made so far to the fact that the number of hours worked which qualifies a person for family credit will be reduced from 24 to 16. That will be a tremendous help.
  The main thrust of the Bill is that all parents should honour their responsibilities to their children by paying a reasonable amount towards their upkeep. Why do we say a reasonable amount? At the moment, the maintenance system operates through different courts and the DSS. Let me recite a little story. Research has revealed that in different parts of the United Kingdom there were two fathers with identical circumstances. Each had one child and each earned £150 a week. The judgment in one court was that the father should pay £5 maintenance towards his
  202
  child. In the other court the judgment was that the father should pay £50. That difference is absolutely absurd. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that the median time to produce a maintenance award varies from 48 days in a magistrates court to 131 days in a county court.
  Under the current system, there is no automatic way of reviewing awards. Yet, as children grow older, they cost more to feed and to clothe. The income of one or both parents may change over time and, of course, prices change. In two fifths of cases the payment of the award falls into arrears. The full amount of arrears is recovered in only 23 per cent. of cases where the DSS takes action. Enforcement can take six weeks or more.
  In 1989 only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers received regular child maintenance. In 1989 only 23 per cent. of lone parents receiving income support received child maintenance payments. In 1979 the figure was 50 per cent. Although absent parents as a group have lower average incomes than the population at large, there is evidence that higher maintenance awards could be afforded in some cases. Maintenance awards represent only about 11 per cent. of the total net income of absent parents on above average incomes.
  We are talking about numbers. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West rightly said, it is estimated that child maintenance is an issue for 2 million families. The proposals are expected to ensure that about 200,000 more lone parents receive regular child maintenance payments once the new system is fully operational. The Government have already increased the target amount of maintenance to be recovered from —180 million in 1989–90—a target which has been achieved—to —260 million for 1990–91. It is forecast that in the fullness of time we may save the taxpayer about —400 million. That is a lot of money.
  Under the Child Support Bill, maintenance will be calculated according to a formula outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. An analysis of that formula reveals four elements. The first element is a maintenance requirement. That represents the day-to-day expenses of maintaining children and it is the sum which all parents should pay if they can afford to do so. The maintenance requirement consists of income support allowances which would be paid for the children and for the parent who is responsible for their care if the family had no other income.
  The second element is exempt income and applies for each parent. It represents the income that the parent keeps for his own essential expenses before any maintenance payments are calculated. That is the first charge on each parent's income and takes precedence over any contribution to maintenance. In fairness to the child's needs, it is therefore right that the sum consists only of essential expenditure. We must remember that when one partner leaves home he often has another partner who has children and there is no sense in making both families dependent on social security benefits. We must strike the right balance and the Government and their advisers believe that this formula does so. The exempt income comprises the cost of caring for the natural children when they are living with their parents and the day-to-day living expenses and housing costs of the liable parents.
  The third element is the rate of deduction from the assessable income, which ensures that absent parents contribute reasonable amounts towards their children's upkeep as soon as they can afford to do so. That is important. Maintenance will be deducted only from

  203
  assessable income, which is total income after tax, national insurance contributions and the absent parent's basic living and housing expenses. For that reason, the Government want the remaining assessable income to be shared equally between the children and the absent parent until the maintenance bill is paid.
  The final element is a protected level of income. That means that a person who is liable to pay maintenance and is not receiving income support will keep enough of his or her income to ensure that it remains above income support levels even after maintenance payments have been made. Those elements are a protection and the Child Support Agency will work closely to that formula. The system will not be hit and miss as it has been through the courts. There will be consistency, and that is important.
  The maintenance requirement does not fix the maximum amount of child maintenance that should be paid. Once the requirement is met, the liable parent should pay something above that amount so that the children can share in their parents' standard of living. About one in four parents will meet the maintenance requirement in full in the first instance. As liable parents tend to be younger than the working population in general, and as real incomes tend to rise over time, it is to be expected that many other liable parents will be able to meet the requirement in full. However, once the maintenance requirement is met, the rate of deduction from assessable income will be reduced. There will also be an overall limit above which the formula will cease to apply.
  We have not heard much so far about pounds, shillings and pence. The formula is designed to produce an average child maintenance assessment of about —40 a week. The average assessment in the current system is about —25 a week. In about 25 per cent. of cases the maintenance requirement will be paid in full. It is expected that the maintenance requirement generally will represent some 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the absent parent's take-home pay and about 20 per cent. of his or her gross income when all the deductions have been taken.
  Under the new system there will be virtually no need for the application of discretion or for a process of bargaining or negotiation. Those of us who have sat as magistrates in juvenile courts have heard bargaining and negotiations going on. We have heard the false promises and so on. The process is lengthy, promises are not always met and people have to be brought back to court. We should now dismiss any discretion because the formula is laid down. The Government plan to transfer responsibility for the assessment of maintenance to the new Child Support Agency. That will relieve the courts of a heavy case load and avoid the increase that would take place when annual reviews of maintenance are introduced.
  The functions of the agency will be to provide information and advice to the public on how the formula works and how to make a claim for child maintenance, and on its services. It will certainly help a number of Members of Parliament when that is accurately spelt out. The agency will identify and trace liable persons if their whereabouts are unknown. It will become skilful at that. There are now many more ways of tracing people than there were years ago. People can be traced not only through community charge lists, but through medical lists, dental lists and polling lists.
  204
  The agency will also obtain information on the incomes and circumstances of the parents of the child for whom maintenance is claimed. It will also assess maintenance to be paid by applying the rules that are laid down. It will make an estimated assessment in the absence of all the required information. That will be tricky, but the agency will become experienced. The agency will notify both parents of the assessment in the absence of all the required information. It will record and monitor payments made where appropriate, take appropriate enforcement action at an early date when payments are not made—a point that worried the hon. Member for Oldham, West—review the assessment at regular intervals and present the facts when an appeal against assessment is made.
  Hon. Members heard a list of places where it appeared likely that the Government would set up the agencies, but the agency will have a number of processing centres throughout the United Kingdom, each with up to about 500 staff processing applications, tracing clients and calculating complicated assessments. According to information that I have been able to glean, the agency's total staff is thought likely to number about 5,000. Over a period, the agency will take on all cases where a lone parent is receiving income support or family credit. Others will be able to use it for a fee.
  Briefly, almost in conclusion—I was hoping that some of you would intervene so that I could make a longer speech, but you have left me alone—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Not me.
  Mr. Dickens: Not you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, except when you were blowing your nose.
  Over a period, the agency will take on responsibility for assessing and reviewing child maintenance claims. The courts will continue to have jurisdiction over related matters which arise when parents separate or divorce. Such matters include residence of and contact with children, disputed paternity and spousal maintenance. Those are matters on which we could not ask an agency to rule. They must be judged by a court—there is no other way of doing it. If somebody says, "I was not the father of that child," the only place to settle the matter is in court with evidence being presented by both sides. Obviously, we do not want the Government, the Secretary of State or his junior Ministers to be involved in deciding whether somebody is the father of a child.
  The courts will also deal with contact and maintenance. Both issues must be decided by reference to the interests of the child. However, the Government believe that those otherwise two separate issues should be decided on the basis of rather different criteria. There can be no direct connection between those issues.
  Mr. Frank Field: Full stop.
  Mr. Allen: Next, please.
  Mr. Dickens: Opposition Members are being mischievous. I have several more pages of notes, but I have a reputation for being a fair man and many hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate.
  In conclusion, it is fortunate that the Government have introduced this Bill. It is absolutely outrageous that a man can walk out on a women with a child, start another relationship and have no concern or care for his own child, leaving the women to get on with it. All parents should

  205
  take responsibility for their children. The taxpayer should be relieved of the burden. The Bill is in the interests of mothers, children and, certainly, taxpayers.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: The only thing that I share with the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is his distrust of the court system in settling maintenance matters. However, the hon. Gentleman said that this measure will save the taxpayer many millions of pounds. That statement goes to the root of Conservative Members' thinking—it is a matter not of child support but of how much the taxpayer can be saved. The hon. Gentleman's approach has been far too simplistic in a complicated and emotional issue.
  I enjoyed the speech of the Secretary of State. It was a very caring speech. The Department of Social Security has genuinely attempted to deal with an extremely knotty and difficult question to the best of its ability. I listened to the equally caring speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I like the principles of the Bill. I like what the Secretary of State has done, and I like what the Government are doing.
  I understand why my hon. Friend moved his reasoned amendment. I wish that it had not been a reasoned amendment because I support what the Government are trying to do. I wish that we were not voting tonight and that we could put matters right in Committee and on Report. If the fact that we shall vote on a reasoned amendment, which I shall support because I agree with my hon. Friend, gives some power to the elbow of the Secretary of State for Social Security against the Treasury, it is well worth doing so. My hon. Friend is right: the Treasury's influence in this matter casts doubt on the excellent intentions of the Bill and of the White Paper.
  Twenty years ago, before I came to this House, I was a solicitor. I dealt with many matrimonial and maintenance cases—gruesome cases indeed for any caring person to deal with. My experience is shared by every hon. Member. Some of the most difficult cases with which we must deal in our surgeries relate to custody and maintenance. All hon. Members deal with such difficult cases, irrespective of party affiliation. I congratulate the Government on at least making an attempt to tackle the problem.
  As a very young Back Bencher, I was lucky enough to move a private Member's motion on this very issue. That was in 1966 or 1967. I said that all maintenance payments should be made through what was then the Department of Health and Social Security, and that such matters should not be brought before the courts. My own Front Bench divided the House on the grounds of cost and rights, and I was opposed by all sorts of people. The Government are introducing similar provisions now, and I believe that they are right to do so.
  Let us make no mistake about it: this is not just a matter of statistics; it involves the group in the most acute poverty and deprivation in this country today—the single-parent family. We are dealing with one of the most emotional matters of which one could possibly conceive. We are talking about love turned to hatred, and about hatred and fear. There is fear in courts when mothers fear that they might lose their children.
  Hitherto, such matters have almost invariably gone through the magistrates courts, but to the average citizen the magistrates court is a criminal court. Although the
  206
  mother is there on behalf of her family, she feels that she is going to a building that administers the criminal law and in doing so is going against her husband. The husband feels bitter that his wife is branding him a criminal by taking him to a criminal court.
  The most terrible thing of all is if the children are old enough to be involved in the case and to attend the court, because they see their parents fighting over them in a place that deals with criminal law, not family law. In their wisdom on this matter, the Government are taking us away from that system and away from the courts. I can forgive many of the Bill's defects for that very reason, although I hope that those defects will be amended in Committee or on Report.
  If there is any attempt in this House to reintroduce a penalty clause, I hope that the other place will reject it again and again. Their Lordships were right to reject the provisions of the original clause 22. They were independent of the Treasury, took a balanced view and acted according to their consciences. I hope that they will do so again if the Government are misguided enough to force through the equivalent of that clause 22. This is always a matter of acute emotion.
  Dr. Godman: In view of my right hon. Friend's legal training and experience, may I ask him whether a woman who is appealing against a decision would have the right to legal aid?
  Mr. Oakes: I have not practised for 20 years, so I cannot advise my hon. Friend. However, I hope that such a woman would have the right to legal aid; otherwise, she will be in an impossible position. If she had to represent herself, realistically, she would not then be able to contest the matter.
  The Government have some difficulties with the Bill, but we would have similar difficulties if we were in government. Indeed, any Government would have difficulties: this is a difficult matter. I believe that about one in three marriages in this country end in divorce. That is a terrifying figure. Many of those marriages result in children, so children are involved in divorce.
  From my experience, which I am sure is shared by all hon. Members, divorce is rarely a matter of black and white. It is rarely a case of the husband being wholly wrong and the wife being wholly right, or vice versa. It is often six of one and half a dozen of the other, or some other proportion. One of the divorced parties may get married again, cohabit or form another relationship. That is perfectly legal.
  I was a little doubtful about what the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth would do with such people. Any Government must accept that remarriages or subsequent relationships happen. It is all very well to watch "Dallas" on television or to watch Hollywood films and to see American millionaires who have two, three or four wives, but the fact remains that the average working or middle-class person in this country cannot afford adequately to keep two families. That is the truth of a high divorce rate, and the Government, the House and the nation must accept that.
  It is a difficult job being a Member of Parliament, but I would not like to be a child support officer. It will be a virtually impossible job. The child support officer will have to decide whether to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is no use the House saying that the family of the first marriage should

  207
  be so adequately maintained that the family of the second marriage faces deprivation. We are talking not about punishment, but about children, their rights and support for them. That is the central issue that the Government are trying to tackle and, having listened to the Secretary of State, I am certain that they are trying to do so in a balanced way.
  I know that the Government have been criticised about the regulations. I would give a lot of discretion to the child support officers and would not tie them down with too many regulations. Although the Treasury would not like that and people would criticise the system because of it, I would give those officers that discretion. They will face such manifold variations that no Secretary of State or civil servant can lay down regulations that will meet all the situations that they will encounter.
  The Secretary of State suggested, probably at the behest of the Treasury, that he would reintroduce some provisions along the lines of the original clause 22. I hope that the Government will be lenient if they do so. If not, as I have said, I hope that the other place will throw them out.
  Apart from the reasons given in the White Paper, such as the obvious and clear-cut examples of rape and incest, there are many reasons why a woman will not disclose the name of her child's father. Let us take an example from the best end of the scale. A woman may have had an affair with a married man who has a family. The woman may not apply for maintenance because she does not want to break up that family. That is not vindictiveness or lack of co-operation; it is compassion. It would cost the nation and the Department a lot more money if the woman were to name that father.
  Let us now consider the position of a youngster who was a little under age when she conceived—I have had all these cases in my constituency. The father was a brilliant student, going on to university. The young woman did not take any action, because she did not want to blight his career. She was not acting out of cowardice or trying to sponge off the system. The sort of question that the child support officers will have to consider is, was the woman's refusal to name the father simple wilfulness or compassion and kindness?
  Some women will not apply for maintenance because they fear that it will give the father the right of access and custody when they do not want him to have it. The woman loves the child and does not want him or her under the influence of the father. I am not talking about sexual abuse —just about an influence being brought to bear on the child that the mother does not want. Such a woman may refuse to reveal the name of the father.
  At what we could call "the bad end of the scale", a promiscuous girl may have a baby without even knowing who the father is. We must remember that we are talking not about the mother, but about the child. The Bill deals with providing adequate maintenance for children. The Government should not take £7-odd off a woman who may be acting with the best of motives.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, we should look at the Australian and Swedish systems and at what happens in other countries which are facing the same problem but which have found a far better solution to it.
  208
  I found particularly upsetting a recent constituency case which I submitted to the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether the reply came from him or from his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I have a constituent—I shall call her Mrs. N., because I do not want to reveal the family—a grandmother, living in Widnes, whose daughter died when she was 26. Her daughter was married and her husband had never contributed a penny in maintenance to either the child whom the case concerned or to another child. In that caring family, the grandmother looked after her grandchild, Leanne, and another daughter who lived in another part of my constituency looked after the other child.
  The grandmother came to see me about a guardian's allowance, and I wrote to the Secretary of State. She could not obtain a guardian's allowance because, on her own admission, the father, although he had never contributed a penny, was still alive. He had been to the mother's funeral, but she did not know where he lived except that it was somewhere in Liverpool. The grandmother was refused a guardian's allowance, and it was suggested that she consulted a solicitor and start proceedings against the father. The mind boggles at the idea of her being able to do it. I am not even sure whether she would be eligible for legal aid.
  I hope that, in such acute cases of guardianship, where the child is in effect an orphan because one parent is dead and the other has never maintained the child, under the new system, if the Department of Social Security fail to find the father and to obtain an order against him, a guardianship allowance will automatically be paid to a grandmother, aunt or sister, or whoever it may be. That person, quite apart from keeping the family together and keeping the child within the love of that family, is saving the Department and the country tens of thousands of pounds a year which it would cost if that child were put in care.
  I hope that, within the tight rules of guardianship allowances, if the Department fails to find a father and to obtain an order against him, a guardianship allowance will automatically be paid to the person within the family who is caring for the child.
  I welcome the Bill. I will vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West tonight, because there are defects in it, but I wish the Bill and the Secretary of State well. I wish that we had done this years ago. This is a good Bill, which will affect for the better hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of people in Britain.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). I congratulate him on his speech and his welcome to the Bill. He made an excellent speech, in contrast with the poor one made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He spoke with great feeling and sincerity and with long experience from his time as a solicitor of the acute deprivation, the emotional problems and the hatreds and fears which develop in these cases.
  The Opposition's only real criticism of the Bill is that it was not introduced earlier. The Government can take full credit for doing now what people might have liked to see done earlier, but we are looking at many changes in society.

  209
  The Family Policy Study Centre has set out clearly many of the changes that are occurring. The right hon. Gentleman said that one in three marriages ended in divorce. The centre says:
  "If present trends continue almost four out of 10 new marriages will end in divorce and in future between one in four and one in five children will experience their parents' divorce before they reach 16."
  How children are brought up is the hallmark of any civilised society and the Bill directs itself to that by bringing about a sense of responsibility. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said when she was Prime Minister, no father should escape responsibility for his children. That is why this is such a good Bill which has met with agreement on both sides. I am only sorry that the Opposition intend to divide the House on it today.
  I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not reply when I asked what exactly was the small disregard that the Labour party wanted on maintenance payments. I do not think that it has thought that through. If it had, it would have specific figures. As I understand it, if it thought that £7·50 was an appropriate figure, the cost would be £100 milion. Is that the figure that it has in mind? A disregard of £15 a week would cost £180 million. We need to be clear about the Labour party's thinking on that.
  The fallacy of the Opposition's thinking was apparent when the hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about the need for an incentive in relation to maintenance payments. The incentive must be that offered by the Government which is to help those mothers who want to work to obtain work by providing a £15 a week maintenance disregard for people who would be entitled to family credit. As well as economic benefits there are social benefits for single mothers who want to work which gives them the opportunity to make new contacts. Every mother faces the dilemma of deciding how much time to spend looking after her children and how much time to spend making other contact & which a single mother in particular needs, but there is no reason why the Labour party should simply think about incentives in terms of maintenance payments. What is the incentive for? Is the incentive just for the mother to be honest? Is that what the Labour party thinks the incentives are needed for?
  A table published by the Family Policy Study Centre gives reasons for not wanting to give names and addresses to the Department of Social Security under the present arrangement. It shows that 30 per cent. of single mothers want no more to do with the former partner, 28 per cent. do not know where he or she is, and 14 per cent. do not want to cause a problem for the partner. I should not have thought that those were reasons which needed some sort of incentive for the mother to come forward with a name. Fear of violence, which is a real factor, is given as a reason by only 4 per cent. Obviously, there are others making up the 100 per cent. But clearly there are no real reasons there for an incentive.
  It is important that the Government should allow a lot of discretion if clause 22 is included in the Bill. It is right that it should be there as a deterrent, but it is not something that we want to see used. Perhaps the Labour party has difficulty in understanding that argument as it has failed to understand the importance of a deterrent in other areas. We need a deterrent even though it is used only in the rarest circumstances. I agree with the right hon. Member for Halton that a great deal of latitude should be
  210
  given to officers who have to work in that area so that they can use their discretion and not apply the sanction unless it is really necessary.
  The mere fact that a sanction exists would be a safeguard for the mother because it would mean that she could not be accused by the father of having given his name to the Child Support Agency just on a whim. She could say that she had to do it or she would have lost her benefit. One would have to take the greatest care where there was any danger of violence, but we need not worry about including clause 22 on that basis. There have been cases of violence, but I imagine that they occur anyway. One could not argue that the violence occurred just because the mother had given a name to the Child Support Agency.
  I am not sure whether the mother needs to give an address. It must be possible for the Department of Social Security to trace people using just the name with perhaps some information about where the person used to live or work. It must be possible to trace people by their national insurance number, without necessarily knowing their address.
  The centre's figures show also that the number of lone parent families has increased from 500,000 in 1971 to more than 1 million today. Only one in 10 of them are headed by a man. More than half are headed by divorced or separated mothers, and single, unmarried mothers make up another 250,000 of the total. More than 1·6 million children—one in eight of all dependent children—are members of lone parent families. It is estimated that between one fifth and one quarter of all children will at one time live with a lone parent.
  Lone parents head one in six families with dependent children, which is double the number 20 years ago. Divorce is the biggest cause of the increase. Seventy Iwo per cent. of lone mothers were found to be claiming income support, but 85 per cent. had received income support payments at some time since becoming a lone parent. The proportion of lone parents claiming income support who also receive maintenance payments fell from 50 per cent. in 1979 to 23 per cent. currently. The cost of social security benefits to lone parents is calculated to be £3·2 billion in 1988–89, compared with £1·4 billion in 1981–82.
  We must do all that we can to impart a sense of responsibility at an early age. Many health workers in my own constituency feel that such a sense of responsibility should be imparted even to primary school children. Bolton health authority reports that there were 64 pregnancies in girls of school age in 1989, compared with 62 in 1985. That demonstrates the need to instil a sense of responsibility at an early age.
  One case involves a boy of 14 who is in care, and who has just fathered a child. I am not sure whether the Child Support Agency will have powers to pursue the parents of such a boy. Mention has been made of the arrangements in Australia. In Switzerland, welfare arrangements include the extended family. One should be able to look to the parents of such young fathers to accept responsibility for contributing to the maintenance of children born to school-age mothers. A sense of responsibility must be instilled into the extended family as well as into the individual.
  I wish the Bill well, and I am glad that the Opposition support it in principle. It is perhaps a sad reflection on current trends that it is necessary to introduce such

  211
  legislation now because of the increase in the number of lone parent families. Clause 22 should be reinstated, but only as a deterrent to be used in rare cases. A woman could use the provisions of that clause as a reason why she divulged the father's name. There should be no need for a payment to encourage such honesty, which is what the Opposition, with their half-baked thinking, are suggesting.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made an interesting speech about the need to instil enlightenment and responsibility into our youngsters, even at the early stages of their schooling. Society is not doing enough to encourage a responsible attitude towards parenthood.
  I am frightened by the nature of the debate so far, in two particular respects. I am nervous that we seem to be accepting that nothing can be done about the increase in marital breakdowns. It is difficult for Governments to become involved in what are really family matters. If the Government do interfere, they must do so with great care, in legislating on relationships between individuals. However, I hope that no one will argue that it is impossible to stem the increase in family breakdowns, which are not in the interests of society or the Department. The Minister knows better than most that, in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, every saved marriage saves the state a lot of money.
  The Department's responsibilities are limited to maintenance enforcement and maintenance payments, but I hope that the Government will not lose sight of the fact that it should be possible to introduce measures to support the family and to prevent marriages from breaking down. Moving towards a system of administrative law is fraught with difficulties. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said that the court system does not work. Only this week, I encountered the case of a lady who has been waiting six months for maintenance payments to be obtained from her husband, who walked out on her six months ago, and who is now earning a handsome wage in London.
  It might be possible to expedite matters within the legal system. Family courts could be one way. I agree that it is inappropriate to drag marriages through magistrates courts or sheriff courts. As a former practising solicitor, I hold the view that the adversarial efforts of the respective spouses' solicitors can make matters worse. However, a family court could act with greater sensitivity and urgency in establishing the parents' rights and circumstances. I hope that the Government will not give up either on finding ways to save marriages.
  The concept behind the Bill—which is that parents should be responsible for their children's maintenance—is entirely unexceptionable. It is only right and proper that we should support it. No father should escape his responsibilities. However, perhaps the Department has adopted a somewhat knee-jerk approach. Civil servants will always look for a quick administrative fix, but in doing so they may create difficulties for the child support officers for which the Bill provides in making its provisions operate smoothly and successfully. Although the court
  212
  situation has disadvantages, at least a magistrate or judge can use his discretion within the law in a way that child support officers will not be able to do.
  I support the argument that the Bill's provisions should be implemented on a voluntary basis. That is the only sensible way in which civil servants will have any chance of acting effectively.
  Dr. Godman: Given his experience of social security matters in Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman envisage representation by lawyers for those caught up in the appeals procedure—perhaps through the granting of legal aid—or does he expect them to be represented by local welfare rights officers, as happens with social security appeal tribunals?
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is an important point. Certainly nothing in the Bill suggests to me that legal aid will suddenly become available to those who appeal—although, as a former practising solicitor, I feel that that would be right and proper.
  The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of a point that I sought to make when considering the possibility of family courts being used as an alternative route. If legal aid were made available and sensitive arrangements involving family courts were introduced, the Bill might not even be necessary.
  I would be "dumfoon'art"—as we say in my part of the world—if the Minister confirmed that legal aid would be available. I think that single parents will be forced to argue their own cases, or—as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has suggested—forced to rely on citizens advice bureaux and welfare rights officers to try to make the best of a bad job on their behalf.
  I should be interested to know where the £400 million saving will come from. Let us leave aside the political argument about the Treasury. The Secretary of State said that he thought that £200 million was generated each year by the liable relative section of the Department of Social Security. Is the £400 million saving mentioned in the explanatory memorandum in addition to that sum? If so, I should like to know how it is possible to make such an estimate.
  Will there be any way of judging the success of the agency in meeting the target set for it? Will this free-standing agency be able to advert each spring, when the public expenditure White Paper is published, to the amount that it has saved the Treasury? That, surely, would be fiendishly difficult. I should like to know—I should be satisfied with a letter—how the figures have been arrived at, and how we can measure the success of the agency.
  Given my experience as a country solicitor involved in family law, I am very nervous about the relationship that will be established in the mind of an estranged parent between the legislation and the right of access. Let us suppose that I am an estranged father. An enforcement officer knocks at my door. I have not seen my children for five or 10 years—perhaps by mutual consent, following a substantial falling-out with my wife during traumatic divorce proceedings.
  If I am being dinned for, say, £10 per week, the first thing that I will do is knock on my solicitor's door and ask for an order for access. The court has next to no discretion —and nor should it have: if I am a natural parent, no court in the land can reasonably deny me access to my natural children. That, however, is rarely in the child's best

  213
  interests. The motivation for gaining access is entirely wrong: the aim is to get back at the mother—the estranged wife—who has fingered me, the estranged father, and set the child enforcement bureaucracy on me.
  What, then, can I do? One option open to me is entirely malicious. I would not endorse such an action on anyone's part, but it is bound to happen: indeed, it happens already in the course of divorce proceedings. If the Government do not recognise that, they are storing up a good many problems for women who may have to endure knocks on the door from husbands to whom they happily waved goodbye 10 years earlier.
  Mr. Frank Field: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what he has just told us? He has said that his action would not be in the child's interest, because his motive would be wrong. Now that that has been repeated slowly, can he see what nonsense it is? People do many things with the wrong motives, but that does not necessarily mean that the outcome will be bad.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am speaking from experience. I hayed acted in innumerable such cases, invariably representing women who want nothing whatever to do with their former husbands.
  Mr. Field: It is different for the child.
  Mr. Kirkwood: No, it is not. The mother becomes so upset that the child's interests are adversely affected. The mother is knocked right off balance. She has made her own life; she has got that man out of her hair, often after violence and cruelty. As soon as he comes back through the door, the relationship between the two of them will translate itself to the child in an inimical way. I have often seen that happen. I fear that the Bill will drive husbands to act for all the wrong reasons, and if it does it is not worth the candle: it will cause more trouble than it is worth.
  I hope that the Government will heed the succinct and powerful arguments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Clause 22 is indeed a big mistake: if enacted, it would penalise parents. The Social Security Advisory Committee has argued the case as powerfully as anyone. I also hope that the exemptions, and extended scope for exemptions, that the Secretary of State has announced will indeed come to pass. Any wife who has been able to procure a divorce on the basis of unreasonable behaviour on the part of her husband should be exempted automatically: by definition, the court would not have given her a divorce on that ground unless it was satisfied that unreasonable behaviour had indeed been dished out to her.
  I am nervous about the extension of the inspectors' powers. I know that, in some respects, they are equivalent to the powers available to national insurance fund officers, but I do not think that that in itself is a reason for the House to allow, willy-nilly, a further extension of fairly draconian powers without paying close attention to the implications.
  I hope that I have persuaded the Government that there is a long way to go. If they are determined to take the administrative route, rather than favouring a family court with proper support and legal aid, they must be very careful. In my view, they can implement the Bill sensibly, with the backing of the House, only if they adopt voluntary arrangements.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. David Evans: As most people know, I come from a working-class background—a loving background. My parents were happily married; and as they became more successful, so did my sister and I. When I married and started to bring up a family I, too, was very fortunate in that I was married to someone who treated me with tolerance. Like my sister and me, my children benefited as our lives progressed.
  It was not until I became a Member of Parliament that I realised the sadness of single-parent families and recognised that lone parents were almost in despair. It seemed to me that it was necessary for the Government to address that important problem. We have heard from other speakers how lone parents saw courts as places where criminals were found and we heard how those parents felt almost in despair about what would happen to them in the courts. In that process, the parents became frightened and the children sometimes became victims of that terror. When the Government were prepared to introduce the Bill, I felt that it should receive support from Conservative and Opposition Members. I am pleased that hon. Members of all parties agree in principle that the Bill is necessary.
  As a Conservative, I naturally greatly welcome the Bill. At the heart of Conservatism is a belief in the need for a balance between rights and responsibilities. Without the exercise of responsibility, rights are ultimately rendered useless, as we all know. Today, we hear everything about rights to this and that—not least from the Labour party —but not enough about responsibilities. The Bill is an explicit recognition of the inter-relationship between the two. Accountability is at the heart of our political system and should be a guiding principle in our private lives.
  Unfortunately, many individuals are only too happy to neglect their responsibilities. Benefit offices are full of people who look to the state not merely to help them out during hard times, but to provide a convenient exit from personal obligations and duties. The Bill is part of a wider Government strategy to redress the imbalance. Why should mothers and fathers in my constituency struggle to provide their own children with a decent home and yet be expected to subsidise lone parents indefinitely?
  I have heard a lot about the Treasury putting pressure on the Department of Social Security. I am pleased that the Treasury does so. The Treasury has only taxpayers' money and it has a responsibility to taxpayers. I am pleased that the parent who has disappeared is about to take up some of the taxpayers' burden. It is not a case of the Government shirking their duties—far from it. The Bill is a statutory mechanism that will ensure that individuals face up to their responsibilities.
  It is surely an appalling state of affairs that in 1989 only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers received regular child maintenance. That must be a scandal. Ultimately, it is the children who suffer. The Bill has their welfare at its heart. The proposed Child Support Agency has an important role in acting as an intermediary between the parents. As I have said, parents fear the courts.
  I find the Bill reassuring. It is crucial that contact between the caring parent and the absentee parent is kept to an absolute minimum. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that the addresses of mothers will be kept in confidence? I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh

  215
  and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who made a poignant point. We must ensure that, through the Bill, fathers whom the mothers have at last got rid of and whom they never want to see again are not able to make contact with the mothers and terrorise them and the children. Even if the mother only believes that that is a possibility, the child will suffer at her hands because she is terrified that the father will have access, if not to her children, at least to her. I want my hon. Friend to consider the points that have been made on that subject.
  In financial terms, the Bill is not a draconian measure. Absent parents will not be squeezed until the pips squeak. Maintenance payments will be reviewed regularly to ensure that they reflect changing circumstances, and that must be right. Furthermore, it is important to remember that maintenance awards represent only 11 per cent. of the total net income of absent parents on above average incomes. The Government are still the biggest surrogate parent.
  Equally importantly, the Bill provides incentives to lone parents who want to work, which must be good. The introduction of maintenance will reduce reliance on income support and will, therefore, lead to greater employment opportunities. There is also the plan to ignore the first £15 of maintenance when calculating entitlement to family credit, to community charge benefit and to housing benefit. I also welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which will reduce from 24 hours to 16 the number of hours worked per week required to qualify for family credit.
  One of the most important elements of the Bill is its deterrent capacity. Today we have concentrated on fathers who have already deserted their children, but the measure also enables us to look to the future. The Bill sends a message to all prospective fathers, making it clear to them that they have a continuing responsibility. I hope that it will make them think long and hard about parental obligations.
  The Bill is very important and the aims of the reforms are clear. The aims are that parents should honour their responsibilities to their children whenever they can afford to do so. A fair and reasonable balance will be struck with regard to the responsibilities of a parent for all the children whom he or she is liable to maintain. The system will produce fair and consistent results. Maintenance payments will be reviewed regularly to ensure that they reflect changes in circumstances. The incentive of parents to work will be maintained. The public will receive an efficient and effective service, and dependence on income support will be reduced. The Bill is an important measure concerning personal and social responsibilities. As such, it has my warmest support.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I will begin by dwelling on the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). There are occasions in the House on which people speak with knowledge and passion, and most of us who listen to them believe that it would be good to make similar speeches ourselves.
  216
  Although the emphasis of my speech may go against the tenor of both those speeches, I must say that they were impressive contributions.
  I wanted to explain to the Secretary of State, who is not here for what I am sure are good reasons, that I did not spring to my feet when the announcement was made about where the regional offices are to be placed because I hoped to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to be able to say how pleased I was, as are other hon. Members who have new jobs coming into their area. The Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State know that a great deal of effort was made by all the hon. Members from the Wirral area in securing the jobs. Similar effort went into securing the Inland Revenue and Land Registry jobs. Those three moves by the civil service will make an appreciable difference to the riverside development between Wallasey and Birkenhead. I emphasise my thanks, as did other hon. Members. However, they will know from the tenor of what I have already said about the Bill that I do not have quite the same reservations as have hon. Members who said that they were "nevertheless" pleased to have 500 new jobs in their area. The Secretary of State is not here at the moment, but I expect him to return to the Chamber in sackcloth and ashes.
  I move now from the consensus note sounded in previous speeches to emphasise what has happened over the past decade or more. For many people in this country there has been a collapse in the belief that they should, if they can, make a contribution towards the costs of their children. One has only to think about what would have happened had the Labour party been in power while that occurred. What would Conservative Members have said had they been in opposition? We would have been whacked all over the place as irresponsible, destroying the family and not caring about children.
  Late in the day the Government have introduced a Bill, and, in a general sense, I welcome it. If we are right in thinking—and we have it on good authority—that there is rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, and as the whole Treasury Bench must be in that mood to introduce the Bill, something quite bizarre must be going on upstairs today. I welcome the Government's change of heart, and their emphasis on the fact that this is an important area in which Governments can have some effect on people's behaviour. However, we do not want to overestimate the part that Government can play.
  I intend to examine three aspects of the Bill in the hope that the Government will make concessions tonight—or, if not today, in Committee. First, I return to two questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). She asked both about capital sums that had been paid over in the past and about what happens where a parent looks after the child or children for part of the week. How will those things be valued when the formula is applied? The Secretary of State, in his normal deft manner at the Dispatch Box, told my hon. Friend in a slightly condescending way that such matters were immensely complicated. He then went on to answer the easy part of the question, about capital, totally ignoring my hon. Friend's other example.
  I make a plea to the Government to take seriously the Select Committee report about families who responded to what was Government policy and made a clean break on divorce; a capital settlement was made and all the parties thought that that was the end of the affair. Under the Bill, those who abided by the Government's wish for a clean

  217
  break may find their settlements reopened, set aside and replaced by new responsibilities. I hope that the Government will make a clear declaration and commitment that they do not intend to open up the arrangements made by people who have made over capital sums which, when computed, are larger than what they would be expected to pay over the time that the child remains a responsibility of both parents. If the Government cannot do that out of good will, they ought to do it for the purely practical reason that setting up the agency will be difficult and there will be an enormous number of new cases. They would be well advised to look to the future rather than trying to rake up the past.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles made a real point, and the speeches of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton were important, too, because they brought the real world into the Chamber and into the debate. In the real world we do not all come in the neat little boxes in which the Government sometimes think we live. Many families will be in the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, where part of the payment of maintenance—if we want to call it that—is given in the form of time, effort, care and feeding over part of the week. That is a real-life situation. We do not want to find that, by insisting that the formula under the Bill be applied, we destroy the arrangement whereby both parents care for the child. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will give us an idea what the Government think about that.
  There is one clause about which almost every other hon. Member has spoken—some with real caution and some with fear—and which lies at the heart of the Bill. If the Government do not convince the House and the country that they will be able to administer the measure with real sensitivity towards women who fear what their husbands, ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends might do to them, they will lose the debate in the country.
  That issue is linked to the idea of incentives. I realise that the question of incentives arises on a separate part of the Bill, but the Government have a blinkered view of incentives. I sympathise with their emphasis on the importance of incentives to work, and their wanting people to see a real difference when they move from benefit into work. They want people to take with them the whole of their maintenance payments if at all possible. I sympathise with that, because I run the same argument over child benefit both with my hon. Friends and with friends on the Conservative Benches. The difference is very real.
  We are dealing with a sensitive area. If we want the maximum harmony in running the arrangements under the Bill, for ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends and for women, we must answer the following question: should we not allow a benefit disregard for people on income support who claim maintenance? The Minister may say that my views on that subject have changed. When we started out, I thought that it was unfair to single out those who could get maintenance orders and allow them to claim some of the money in the form of a disregard. I was persuaded to change my mind by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who said, "Hard luck—that's life: some people will have boyfriends or husbands whom they can pursue successfully. Why should they be penalised because not all mothers can be in that position?" I am persuaded by that argument, and also by
  218
  the argument that, if we want to narrow the group down to the smallest possible number of mothers worried about giving the name of the father, we should get the largest possible number of mothers to give that information voluntarily at the first point of contact with the agency. More mothers will do that, and more fathers will understand why they do so, if, while they remain on benefit, mothers are allowed to keep part of the maintenance by partially offsetting it against benefit.
  Like the Government, I see the issue in terms of incentives, but I broaden the meaning of the word "incentives". I thought that it was important, too, to have an incentive to help the measure to work well and smoothly, and to secure the maximum voluntary effect. Then, at the end of the day, we should be left only with those who have real worries about giving the father's name —that group has been mentioned already. It is unreasonable to expect the officers to go in to bat for the Government knowing that some of the mothers could have given the father's name if they had thought that they would be better off financially if they did so. If we are interested in making the measure work, we should extend our debate about incentives.
  To make my last point, I shall ruffle slightly the calm waters that we have all been in until now by disagreeing with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I start where the hon. Gentleman does by supporting the Government when they say that there is a clear divorce between paying maintenance and access and that the Bill and no other measure under consideration seeks to overrturn that status quo.
  I do not have the experience that my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who are solicitors, described effectively to the House. They said that they had seen customers who were frightened of their husbands or ex-boyfriends who were threatening them. I want to present another side of the truth, which I have seen, not in a solicitor's surgery but in my surgery or when I visit factories in Birkenhead. Some mothers have made it clear that they regard their husbands or ex-boyfriends as jerks and they want nothing to do with them. They have no intention of allowing them to see their children. As we get the measure working, I hope that a lot of the heat will go out of such cases where there is a dispute over access. Clearly the heat will never go out of some cases and we cannot expect it to do so where a husband or boyfriend has been cruel, violent or just plain stubborn and unreasonable about how people should live their daily lives.
  Just as the Government wish to see greater responsibility taken, especially by males, for their children, I want to see a slow but sure change in the debate about access. I believe that that debate will be approached much more securely once the question of maintenance and payments is out of the way. An increasing number of children grow up without knowing both their parents. It would be foolish for anyone in the House to say that he knows the consequences of that on the next generation.
  One of my great mates in Birkenhead was asked by his daughter not to come to school to pick her up because her friends at the school had asked who he was. They did not have what she called "Daddy" as part of their life. That is exceptional, thank goodness, but it happened at one school in Birkenhead. As I said, we do not know what will be the consequences of children not knowing both their parents as they grow up. We cannot legislate that

  219
  grown-ups be happy, but we can legislate—and we can do so in this measure—to enable more children to grow up happily knowing both of their parents. That will be an important achievement if it results from this measure.
  My last point has been emphasised before, so I can be brief. When my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) opened for the Opposition he said, in effect, that the Bill was a half measure. It is not unimportant for that, but it is still a half measure. We should move towards a position where if mothers are awarded maintenance payments, the state guarantees them whether she works or not, and has the responsibility for collecting the money. Then we can bring the Minister to the Dispatch Box if he fails to do so and the bill for us taxpayers is enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that that was the direction in which the Bill should have moved. I hope that it will not be long before I am sitting behind him when he is the Secretary of State introducing such a measure.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the Bill. Earlier in the debate I was impressed when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) quoted some statistics about the rising tide of family break-ups and of fathers, and occasionally mothers, who walk away from their responsibilities for their children and leave their family in difficulties or as a financial burden on the taxpayer. It has been said that there are now some 2 million families in that position. Only 12 years ago, of such families on income support, some 50 per cent. received maintenance payments from the absent parent. Today only 23 per cent. receive such payments. It is increasingly left to the state to pick up the bill or, to be more precise, to taxpayers, such as my constituents on low incomes, to foot the bill for the children of parents who do not face up to their responsibilities.
  I welcome the steps that are being taken in the Bill to staunch that trend and to formalise and standardise the system of child maintenance in such cases. The present system of maintenance is unnecessarily fragmented, uncertain in its results, slow and ineffective. It operates through several different courts and through the Department of Social Security. The effect on families is uncertainty.
  Inconsistent decisions are made about how much maintenance should be paid. For example, recent research identified two fathers, each earning £150 per week and each with one child to maintain. One father was required to pay £5 per week in maintenance while the other was required to pay £50. That hardly seems consistent. The median time to produce a maintenance award varies from 48 days in a magistrates court to 131 days in the county court.
  Under the current system there is no automatic way in which awards can be reviewed. Yet we all know that as children grow older they cost more to feed and clothe. The income of one or both parents may change from time to time and, of course, prices certainly go up. In some two fifths of cases payments of awards fall into arrears. The full amount of the arrears is recovered in only about 23 per cent. of cases where the Department of Social Security takes action. Enforcement can take six weeks or more.
  220
  A major and valuable part of the Bill is the establishment of the Child Support Agency. At last we shall have an agency which has responsibility for tracing absent parents and assessing, collecting and, where necessary, enforcing maintenance payments. It will need powers to make a legally binding assessment, to require information and to determine methods of payment. It will be required to review the maintenance payments every year. We must look forward to the day when the agency is fully operational and families do not have to go through the trauma of taking a case to the magistrates court.
  Earlier in the debate I was surprised to hear from the Labour Front Bench the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) talk of zero rating fathers on income support. Surely it is appropriate that absent parents on income support should have the same basic responsibility to their children as others. Is it not right, therefore, to bring them within the system and, with appropriate exceptions, to expect from them a small maintenance contribution? The White Paper suggested that the contribution should be 5 per cent. of the adult personal allowance, in line with the standard deductions made for other purposes. Only in December 1989, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was reported in The Independent as saying:
  "My view is that fathers should always make some contribution towards their children, even if they are unemployed and it can only be a token amount. Men should recognise they have a responsibility".
  Why the sudden change?
  The Labour party has decided to tack yet another spending pledge on to its already ample list. There is a competition to father the top priorities and pledges. After all, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has told us that the top priority is child benefits and pensions, and nothing else. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has told us that the only top priority is the national health service. Last week, on the BBC, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) told us that Labour's top priority was education. Not to be outdone, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) told us that it was overseas development. Now the hon. Member for Oldham, West has decided to trump the lot of them with his father of all pledges.
  The Labour party proposes that lone parents on benefit should be able to keep part of the absent parent's maintenance, but it has not said how big that maintenance disregard on income support would be. It is worth bearing in mind that a £5 disregard would cost £70 million, a £10 disregard £130 million and a £15 disregard £180 million. The Labour party has not said when, if ever, such a commitment would be introduced. It is not one of its two unconditional "priority pledges", as defined by the hon. Member for Derby, South. Perhaps it falls within that category of pledges that the hon. Lady described as
  "desirable aims … something that we hope to do as resources allow".
  I believe that the Bill is a disincentive to family break-up. It removes the advantages from parents who just walk away from their responsibilities. I share the objective of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that more and more of our children should know both of their parents. The Bill will act as an incentive to families to keep together.
  The Bill will ensure that parents honour their responsibilities towards their children whenever they can afford to do so. It will ensure that the maintenance system

  221
  produces fairer and more consistent results than at present. It will also ensure that parents' incentives to work are improved and that their dependence on income support is reduced. The Bill deserves the full support of the House.
  8.3 pm
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: All reasonable people agree that absent parents should make a reasonable contribution to the upbringing of their children and should not be allowed to turn their backs on their financial responsibilities. On that basis, I support the thinking behind the Bill as it ensures that parents should not be able to renege on their children.
  Although I support the principles of the Bill, I have some major reservations about its details and its omissions. I also share the anxiety expressed by many other hon. Members about the vital issues to be left to regulation, which will not be addressed by primary legislation.
  I am particularly concerned about the retrospective aspects of the Bill, about which other hon. Members have expressed anxiety, which mean that certain issues that have been resolved, are dormant and not subject to conflict will be resurrected. An amnesty for such cases would be highly desirable.
  Apart from obliging absent parents to make a proper financial arrangement for their children, I also expect a child support Bill to help to raise the standard of living of those children now on the poverty line. It should also encourage lone parents to go out to work. Those issues have not been properly addressed by the Bill, although I acknowledge that the disregard for mothers who want to go out to work is a step in the right direction.
  I deplore the fact that, for the poorest—those on income support—the collection of the maintenance payments will not benefit the child or children. The caring parent will not be one penny better off, as the maintenance payment will simply substitute income support. It is not clear whether those lone parents whose income support is replaced by maintenance payments will not be worse off as a result. If income support is replaced, parents may not then qualify for the benefits associated with it, such as the ability to borrow from the social fund and to obtain free school dinners. When the Minister replies, I hope that he can clarify this matter and assure me that, under the new proposed scheme, parents will be protected from such possible losses.
  Considerable concern has been expressed about the obligation on the caring parent to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in naming and locating the absent parent. I do not condone the use of the threat of violence as a means of absolving an absent parent from his responsibilities to his children. I recognise, however, that relationships in some families become so embittered and so irrational, and in others that violence is so prevalent, that women are genuinely fearful of reprisals. It is also important to remember that there are other very good reasons why some women cannot bring themselves to name the father of their child—shame, for example.
  A number of organisations that have studied the Bill and written to hon. Members about it agree that, in a number of instances, it might be in the best interests of the child to have no contact with the absent parent and for all ties, including financial ones, to be severed. The question
  222
  of access is difficult to resolve if financial provision is being made. Some children may not benefit from the proposed changes, and parents, particularly mothers, may be reluctant to co-operate with the Child Support Agency. A solution to those problems has been advocated by the National Council for One Parent Families. It suggests that there should be a financial incentive for mothers to co-operate.
  I strongly support the use of a small disregard to encourage women to co-operate. That would also mean that the children of the poorest families would be marginally better off. A financial incentive rather than threats and disincentives should be offered to encourage mothers to co-operate with the agency. The amounts involved could be modest, as relatively small sums are important to people on such low incomes. If the money runs out on Thursday and one does not get paid until Friday, £5 could make a lot of difference.
  The financial incentive would mean that only those with genuine and pressing reasons would decline to co-operate with the agency. In those cases, I strongly believe that no financial penalty should be incurred. To allow the DSS to withhold £7·35 a week when a caring parent withholds information is punitive, harsh and wrong. That penalty would adversely affect the children that society has a duty to protect. Such children are already on the poverty line. The report published yesterday by the National Children's Home questioned whether those children were even living at a subsistence level. Its report made it clear that it was lack of money, not ignorance, that led to an unhealthy diet.
  To withhold £7-plus from extremely poor families would damage children who are unable to defend themselves. That would lead to hunger and untold misery. The financial hardship imposed on their mothers would add to the existing strains and tensions of their difficult lives. I accept that the onus should be on the mother to co-operate with the Child Support Agency, but I advocate the carrot rather than the stick approach in getting her to do so. Where there is a real threat or fear, the mother should not be punished for declining to co-operate.
  The financial situation of lone-parent families will not be improved without the stability of guaranteed maintenance payments. Under the Bill, where an absent parent fails to pay maintenance—which may often be the case when the absent parent is self-employed—there is no mechanism to ensure that the lone parent receives guaranteed regular payments. That lack can result in hardship, disruption and uncertainty. The Child Support Agency could make a guaranteed maintenance payment to the lone parent and then proceed to chase the defaulter. That would take the lone parent and child out of the system and make the agency a genuine, not a token, buffer.
  I am also concerned about the effect of the Bill on low-paid absent parents. While acknowledging that they must have responsibility, if their only income is income support—that is on the basis of them having no dependent relatives because they live alone—they are on subsistence level. To make a deduction of 5 per cent. from child support payments is, as the Children's Society says, petty and mean. It will not make a substantial difference, although it may adversely affect the person's standard of living. The Bill advocates what is clearly a regressive, not a progressive, system of collecting maintenance, and that aspect must be considered.

  223
  I reiterate my support for the principle of ensuring that absent parents do not avoid their responsibilities, but I have yet to be convinced that the provision for some children will not be eroded by the Bill. I also regret that the income of some one-parent families will not be improved by even a modest amount.
  Without tackling the problem of child care, thereby enabling lone parents to get back to work, we shall be only skirting the complex social and economic problems that are increasing as a result of the change in family patterns and behaviour in society. I do not take that issue lightly, for during the time that I have been a Member my views on single parents have changed markedly. I do not take as readily as I did previously the liberal view that everything is all right and that we must go along with it. I see at first hand the unhappiness and misery that is created by the present state of affairs.
  We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need to repair marriages and make sure that children remain in contact with both parents. I fear that I see too many cases in my constituency of young single parents who have never been married and have never had a long-term relationship with the father of the child. I also see many single parents who have several children by different fathers and who lean on my desk, look across at me and ask, "What are you going to do about it?" We must give them a sense of responsibility for the future for themselves and their children, but that will not happen by the adoption of punitive measures.
  The headmaster of a school in my constituency that I visited a few months ago told me that he had been a pupil at the same school. He said, "In those days, we felt really sorry for any child who did not have a dad, and the head teacher would make sure that, if any spare clothes or other help was available, it was pointed in the direction of that child. Today, children with dads in my school are the exception rather than the rule."
  The children and parents in such circumstances that I see in my surgery are depressed and unhappy. They see no way out of their poverty, and they are usually trapped in poor housing. Frequently, they get into arrears and are unable to move home. They receive housing benefit, but if an element of their rent is for hot water and heating, and if they fall into arrears on that element, that often prohibits their being moved. They are irritable and bad-tempered with their children, and that does nobody any good. Clearly the whole situation needs serious attention.
  The only way forward in the long term is a combination of child care, training and employment. We must recognise that single-parent families represent a phenomenon that is here to stay. It is no good taking a moral stance one way or the other. It is a form of family life that we must make work, and the only way to do so is to enable single parents to have the best opportunity to support their children.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: The objectives of the Bill are admirable. I support its emphasis on parental obligation and its stress on the duties that both parents owe their children. The Government are right to take steps to ensure that the financial burden of supporting a child is not shifted to the taxpayer, without first making sure that
  224
  everything reasonable is done to see that its parents between them contribute as much as they properly can to the child's support.
  The criticism that the present system of deciding maintenance and then collecting it is fragmented, uncertain and often ineffective carries great force. Today, in two fifths of cases in which maintenance payments are ordered to be made, those against whom the orders are made fall into arrears. That is an extremely alarming statistic, and it does not take into account cases in which maintenance orders are not even sought. The figures show clearly that reform is needed. They give strength to the Government's case. That is why I support the thrust of the Bill, although I have anxieties of substance about certain aspects of it.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill would provide a clear and consistent formula. The clarity of that formula is open to doubt. It starts promisingly at the commencement of schedule 1 by saying:
  "The formula is … MR = AG - CB."
  There follow several pages of similar equations. There is plenty of scope for doubt and complexity.
  I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) about so much being left to secondary legislation. For example, schedule 1(5) says that net and exempt income shall be
  "calculated or estimated in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State."
  The same will apply to protected income. For the all-important element of housing costs, we read in schedule 1(8):
  "the amount of housing costs to be taken into account for prescribed purposes … is … not to exceed such amount (if any) as may be prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations."
  Consistency is important, but so are clarity and flexibility. I agreed with much of what the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said about the need for discretion. All manner of difficulties face my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in drawing up the regulations on how net income, exempt income, protected income and reasonable housing costs will be calculated.
  For example, how will benefits in kind be dealt with? In the case of free accommodation, they could be significant. How will the cost of travelling to work be dealt with? Absent parents who have lumbered themselves with inescapable commitments for inessentials may be open to criticism. They may have frittered away money or entered into unwise commitments, but all too often those commitments are inescapable. To what extent, if at all, will the earnings or capital of new spouses or cohabitees of the custodial parents and absent parents be taken into account? In my experience, that is often a major emotional flashpoint.
  Another important question is how the varying costs of access by the absent parent to the child will be taken into account. In some cases, the absent parent may live in the same town as the child, and those costs will be small. However, if the absent parent lives in London and the child and custodial parent live in, say, Cumbria or Dundee, those access costs will be significant. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must take full account of such difficulties when drawing up the regulations. If they are not taken into account, serious injustices will arise, and there is a risk that the measure will become unworkable.

  225
  How will differences in the cost of living in different parts of the country be dealt with? That is important generally, but particularly when it comes to housing costs. Imagine, for example, a child support officer in Falkirk assessing—as he or she may have to do—the reasonable amount of housing costs for someone living in Southampton, London, Inverness or Barnstaple. There will be huge variations, and it is important that they are taken properly into account. A formula that is too rigid could lead to injustice and a breakdown of the system. It must be realised that the problems which will face child support officers will be much more complex and difficult to deal with than the considerable problems currently faced by DSS officials.
  Another major concern relates to the wisdom of setting up a Child Support Agency that will deal only with the maintenance of the child. The maintenance of a child is closely linked with—it is usually inescapable from—the maintenance of the mother, yet we seem to have a system in which maintenance of the child is dealt with by the Child Support Agency, whereas maintenance of the mother will continue to be dealt with by the court. That creates not only a wasteful system of duplication, but also gives rise to the difficulties inherent in a system in which two different agencies deal with basically the same problem.
  One must also take into account the fact that, when a marriage breaks down, the maintenance of children is closely linked with the issue of what should be done with the matrimonial home. The courts will deal with the matrimonial home. A problem that must be faced fair and square is the fact that, in so many matrimonial settlements, one party—usually the father—must yield all or part of his interest in the former matrimonial home to provide a home for the mother and child.
  I raise those anxieties not in a destructive manner—that would be wholly wrong because I support the thrust of the Bill—but because I am anxious to be as constructive as possible. However, there are difficulties, and I hope that the Government will monitor the Bill carefully. I see the Child Support Agency as only a first step in the highly necessary task of reforming the child and general family maintenance system. I hope and expect that, eventually, the Child Support Agency will be integrated into a new system of family courts.
  8.17 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Several hon. Members have said that the measure should have been introduced a decade ago. At the weekend, I spoke about the Bill to a woman in Glasgow who brought up three boys on her own, having been deserted by a callous, despicable husband. She said that if such a Bill had been introduced 30 years ago, much of the misery that she encountered in bringing up her three children alone with no help from her ex-husband might have been diminished by adequate maintenance payments from that scoundrel.
  One may have reservations about the Bill and some people have serious reservations about it. I recently received a letter from the chairperson of Inverclyde Women's Aid who expressed serious concerns about the Bill, inter alia,
  "the proposal that lone mothers may lose benefit for refusing to name the father of their child. Women who feel unable to give these details refuse, in the majority of cases, in order to protect themselves and their children. Those who have suffered violence in the past have no wish to experience further misery, or harassment, by causing the wrath of an
  226
  absent parent. Moreover many lone parents feel that their treatment at the hands of the D.S.S. is often both unfeeling and intensive. The fear is that this situation will deteriorate further, if the new rules are introduced."
  I certainly hope that in the fullness of time those fears prove groundless. That fine woman goes on to say:
  "What lone parents need are policies to enable them to make choices which are to the benefit of their children. To be able to stay at home and care for their children, if this is their priority. For those who wish to work, better training and educational opportunities, more flexible employment, freely available childcare, including after school care, and improvements to the Benefits System which prevents lone parents being able to work are desperately needed."
  In fairness to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I received from him a sympathetic response to my letter which was prompted by the letter that I received from the chairperson of Inverclyde Women's Aid. In that comprehensive and lengthy letter, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said:
  "As you may know, we announced in the House of Lords in discussions of the Child Support Bill that where the child support officer is satisfied on the evidence available to him that there is a risk of violence to the parent or child this will be accepted as good cause for not helping to seek maintenance. You will no doubt be aware that our proposal to reduce benefit where a caring person refuses, without good cause, to co-operate in obtaining maintenance no longer forms part of the Child Support Bill following a vote at Committee stage in the Lords. The Government are giving careful thought to the views expressed in the debate and considering the right way forward on this important issue in light of the points made."
  The women who so selfishly give up many hours of their free time to help those who are colloquially known in my constituency as battered women speak from years of experience. Their concerns must, in the first instance, be taken on board by the local Member of Parliament. Indirectly, those worries must be taken into serious consideration by the Minister and the members of the Committee. I suspect that I shall not be invited to serve on the Committee—perhaps I am expressing a hope. I suspect that I shall be invited, given the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
  What about women and children in women's refuges? I hope that they will be treated with the sensitivity and compassion that they so manifestly deserve. I listened carefully to the remarks about women who live in terror of violent, estranged husbands, ex-husbands or former cohabitees. At a recent surgery, a young woman came to see me with evident bruises on her face. She was accompanied by two lovely little girls, "weans" as she called them. All three of them live in fear of the woman's violent, drunken ex-husband who arrived on the doorstep two weeks ago. The young woman rightly refused to give him access, but he simply kicked the front door down and punched my young constituent in front of her children. I naturally alerted the police and social workers. The young woman said that she did not want anything from her ex-husband, but that she was frightened and wanted to live in another town if she could. She had spent some time in a refuge.
  The utmost compassion must be given to such fine decent constituents who deserve protection from their—I suppose that I use the term wrongly—psychopathic husbands. Their children, who do not have the power of the vote, should be given our spontaneous and instinctive protection.

  227
  I am mainly concerned with the Scottish part of the Bill. The utmost consideration must be given to those who fear physical retribution if they give certain information about their violent ex-spouses to the Department of Social Security. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is listening with his customary courteous attentiveness and I shall ask him a few questions. Earlier, I asked about children in Scotland and the Secretary of State said that he could confirm that, by that curious process of osmosis, clause 7 was, to some extent, shaped by some clauses in the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill, which I understand is in the other place. If that is so, it is right and proper. I also asked the Secretary of State about the representation of young children in such cases vis-a-vis clause 7. I was promised a letter or perhaps a response from the Minister when he replies. Clause 7 is fairly lengthy and, I think I am right in saying, deals exclusively with children in Scotland. I shall be interested to see how it is developed.
  Clause 12 deals with child support officers. What sort of training are such officers to receive, or are they already highly experienced? In cases that demand it, will they work closely with local social work departments or, south of the border, local social services departments?
  Earlier, in relation to clauses 20, 21, 22 and 23, I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who professed to be an ex-solicitor, about the position when someone sought legal aid. If someone appears in front of an appeals tribunal, will he be assisted by a local welfare rights officer, as is the case with social security appeals tribunals, or could such an appellant obtain the services of a lawyer? That is an important question, particularly in the light of clause 40. In asking it, I am not seeking to diminish the role of welfare rights officers in appeals tribunals. In my part of Strathclyde, the local welfare rights officers employed by the social work departments of the council are excellent advocates. In a number of recent cases they have taken decisions of appeals tribunals to a commissioner and won on appeal. However, it may well be that, in some instances it would be more fitting for a lawyer to represent someone in those circumstances.
  The Bill has some fine qualities, but parts of it make me shudder. I am particularly concerned about clause 26 and I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, despite his modest disclaimer about his lack of knowledge of Scots law and the social security system north of the border. He was being unduly modest. I think that I am right in saying that he has several times met members of the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland. I apprised the Secretary of State of certain procedures and practices in Strathclyde social work department in 1985 when he and I were members of the Committee that examined a social security Bill.
  Clause 26 is peculiarly Scottish and deals with the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to initiate or defend actions of declarity. It is an important clause and, although I am not a lawyer, it seems to be deficient. It states:

  "(1) Where—

  (a) a child support officer is considering whether to make a maintenance assessment with respect to a person who is alleged to be a parent of the child, or one of the children, in question ("the alleged parent");

  228

  (b) the alleged parent denies that he is a parent of the child in question; and

  (c) the child support officer is satisfied that the case does not fall within one of those set out in section 24(2),

  the Secretary of State may bring an action for declarator of parentage under section 7 of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986."

  Section 7(1) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 states:
  "An action for declarator of parentage, non-parentage, legitimacy, legitimation of illegitimacy may be brought in the Court of Session of the sheriff court.
  (2) Such an action may be brought in the Court of Session if and only if the child was born in Scotland or the alleged or presumed parent or the child—

  (a) is domiciled in Scotland on the date when the action is brought;".

  Clause 26 contains no reference to the preceding section of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act. Section 7 is pointless without section 6 which is headed:
  "Determination of parentage by blood sample."
  Section 6(1) states:
  "This section applies where, for the purpose of obtaining evidence relating to the determination of parentage in civil proceedings, a blood sample is sought by a party to the proceedings or by a curator ad litem."
  Mr. Frank Haynes rose—
  Dr. Godman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, unless he is making it clear that I should finish. It seems that I will be appointed to the Committee by this honourable and old friend of mine.
  This is an important matter, as I am sure the Secretary of State agrees. I remind him, as I did earlier, that section 6 of the 1986 Act has been changed by section 70 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 which is headed:
  "Blood and other samples in civil proceedings."
  It states:

  "(1) In any civil proceedings to which this section applies, the court may (whether or not on application made to it) request a party to the proceedings—

  (a) to provide a sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue for the purpose of laboratory analysis;

  (b) to consent to the taking of such a sample from a child in relation to whom the party has power to give such consent …

  the court may draw from the refusal or failure such adverse inference, if any, in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings as seems to it to be appropriate.

  (3) In section 6 of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 (determination of parentage by blood sample)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "blood sample" there shall be substituted "sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue";".

  I emphasise that in that context we are talking about DNA testing. That is what is meant by "body tissue". That was conceded by the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Scottish Ministers in the Standing Committee, of which I was a member, on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I warn hon. Members that that Committee finished on the very last day of last year's Session and I suspect that some hon. Members are looking forward to a similar prospect with this Bill.
  If the Bill incorporates section 7 of that fine piece of Scottish legislation, why not incorporate section 6 which would allow for DNA testing? The Bill deals with blood samples. Why should it not deal with body tissue? If I am a member of the Committee examining the Bill, I shall table an amendment to that effect, because clause 26 is fatally flawed.

  229
  I hope that in his reply the Minister will deal with clause 35 which is about diligences. If it is to introduce poinding and warrant sales, why should it not introduce an arrestment of wages measure? There is no reason for distinguishing between the two. In Scotland they largely go together, for example, in relation to the poll tax.
  Clause 40 gives the Lord Advocate the power to allow an appeal to be heard by the Court of Session or a sheriff court. Surely in such cases legal aid should be given to people on low incomes. What is the legal position of decisions of a sheriff court or the Court of Session where the absent parent is domiciled in England, Wales or elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
  The Bill contains some good provisions, but in some respects it is woefully deficient. We are dealing with the protection of extremely vulnerable people, and I hope that Conservative Members will have the decency to support some of the amendments that will undoubtedly be tabled during an examination of the Bill.
  8.48 pm
  Sir Timothy Raison: I apologise for my rather intermittent attendance in this debate. I shall not follow the no doubt important arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). The only thought that forced itself upon me as I listened to the hon. Gentleman was that it must be rather complicated to have in Scotland a quite separate law governing such matters from the law in England, given the propensity of people to marry across the border. I know that it is sacrilege to suggest that we should in any way undermine the constitution or the Act of Union, but plainly there are complications.
  I welcome the Bill, especially because it seems to be part of the growing concern within the Government and in the country about the many problems facing families bringing up children. As the years pass, I increasingly feel that that is about the most important issue facing politicians and the Government. It is perhaps one of the most intractable, and we are rather chary of grasping the nettle. The Government have shown increasing concern about these issues. That is clear from their sensible conversion on child benefit, or at least their maintenance of the status quo in that regard. The Bill is a serious attempt to deal with a very serious problem.
  It is rather regrettable that the Opposition feel that they must divide the House this evening. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that the Bill was useful. Admittedly, he then added that the Bill was seriously flawed, but the essential point is that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that the Bill is useful. While important topics must be discussed in Standing Committee and there is the still unresolved question of what to do about the other place, the House could give the Bill a unanimous Second Reading.
  We must progress from general principles to consider some of the particular problems. The Child Poverty Action Group has stated that there is general agreement that the principle enshrined in the Bill—that absent parents have a continuing financial responsibility towards their children—is entirely sound, and it is right that we should deal with it.
  There is widespread acceptance of the notion of a Child Support Agency. People have commented on that and
  230
  suggested ways in which it might be developed. That is a direct proposal by the Government which should receive the backing of the House.
  The debate has shown that the concern is about the effect of the proposals on parents on low incomes, on children in second families and on lone parents. Much of our discussion today—as no doubt will be the case in Standing Committee—has been about such issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is serious and genuine, as we all know he invariably is when he talks about the safeguards that he has tried to build into the system if there is to be a benefit reduction for those who do not co-operate by naming other partners.
  Listening to my right hon. Friend's opening comments confirmed that impression. Anyone who knows my right hon. Friend's approach to policy will know that, when he says that he is serious about ensuring that we have the right checks and balances, he means it. I am sure that we are capable of producing legislation that will embody that aim.
  On the essential moral principle, it must be right to state that parents must take some responsibility for their actions. If we accept that, a total exemption from the principle of the least well-off is unwise. Of course it is easy to argue that those people who are on income support or who are by definition among the poorest in the country are going to be hard pressed by anything that affects them. We can understand that. It is also easy to argue that we are talking about children, and that they cannot be blamed for the aberrations and actions of their parents. I understand those arguments, but life is not as simple as that.
  As I have said, basic family life is being almost cripplingly undermined, and we must think very hard about how to reverse that trend. Other hon. Members — certainly Conservative Members—have quoted some of the statistics provided in briefing material that was recently sent to hon. Members. Those terrifying statistics show the extent of divorce, single parenthood and the poverty and unhappiness induced by the collapse of family life.
  I do not want to argue that all single parents are in some way guilty people; nor do I argue that all single parents are incapable of bringing up children perfectly. We know very well that not many single parents can help their position, and that many of them are very good parents. However, it is inescapably true that, as a generality, it is much better to raise children according to traditional family life if that is at all possible. It is right that the state should declare that as the centrepiece of its policy on family life.
  There should be a moral bias in the Bill in favour of children and of the way of life which, over the centuries, has generally proved the most effective way of raising children. From that it follows that, when we legislate in that area, we should be prepared to translate that bias into the formulation of the Bill. We must find ways to check the misery, crime and instability thrown up by the present pattern of family life. It is important that the Bill should do that.
  No doubt the Opposition will say, as they say about almost every social problem, that more resources are needed. It would be foolish to deny that more resources are often a vital part of social policies. However, the Opposition continually over-simplify matters when they constantly talk of more resources. They are not prepared to consider other aspects.
  The measures in the Bill that are most criticised are not primarily related to public expenditure. I do not believe

  231
  that the Treasury has been breathing all that heavily down the neck of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We must not delude ourselves that it never stops breathing heavily, but it is not simply a question of trying to save money. The Government believe that we must make people feel a sense of responsibility for their actions. That is the beginning and the end of the Bill, and I support that principle.
  Certain aspects of the Bill may be tough, and it is important that the Standing Committee examines the details. The Committee must face up to the question of what to do about the other place and clause 22 as it was. The Committee stage will be particularly important.
  The basic principle behind the Bill is correct—to make people, even poor people, recognise that, if they have children in a casual or irresponsible way, they must face up to the consequences and not palm them off on the Treasury, the DSS or anyone else. That is why I am sympathetic to the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Bill. I do not follow the Opposition's concept described by the hon. Member for Oldham, West as "zero-rating" the contribution of poor absentee parents. We do not want a swingeing, vindictive and punitive approach, but people should bear the consequences of their actions and a charge is reasonable.
  I shall not say whether the original version of clause 22 was right. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken eloquently about that matter. It is quite clear from the time that it has taken my right hon. Friend to consider it that the matter is complicated. It is extremely important to get it right. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) talked about the case for an incentive as opposed to a reduction. That is at least worth considering. I shall not say whether I believe it to be right—I have not thought about it carefully enough—but that is a matter that the Government must carefully consider.
  I remain of the view that it is crucial that it should be demonstrated that there is a responsibility. Because the Bill does that, I am happy to support it.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: There is a chorus of approval for the areas where the extra employees will work, but none of those areas is in Wales. If there are to be an extra 2,000 employees, one would like some of them to be in Wales. As there is great unemployment and deprivation in Wales, I should have thought that at least one centre ought to be there.
  This measure is another example of the Conservative Government pursuing the task that they have followed throughout their years in power—that is, the search for the scrounger. Often it is a mythical scrounger. This time yesterday we were talking about the £10 billion that the Government had thrown away on the poll tax legislation, and about £450 million to be spent on introducing the council tax. Enormous sums have been, thrown away.
  We also know of the Government's lack of activity in pursuit of the real scroungers in our society—that is, those who evade and avoid income tax. As always, the Government behave with energy and speed—the speed of a striking cobra—in pursuit of those whom they believe are gaining very small sums, but when it comes to pursuing
  232
  the large-scale scroungers in our society, the income tax evaders and avoiders, they move with the speed of an arthritic sloth.
  We support much that is in the Bill. I am not certain of the moral basis to which the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) referred. The main argument is about clause 22. Worries both here and in the other place have centred on the hardship that it will certainly cause to families who are already under severe financial and emotional strain. It has other implications for DSS officials and the appeal tribunals who will have to administer it, and they are equally disturbing. The clause will apply to any parent on income support who failed, without good cause—I noticed that the Secretary of State hesitated and replaced "good cause" by "good reason", but I do not know whether that was significant—to provide whatever information the Secretary of State considers necessary to trace and extract maintenance from the absent parent.
  Some cases would be referred to a child support officer, who would decide whether to issue a reduced benefit direction and, if so, by how much the benefit should be reduced and for how long. There would be a right of appeal to the social security tribunal. As justification, today and in the past the Government have drawn an analogy with the voluntary unemployment provisions under which similar penalties, such as disqualification from unemployment benefit and a reduction in income support for 26 weeks, are permitted if someone fails to provide good cause or has voluntarily left a job. That analogy is dangerous and should serve as a warning to us. The voluntary unemployment rules, as well as causing severe hardship, are a headache for all those concerned in their administration. Although adjudication officers have no discretion as to the amount of the penalty, they have discretion on the crucial question of its duration—that is, anything from one day to 26 weeks.
  The regulations offer no guidance on how that discretion is to be exercised, nor is such guidance available from any other source. The Secretary of State cannot provide it. In principle, adjudication officers, and presumably child support officers, are independent of him. In practice, however, in the majority of cases, adjudication officers are floundering in a policy vacuum, and they impose the maximum period of 26 weeks. That leads to horrific problems for six months of the year when the person is deprived of benefit. Appeal tribunals often find themselves in similar difficulty in trying to interpret what the fixed period should be. In the absence of any rational criteria, wildly inconsistent decisions are made.
  If the Government decide to restore the old clause 22, the problems will be even greater because the amount as well as the duration of the benefit reduction will be discretionary. The maximum is likely to be prescribed in the regulations. As was confirmed earlier, the Government have suggested that the maximum reduction would be 20 per cent. of the adult income support level or £7·95 per week. That is a huge and horrific sum to be taken from a family's disposable income, and there is no indication as to the maximum period forwhich the penalty will be imposed.
  Within the limits, adjudication officers and tribunals will have complete discretion, without any guidance on how to exercise it. At one extreme, they might impose a maximum reduction for an indefinite period; at the other, they may refuse to make any reduction at all. Their discretion will not extend to deciding whether the

  233
  Secretary of State's demands for information were necessary or reasonable, which they may not be, but officers will have to decide whether the claimant has failed to supply that information or has given false information and, if so, whether he or she had "good cause". That phrase is another celebrated area for confusion and debate and will be absolutely crucial. The Secretary of State will have to apply his own criteria. A body of case law on "good cause" would emerge from the cases which go to the social security commissioners on appeal but would not extend to decisions on the amount and duration of benefit reductions.
  The Government may be tempted to circumvent those difficulties by reintroducing the old clause 22, without the discretionary element, and to lay down a fixed penalty regardless of the circumstances. The Secretary of State talked about experience and about seeing how things work out in the multiplicity of cases that will arise. A fixed penalty would, however, be even more objectionable. The wise counsel would be to leave out the old clause 22 and to let experience show whether the penal provisions that are envisaged are really necessary to protect the taxpayer.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially as I was unable to be present for the early part of the debate and did not hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, when the Bill began its very early stages in the House, I was sitting behind my right hon. Friend as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, so I am not unaware of the provisions that we are discussing.
  Yesterday, as I celebrated 24 years of very happy marriage, I was aware of how lucky I am, when one remembers that between one in three and one in two marriages now breaks down to end in divorce, sadness and unhappiness. Those breakdowns have resulted in a large population of children for whom maintenance is an issue. I gather that maintenance is now an issue for 2 million families. That is sad and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, a reflection on easy marriage, easy divorce, the easy begetting of children and the easy shedding of responsibility on to the welfare state which, all too frequently and all too freely, has been prepared to pick up the pieces.
  The Bill sets out to redress the balance between personal responsibility and providing for one's children out of one's own income whether or not the union is maintained, and the state acting as the provider of last resort for those for whom no maintenance is payable. Few cases are sadder than those that come to us, as Members of Parliament, involving constituents who have been deserted and are doing their best to bring up their families, who seek maintenance and who have maintenance orders awarded only to find that the courts are extremely lax in their efforts to enforce maintenance payments. I heard about such a case only last Friday at my surgery. A lady had been seeking to enforce a maintenance order, but just before the order was registered and the summons served, the absent parent moved on. The order from the local court had gone through no fewer than five courts in London before the summons was close to being served. The irony is that the man has access to his children and comes to the lady's house to collect them every week, but
  234
  the court said that the summons could not be served on the man when he was collecting his children for his access period.
  The courts have failed in the way in which they provide for maintenance. Some of the maintenance awards have been capricious and erratic. We are told of absent fathers with identical incomes paying anything from £5 to £50 per week in child maintenance. The setting up of the Child Support Agency promises to provide a fair and balanced system which will hold at arm's length partners for whom the bitterness of marriage break-up has proved more than they can cope with. If only because of that, I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will be given a fair wind in the House. I bitterly regret that the Opposition cannot bring themselves to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and send it to Committee where it would be subject to amendment. I give the Bill my support and I hope that the House will do likewise.
  9.10 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: Everyone who has listened to the debate—it is a pity that there were not more here to do so—will agree that it has been conducted in a thoughtful fashion. Many hon. Members have expressed reservations about the Bill, some of them Conservative Members but mostly Opposition Members. Nobody has objected to the principle, which is, wherever possible, to make parents financially responsible for their children. The reservations and objections that have been expressed have dealt with the application of that principle and the way in which it is felt to inhibit and adversely affect certain sections of the people to whom it might be applied. I n addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), those who have expressed reservations include the hon. Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), although he supported the Bill, and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). All the agencies which have sent us briefings on the subject and which have been concerned with the matter have also expressed reservations about the application of the Bill.
  One of the important features that we are discussing in the Bill is children and the effect that divorce, separation and poverty can have on them. Less than a year ago, the House passed the Children Act, which comes into force in October. That said that the interests of the children had to be paramount in any area where they had to be cared for, in any area applicable to them.
  Now we are being asked to accept further legislation, which, in my view and I think in that of my hon. Friends, runs counter to that view. Whatever the Bill's intention may be, it is not putting children first—the view expressed by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson); she got it wrong—it is putting the Treasury first and children second.
  The Children Act was accepted unanimously and welcomed by the House. We were told that it was a step in the direction of family courts and a more integrated approach to dealing with issues relating to children and the welfare of their families.

  235
  The application of family life and its importance was a point made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), who supports the Bill, but I think that it runs counter to his support for and his interest in family life.
  It seemed clear and logical during the passage of the Children Act that matters such as maintenance and access should be addressed within that wider context, because we were told that it was a move in the direction of family courts. But this Bill looks at the issue of lone parents and maintenance quite separately. That has been one of the main concerns of the various children's agencies and others who have been sending us briefing on that.
  It is also important that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was speaking, and as questions were asked of the Secretary of State, it became apparent that, after all this time, there is still no formula for applying the principles of the Bill. We are being asked to vote for something without knowing how it will work. We are told that it will come up later and that it will be taken into account.
  Last February, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) described the Maintenance Enforcement Bill as the hors d'oeuvre before a good lunch—the good lunch being the Child Support Bill. We were debating then, as now, family poverty and the extreme emotional distress suffered by parents and their children following the break-up of a family. Set against that background, the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelmsford were inappropriate and downright insensitive. Although I am sure it was not intended by the Secretary of State, that lack of sensitivity and understanding of the lives of the people whom the Bill will affect is shared by certain members of the Government —although right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have been at pains to point out what happens when families break up. Mention has been made of distressing court cases and relationships being torn apart.
  Tonight, we are supposed to be addressing the primary needs of children and their upbringing by adults who should be able to provide emotional and material necessities. We are supposed to be specifically considering ways in which we can help parents who, for whatever reason, cannot share in the day-to-day responsibilities of child rearing. We are talking in the main of women, who often live in poverty, misery, and fear—all of which they share with their children.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West described our reservations about the Bill. We do not challenge the principle that non-residential parents should have a continuing financial responsibility for their children, where they can meet it: our concern is the priority given to that principle over all other considerations. The proposals do not go far enough in addressing the problems of family poverty. Three quarters of a million lone parent families in the United Kingdom rely on income support. The Bill will bring no improvement to the living standards of many of their children, because maintenance will be deducted pound for pound from their income support.
  Much play has been made about incentives. Many lone parents living on income support stand to lose certain housing and other benefits that it brings if it is supplanted by maintenance. Some lone parents may continue to enjoy entitlement to some level of support, but maintenance will often represent no real gain, and could even result in a loss.
  236
  My understanding is that the Child Support Agency will be left to apply the formula, which will leave the door open to all kinds of abuses by men—and also some women —with considerable financial means. They may choose to pay less than they already do by going to the agency, and the child will consequently suffer.
  Many separated or divorced women have negotiated with their former partners, without rancour, an arrangement whereby they forgo any maintenance but are allowed to keep the family home for themselves and their children. We must bear that in mind when we consider figures on the number of people who do not receive maintenance. The Bill could undermine that principle. If a dispute arises, or if the man or woman is pressurised to pay maintenance, he or she may decide to sell their property. Other considerations will come into play, which may serve to undermine a well-ordered and well-organised arrangement between the man and the woman. Does the Secretary of State really intend that such arrangements should be replaced by a scheme in which one of the partners is forced to pay maintenance?
  Families Need Fathers is one of the many organisations that is concerned about the question of shared access arrangements, whereby a child lives with one partner—usually the mother—during the week, but with his or her father at weekends and during holidays. The father may not pay any maintenance—perhaps because he cannot afford to do so; he may have another family to support. The question of second families has not been raised very much tonight, but the right hon. Member for Aylesbury talked about the breakdown of family life, and its changing patterns. I fear that we are in danger of impoverishing the second family to provide for the first.
  Often there is shared access. The child may spend weekends and school holidays with its father—it may be the mother, but it is normally the father. In such cases that is seen as the father's contribution to the child's maintenance, although no formal handing over of money is involved. Are we saying that that arrangement must change—that a formal maintenance order must be made, disrupting and undermining the understanding way in which the couple may have dealt with separation or divorce?
  Questions about legal aid for appeal cases have not yet been answered. The Government have made much of people's ability to appeal, but unless legal aid is available, the parent with the most money will be able to afford legal representation, while the other parent will not.
  We accept the principle that, whenever possible, men and women should share the financial arrangements for their children. Given the number of reservations that have been expressed today, however, cannot the Government produce another Bill that takes those reservations into account? I fear that that will not be done, and we shall therefore seek to amend the Bill in Committee. The Government, however, must surely recognise that our objections are far greater than they expected at the outset. Because they have not been able to think through the implications, much of the legislation is to be dealt with in statutory instruments and the like.
  Family breakdown and divorce are distressing for all the parties concerned, particularly the women. The current interpretation of the Bill could result in unwelcome access. It has been pointed out that many men will have agreed not to see their children. I shall not comment on that: I am not God, and I do not sit in judgment. Men say, "Let us

  237
  call it a day"; their wives say, "All right. I will not come to you for maintenance, as I know you have another family and other responsibilities." If the maintenance money is the one thing that the man will lose, however, he will say, "I want to see my children." I do not think that the complexities have been fully understood.
  Whatever we do about access, we must not link it to maintenance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead pointed out, access to their parents can be very important to children. Many men pay maintenance without having access; others who do not pay maintenance will demand access out of spite. Many women live in fear of being forced to reawaken a relationship that they had thought was dead, along with the fears that accompanied it. I doubt the abilities and the sensitivities of those who will sit in judgment and who will ignore what has been said in deciding whether those fears are justified. If women feel such fears, that should be good enough for all of us, and we should decide against pursuing the matter further.
  Much has been said—rightly—about the identification of fathers. Only a small number of mothers refuse to name the fathers of their children. According to the official figures, seven out of 10 already comply with the DSS requests for information about the absent parent. The few who do not name the fathers usually have good reasons. They may need to make a clean break; they may want to avoid contact with a violent partner; they may not know the father's whereabouts, or hope for an improvement in the relationship that might lead to a reconciliation. Financial penalties meted out to the mother for non-compliance in that respect would automatically punish the child at the same time. Such a move would be neither morally nor economically justifiable.
  The Government must take into consideration the fact that, whatever the appeal procedures may be, I know that the Government have considered the matter again, because there are now more safeguards—if one penalises the woman because she refuses to name the father of her child and has good reasons for not naming him, one also punishes the child. The £7 a week that may be taken away from the woman is the cost of one shoe for a child of six or seven years of age, judging by what I recently paid for a pair of shoes for my grand-daughter. That is a lot of money and represents a tremendous proportion of such a mother's income. If a woman is prepared to lose such a sum because she will not name the father of her child, she must have good reason for refusing to do so. The Government must take that on board.
  The valid point was made that some children will have to be taken into care because the woman will not be able to manage. We do not want that to happen. The Government have often been proud to say that there are now fewer children in the care of the local authorities than has been the case for many years. They will now force a return to the previous position, because women will not be able to manage.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) mentioned children with disabilities. Although the Secretary of State gave him a partial answer, it did not meet the problems and the difficulties, or the anxieties of organisations such as Mencap. It is important for us to remember that children with disabilities have special and additional needs which we cannot allow to be overlooked in the Bill. The Secretary of State has said that that omission will be looked at. We
  238
  must establish adequate levels of maintenance for those children. The view of Mencap is that almost every lone parent whose child has a mental handicap will be forced to appeal against the maintenance bill if the proposed formula is applied, unless the extra costs are taken into consideration.
  Children with disabilities, as we all know, have many more difficulties than children with none. A lone parent with a child who has a disability often has to bear far greater costs in bringing up that child. The children often require extra heating and extra laundry, and their parents often cannot go to work. They may require relief care and special adaptations to their homes. We must take those factors into consideration.
  Mencap has made the point that it is unacceptable that parents of such children should have to troop through the courts to gain reasonable support. Although the Secretary of State gave some assurances on that, he must consider the matter in greater detail.
  The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which the Government have still to ratify, stresses:
  "In all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
  It seems abundantly clear that the interests of the Treasury and the need in public relations terms to be seen to be doing something about child poverty—which has doubled under this Government—are being given higher priority than the interests of children.
  I commend to the House a recent report by the Family Policy Study Centre. It showed that 62 per cent. of all children living with one parent would not benefit from the Bill.
  Mr. Thurnham: Then 38 per cent. would.
  Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman says that 38 per cent. of children would benefit. That depends on how the Bill is applied. If only 38 per cent. of children will benefit, the hue and cry about what it would do for lone parents seems to be sadly misplaced. It seems that 62 per cent. of children will not benefit. If the guarantees about, for example, children with disabilities are not met, an even greater number will not benefit.
  The whole issue of child support should be seen within the broader context of legislation to support and strengthen families. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury and by other hon. Members. Against a background of poverty, family breakdown and lack of child care and decent employment opportunities, the Government's tinkering with maintenance seems an inadequate response. To some of us, the Government seem to be saying to the taxpayer, "We are going to ensure that you do not have to keep other people's children." That has been said by two or three hon. Members tonight. The provision is not an attack on family poverty—rather, it is a public relations exercise.
  Being a responsible parent means much more than just footing the bill. Being a responsible Government means providing a supportive structure that will keep families out of poverty, minimise conflicts when families break down and, above all, protect children when their well-being is threatened. In that context, I look forward to proposals to reform the social fund, increase basic levels of income support and restore the value of child benefit, all of which could do so much to reduce family poverty.
  The Government suddenly tell us how many lone parents are living off the state, saying that people with low

  239
  incomes are forced to keep other men's children because those men do not face up to their financial responsibilities. Yet, as has already been pointed out, severe cuts at the DSS have affected the number of people employed in collecting money from liable parents. The numbers have gone down and down. Both resources and personnel were undermined, so that money that should have been collected was not collected—the Government's own reports say that. Now, suddenly, they say, "Oh, look—this is absolutely terrible. We must do something and go and catch those men." If the DSS had been properly funded, if it had had a proper level of personnel and a proper structure, much of that maintenance would have been collected already.
  We have concentrated a great deal on lone parents, and it is right that we should do so. It is such people, mainly women, who will be trapped by the Bill. People often present lone parents either as women who will not name the father of their child or as women who have irresponsibly conceived a child, who do not know who the father is and who simply feel that the state should keep them.
  But many women I know who are lone parents—whether they have been married or not, whether they are young girls or not, and whether they had a stable union or not—say over and over again that they would like to go to work. They would like not to be dependent on income support or on maintenance from the father, whom they may not want to see again and who may have been no good. "But," they ask, "how can I go to work when the cost of child care is so high? I would have to earn £80 or £90 a weeek more than my sisters who are not in this position, to be able to pay for child care and to make up for the fact that I would lose many benefits if I came off income support."
  If only the Government would get Departments to talk to each other about that problem, and do something about the accessibility of child care—for everybody, preferably, but here we are talking about a special group of women who are lone parents, many of whom would like to go to work but find the cost of child care prohibitive—there would be a transformation not only in the well-being of those women and their children but in the financial burden that the Government seemed so concerned that the taxpayer has to bear.
  The Government are talking about a disregard of £15 a week, but that would make almost no contribution towards meeeting the £60, £70 or £80 or more a week that full-time day care for children costs in many parts of the country. That is one of the real problems that the Bill does not consider, but it is important both in terms of money and in terms of the psychological well-being of the mother and the child.
  Too much is left to regulations. We do not have enough detail in the Bill. We do not know what we are being asked to support. Throughout the debate, the Secretary of State has said, "We shall bring in regulations to deal with that," or, "We shall have to look at that again." We cannot support a Bill that is so deficient in terms of the detail that we are asked to endorse.
  That is why I have suggested that the Secretary of State take on board our various criticisms. We have tabled a reasoned amendment and, if the Bill goes through, we shall
  240
  seek to amend it in Committee. I ask my hon. Friends and the rest of the House to support our reasoned amendment and try to bring into the Bill more light and more real concern for lone parents and their children.
  9.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): In summing up what has been a high quality debate, I first put on record my appreciation of the support that I have received from my hon. Friends the Members for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). The geographic spread of the constituencies of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate perhaps shows the wide appreciation and support for the measure in Britain.
  I also thank the many Opposition Members who made considered, careful and, in many cases, thoughtful speeches. The Committee stage has been put into a useful perspective. No one would disagree that the debate has signalled the giving of life to the ideas contained in the White Paper, "Children Come First", now embodied in the Child Support Bill. I emphasise my appreciation of the wide public support for the Bill.
  I took objection to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) when she accused the Government of not dealing with the incomes of low-income families. I look at her across the Dispatch Box and wonder whether she has noted that since the social security changes came into operation in 1988 we increased by some £400 million in real terms up to 1 April 1991 the money which is paid to families on low incomes. I shall deal with some of the other measures that we shall take under the Bill to address the points that she made.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: No, I should like to make progress. The hon. Gentleman had a fair opportunity earlier. It is now my turn to reply on behalf of the Government. I shall perhaps give way to him later when I have made progress.
  The proposals, which command wide support, reflect the continuing responsibilities of those who bring a child into the world for its moral, physical and economic welfare. That was summed up for me in a succinct phrase from a pamphlet that I read recently called, "Happy Families". It said:
  "Whilst you can divorce your husband or wife you cannot divorce your children".
  No one who saw the BBC2 television programme last week on divorce and listened to the interviews with children can be left in any doubt about the impact that divorce has on these young ones or the problems faced by members of a single-parent family.
  While the Bill cannot reconstitute families, it can contribute to the economic well-being of those families. I suppose that it was naive of me to think that the Opposition would not try to find some way of undermining in the mind of the public the wholly honourable intentions of the Bill. The Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment is the type of political deceit that we have come to expect from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The Opposition want

  241
  the respectability of not directly opposing the principles of the Bill, but they could not care two hoots about the effect of airing their criticisms on the public perception of these measures. The Opposition's reasoned amendment is not accurate and I shall address later some of the points that have been made.
  It is important to see the Bill as a package which seeks to create a legislative framework to ensure a proper line of financial support which reaches the children of a family. It seeks to achieve a proper sharing of the task between the parents and the taxpayer, who currently has to shoulder the financial burden by funding income support and family credit payments at a level which is higher than necessary because those with a responsibility to pay maintenance for their children do not honour their obligations.
  The Bill looks to the future and signals further changes which will address some of the points made by the hon. Member for Eccles in her concluding comments. She chastised the Government on child care. It worries me that she may not have looked in the intense detail that it deserves at example 10 in the White Paper, which deals with the very point that she made. The Government have been criticised today for not providing the fine detail, but when it is put before the Opposition they choose not to look at it.
  Example 10 relates to Linda, a lone parent with a daughter, Alison, who is six. Linda is receiving income support and is now ready to go to work—just like the example cited by the hon. Member for Eccles. On income support Linda would have a net income of just over £90 per week. Without the benefits of the proposals contained in the Bill, Linda would require to have a job paying £105 per week. As a result of the changes contained in the Bill relating to family credit, the reduction in the number of hours of work to qualify for benefit and the £15 disregard on maintenance, Linda would only have to accept a job paying as little as £54 a week to be in precisely the same financial position as she was on income support. The important proviso, however, is that she could go on to do better things.
  One third of the people who receive an award through family credit do not renew their claim because their payment levels rise. Such are the benefits of the changes that we have introduced and, as a result, family credit will be more easily accessible to those single parent families.
  I said earlier that I would give way to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I believe that now is an appropriate time to do so.
  Mr. Frank Field: I cannot recall the example of Linda, but so that the House can appreciate it, can the Under-Secretary tell us how much child care costs were in that example?
  Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reminded me of that because I forgot to say that in that example £45 per week of in-work costs were allowed for. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me a chance to put the record straight.
  Mr. Field rose—
  Mr. Jack: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has had enough time to put his views to the House, and many of my hon. Friends would like to hear the Government's side of the argument.
  242
  We believe that the changes to family credit will help a further 50,000 lone parent families to benefit from the new arrangements. It is important to draw that to the attention of the House as it illustrates the broad approach of the Bill.
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that since the White Paper was published, and during the debate on the Bill in another place, the Government have listened carefully to the representations made on a number of the proposals. We have already acted on the requirement to co-operate. We have also taken into account the representations made about the powers of the inspectors, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred today.
  I pledge to the House that we shall continue to listen carefully to sensible ideas for improving the Bill in Committee and its remaining stages. We shall honour our obligations to consult widely on the preparation and content of the regulations that will be occasioned by the Bill.
  The Bill relates to complex areas of social relationships, and we recognise that it would not be an easy task to get the Bill entirely right at the first attempt. That is why many of its procedural details have been framed in the form of regulations. Should we need to change any of those regulations in the light of experience, that can be done in such a way that it will not affect the Bill's primary purpose of putting children first.
  Dr. Godman: The Minister has said that he will listen to sensible suggestions. I have a sensible question on clause 40 and the right of the Lord Advocate to send such appeal cases to the sheriff court or the Court of Session. Will a person on low income be allowed legal aid and entitled to legal representation in either of those courts?
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman has raised a detailed and important question relating to Scotland. The Bill contains a Scottish dimension and I shall do my best to answer tonight the long list of questions that the hon. Gentleman has posed. Otherwise, I shall do so by means of correspondence later. I undertake that his questions will not go unanswered.
  An overriding issue in the debate has been the Government's policy and attitude to what was formerly known, when the Bill was originally published, as clause 22, dealing with the criteria for exemption from the requirement to co-operation and the sanction that we have said that we wish to introduce in our consideration of the measure.
  I wish to share with the House some experiences that I have had in trying to understand the real world in which the Bill will operate. I travelled the length and breadth of Britain talking to our liable relative officers who, contrary to what Opposition Members have said, are actively pursuing the measure, and their excellent efforts will bring an additional £300 million of benefit saving this year.
  In talking to those liable relative officers, I drew a number of conclusions. For example, I have had underlined the fact that about 75 per cent. of people under the present arrangements are content to name the father of the child. That is achieved by careful discussion and friendly persuasion by liable relative officers. That will not change under the proposed operation of the Child Support Agency. I assure the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the fact that we shall now have a dedicated agency, without some of the pressures to which he alluded in his

  243
  opening remarks, will mean that this sensitive work can be pursued, initially by friendly discussion, argument and persuasion. It is important to emphasise that and to see the question of benefit sanction as very much a last resort.
  In his evidence to the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State painted an important picture of the Child Support Agency acting as a buffer between the parent with care and the absent parent. The hon. Member for Birkenhead will note those words carefully, for he paid particular attention in the Select Committee to the remarks of my right hon. Friend. That, together with the work of the child support officers, will mean the addition of considerable distancing—the existence of a buffer state—between the parent with care, who may be reluctant initially to name the father, and the need to do something about that.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Minister aware that at the surgery in my constituency I am receiving an increasing number of cases of young girls who are pregnant or have young children and who report that the young men in question have absconded? When I have asked if they would mind my writing to the young men pointing out that their girlfriends were expecting children by them, were homeless and were throwing themselves on the mercy of their fellow citizens in an effort to get a roof over their heads, they have been content that I should write.
  The Government should press ahead with the Bill to make sure that those who wish to be in receipt of public funds are prepared to name the father. The Bill will send out an important signal to the rest of the world, particularly to feckless young men. That signal is that this country will no longer put up with people transferring their responsibilities to the rest of the taxpaying community.
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and direct point which leads me to further matters that have been raised in the debate. In our consideration of the measure and in discussing the question of distancing the problem for some people of naming the father, we must examine what was said in another place. There, when we announced that in addition to rape, incest or fear of violence, we would seek to find words to insert in the Bill which would also admit the question of harm and distress in terms of the obligation put on the parent with care to name the father, we went a long way indeed towards dealing with an issue that had been the subject of a great deal of representation to us inside and outside the House.
  In view of those provisions, the fear that some people may have about naming should be lessened, but we must have some ultimate sanction in the matter. That was put to me in graphic terms by a liable relative officer in Preston, who said, "Anything that affects their benefit money makes them change their minds." That is so. When people realise that there might be withdrawal of a sum of money, however small, they take a different view. As that officer put it to me, "When the measure was first announced, people came to the office in Preston and named the fathers."
  Hon. Members should see the question of sanctions and naming as the end of a long and careful process in which proper weight will be given to all the evidence and
  244
  information taken by child support officers in considering whether a woman has good cause not to name a missing father. I hope that that will reassure hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke about evidence. Where corroborative evidence can be submitted by a parent, it will be welcome. Clearly, the more information that is provided, the better, because the absence of such information would make decision making harder. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are minded by the remarks that have been made on that sensitive subject.
  The hon. Members for Oldham, West, for Birkenhead, and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that those on income support will not be better off under those arrangements. That goes to the heart of whether there should be a form of maintenance disregard for parents in receipt of that benefit. Most women who want to provide a better standard of living for their children would far rather do so by going back to work than by staying on benefit. We do not intend to try to weld them permanently to income support. As I said, the changes in family credit will allow people to move much more easily towards that benefit once those arrangements are in place. We have asked lone parents what they want to do and they have communicated to us that they would like their opportunities to be improved by going back to work. If a disregard in income support were introduced, the step back into work would be so much greater for people to take. On that basis, I cannot see the logic of the proposals of the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: I shall conclude my remarks because the hon. Gentleman may be interested in responding to this point. He said that his party wished to have a form of disregard but, when pressed by my hon. Friends to say how much it would cost, he failed to answer. Perhaps he could select from this list. If he agrees to a £5 maintenance disregard, it will cost £85 million; if he advocates a £10 disregard, it will cost £170 million; a £15 disregard will cost £250 million. In picking one of those options, will he say what other amendments to his policies he would make if he wishes to pursue that line?
  Mr. Meacher: I wanted to ask about lone parents who have very young children and no opportunity to go back to work. Does the Minister suggest that only mothers who go back to work should be given an incentive? Why should not mothers with very young children have an incentive? Does not that mean that there should be some maintenance disregard?
  Mr. Jack: From our research, the clear intention is that lone parents who seek to go back to work should do so when they so choose, which recognises the hon. Gentleman's point. In blunt terms, however, we do not believe that that is the best way to use those additional moneys. In my opening remarks, I told the hon. Member for Eccles that since 1988 we have spent £400 million in real terms on extra payments for families with children. We cannot afford to do that as well as have maintenance disregard. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is now on record as having dodged answering that question for the second time, so I hope that he will not mind if we impute a cost to his proposal.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: With respect to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, he is doing a grave disservice to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who posed a number of questions. It would be churlish and rude of me not to try to answer them.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West asked about guaranteed maintenance payments, a subject that is raised in his reasoned amendment. The Department of Social Security already has an arrangement whereby the caring parent on income support can choose to have her income support paid gross if maintenance payments are uncertain or irregular, and the Department will collect the maintenance. That avoids the problems of disrupted payments and ensures that the arrangements will continue. We have given that assurance on a number of occasions and I am happy to repeat it here. Maintenance is essentially a private arrangement between two individuals and we aim to promote a service that will enable those private arrangements to be met. There is no compulsion for someone to have his or her maintenance collected through the child support agency. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  Another point touched on by hon. Members on both sides of the House related to property and is sometimes known as the so-called clean break. I shall spend a moment or two dealing with the concerns expressed. I do not believe that the fears are as real as some people have advanced, although I acknowledge that, in its interim report, the Select Committee on Social Security, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, put forward a quality, reasoned argument on the issue. Despite what I am about to say, I shall consider carefully the points put to us by the Select Committee.
  When the courts consider what property settlements should be made, the welfare of children will come first. That is true now and will remain so in future. The formula can handle the consequences for the parties of any decision that the court consider to be in the best interests of children. If the family home goes to the caring parent and children, the absent parent's housing costs will be higher. Unless the housing costs are manifestly beyond reason, they will all go into the exempt income, which is therefore higher. In the formula, exempt income is the first charge on the available income of the absent parent who, in those circumstances, pays less maintenance.
  A clearly demonstrable trade-off as regards property is built into the formula. Some three quarters of parents who leave the family home, subsequently re-establishing themselves as owner-occupiers, will be able to take advantage of that provision. We are doing nothing to prevent people leaving and re-establishing a home if a property settlement has been made through the courts—in fact, quite the reverse. The seventh example in the White Paper clearly illustrates that point.
  I do not think that there can ever be a clean break between a parent and his children. It is perfectly feasible that adults may have made some form of clean-break property settlement in the past, but they have a continuing responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield rightly talked about rights and responsibilities. Parents have a continuing responsibility to look after children, whatever the circumstances. I assure hon. Members that the formula properly takes into account the property issue.
  If the former marital home is transferred to the parent with care of the child, and if there is a mortgage involved
  246
  and the parent is on income support, that income support can be used to take care of the financial burden. It is not always the case that such property settlements involve transfers of assets. If they involve transfers of assets invested for the purpose of providing income, the formula takes care of that in assessing the relative responsibilities for the provision of maintenance.
  During our discussions hon. Members touched on the so-called regressive nature of the formula. The fact that the formula shares on a 50:50 basis the allocation of assessable income between the parent who has responsibility for maintenance and the child shows that it applies even-handedly to people on all levels of income. Once the maintenance bill has been paid, we seek to take—at a greater percentage than that shown in the White Paper—the excess of the additional assessable income. That attempts to meet the criticism put forward that the basic maintenance application is of a regressive nature. As we shall see in Committee, that is a way in which we give children access to those additional moneys.
  I was asked whether the Inland Revenue should be the agency for collecting the maintenance payments. In his intense scrutiny of the detail of the Bill, it perhaps escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that, for example, people on income support do not pay any tax, so it would be difficult for the Inland Revenue to collect money from them.
  Many questions were asked about legal aid. Advice and assistance for tribunals is currently available under the existing legal aid provisions to enable appellants to prepare for tribunal hearings. I shall write to hon. Members about the other issues that have been raised. I commend the measure to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 221.

  Division No. 155]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Alton, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Crowther, Stan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dixon, Don

  Beith, A. J.

  Dobson, Frank

  Bellotti, David

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Benton, Joseph

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eadie, Alexander

  Boateng, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Fearn, Ronald

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Flynn, Paul

  Buckley, George J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Galloway, George

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  247

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Gould, Bryan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Graham, Thomas

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Haynes, Frank

  Mullin, Chris

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Murphy, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Nellist, Dave

  Hood, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Brien, William

  Howells, Geraint

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Janner, Greville

  Richardson, Jo

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lamond, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Salmond, Alex

  Leighton, Ron

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Livsey, Richard

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Snape, Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Soley, Clive

  McAllion, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Strang, Gavin

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McLeish, Henry

  Turner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wallace, James

  McMaster, Gordon

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Madden, Max

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Meacher, Michael

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Meale, Alan

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amos, Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cash, William

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Couchman, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Day, Stephen

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Devlin, Tim

  Benyon, W.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Favell, Tony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  248

  Forman, Nigel

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Moss, Malcolm

  Franks, Cecil

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Freeman, Roger

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Fry, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Norris, Steve

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gorst, John

  Page, Richard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Paice, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Gregory, Conal

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Pawsey, James

  Grist, Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Ground, Patrick

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hague, William

  Portillo, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Price, Sir David

  Hannam, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Redwood, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harris, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hayward, Robert

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Rost, Peter

  Hill, James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Janman, Tim

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Speller, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Knapman, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stern, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Knox, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Latham, Michael

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sumberg, David

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maclean, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Trippier, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Waller, Gary

  Maples, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Watts, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Wells, Bowen

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Whitney, Ray

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wilkinson, John

  249

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Child Support Bill [Lords]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Resolved,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motions in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

    CHILD SUPPORT BILL [Lords] [Money]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Child Support Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under that Act; and

    (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Maude.]

National Finance

  GIFTS FOR PURPOSES OF EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That provision may be made in substitution for section 84 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.—[Mr. Maude.]
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the other ways and means motions.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It might help the House if we could encourage the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has dragged himself away from the Finance Bill Committee, to tell us what he intends to proceed with in relation to insurance companies and building societies as the reason for tabling ways and means motion No. 4. His explanation so far has been brief to the point of absence, and I hope to encourage him to tell us what he proposes.
  In the Finance Bill Committee, we are already dealing with proposals in relation to building societies which are a constitutional and taxation outrage. It would be advantageous to know whether the Financial Secretary has anything similar in mind for insurance companies and friendly societies. In the case of building societies, the Government intend to secure, by retrospective legislation, a piece of blatant double taxation. If that is what they have in mind for other bodies also, we should know about it at this stage. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the ways and means motion is for.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: That contribution from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) should not go totally unchallenged. There is clearly an issue of principle in clause 50. In 1985, the Government said that there would be no extra revenue. I doubt that similar circumstances will apply—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with clause 50. We are dealing with the ways and means motion.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am dealing with that, Mr. Speaker, if I may develop my sentence. If the paragraph changes and I go wrong, I shall rely on you to intervene.
  As I was saying, I cannot believe that the Government would do the same thing twice on insurance companies or anyone else, and I believe that the Government will be thinking again about the previous experience and we shall not have any serious worries. I cannot seriously believe that £90 million could be given to the members of one building society and £250 million withheld from members of other building societies. Therefore, I hope that the House will be reassured, if not today then on some other occasion, by my hon. Friend.
  10.19 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will be wholly reassured when the matters which he has raised come to be considered in detail in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked what the purpose of the resolution is. My

  251
  explanation of the measures in moving them reflected the desire of the House to deal with the matters with some expedition. The resolution is to cover the new clause that we shall be introducing to change the tax rules for general annuity business and the amendment that we shall table shortly that changes the definition of a friendly society's tax exempt business. Both those proposals were announced on Budget day.
  General annuity business will be taxed in broadly the same way as basic life assurance business. The investment return accruing for the benefit of annuitants and prospective annuitants will, after relief for expenses and the income element of annuities in payment, be taxed in the hands of the life office. The resolution is needed to cover that charge. We propose to remove the restrictions preventing friendly societies from issuing small taxable policies because some businesses will be classified as taxable business. The resolution is needed to cover that tax charge.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: I take it that I have the leave of the House to put motions 4 to 9 together.

  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the taxation of insurance companies and friendly societies—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  ANNUITIES
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in connection with annuities—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  COMPANY LOSSES
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about setting off losses incurred by companies against profits or trading income of accounting periods, whenever ending—[Mr. Kirkhope]

  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about agreements relating to the sharing of transmission facilities—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  STAMP DUTY (CONSIDERATION)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the apportionment of consideration for stamp duty purposes—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  ADVANCE CORPORATION TAX: OIL INDUSTRY
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made restricting the circumstances in which advance corporation tax may be set against a company's liability to corporation tax on ring fence profits, within the meaning of Chapter V of Part XII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTFE
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the Matter of the Proposal for a draft Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, the Northern Ireland Committee shall meet no more than three times; that the Committee have leave to meet twice on the first day on which it shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before half-past Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two and a half hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  SEVERN BRIDGES (RE-COMMITTED) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Order for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Severn Bridges (re-committed) Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, be discharged and that the Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, be re-committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

GCSE Assessment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10.21 pm
Mr. Richard Page: The matter before the House tonight need not delay us for too long because it is one of simple justice.
Throughout society and our organisations we have the motto that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Whatever the case, there is an opportunity of appeal. If a person does not like his conviction or sentence in court, he can appeal. If a person puts in a planning application and it is turned down, he can appeal. A person who is made redundant and feels that his dismissal has been unfair can go to an industrial tribunal. A person who has a social security assessment with which he disagrees can appeal. Even someone trying to enter the country can, on the rejection of a visa, appeal. Yet, in the simple case of somebody who takes a GCSE and feels that he does not have the grade that he could or should have achieved, the appeal procedure is, to say the least, ropey. The only way that such a person can appeal is if the school says so. To look at it another way, the teacher knows best. Therefore, only through the school can an appeal procedure be implemented.
We have a problem which concerns me. The amount of course work in GCSE is escalating. It accounts for an ever greater proportion of the mark. The school now acts as both judge and jury. How many schools will roll over and say, "Gosh—we got this grade wrong. We made a mistake. We will review our decision."? Very few. They will say instead, "We are right and the pupil is wrong. There is nothing that we can do. You must accept the status quo."
Today, many college and job opportunities ride on the GCSE grades that a student achieves, yet the opportunity to have a grade reassessed is denied. In the past, some marks have relied 100 per cent. on course work and I dare say that in some cases the enthusiasm and intelligence of the parents have contributed to how well the child has done. We should put in place an appeals procedure whereby a pupil or parent can have a grade reassessed if it does not seem to reflect the child's abilities. I am not suggesting that that should be done for free. An economical charge should be made. The silver thread that runs through every other aspect of our democratic life is the opportunity to evaluate whether the system has looked after us and judged fairly. Such a system should also operate in our schools.
I will support my general case with a specific example. Some months ago, a mother came to my constituency surgery to express concern that her daughter, Michelle Wakeman, had been wrongly graded in two GCSE exams—English oral and art. Michelle's case was slightly unusual in that she could not be called a team player in respect of her school activities. She had had a lot of time off because of illness and other problems. I understand that in her last year she was absent from school for between 80 and 100 days—an immense length of time. What adds piquancy to Michelle's case is that she has an IQ of 178. I understand that certain Oxford colleges and others are more than willing to consider offering her a place. Therefore, one is not dealing with someone who is struggling on the margin.
254
A further dimension was added to Michelle's case when the school told Mrs. Wakeman that her daughter would not be entered for the exams in French or Greek civilisation because it was questionable whether she was up to the required standard. When Mrs. Wakeman argued against that decision, she was told by the school, "We don't want to waste taxpayers' money, but if you want to pay for your daughter to take the exams, you can." So Mrs. Wakeman paid and Michelle achieved an A pass in French and a C pass in Greek civilisation. However, she achieved only a grade D pass in art and a grade 4 pass in English oral, both of which involved in-house course work.
I subsequently made representations to the local education authority and to my hon. Friend who informed me that no powers existed to deal with that.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of subjectivity in the assessment of course work is particularly acute when the subject cannot easily be considered in terms of right and wrong, and the work cannot be marked accordingly? That applies to, for instance, economics and sociology. Teachers may have their views and may be inclined to discriminate against a pupil whose view is materially different. That makes it all the more important to introduce a built-in mechanism for appeal, so that the subjectivity of the marking system can be tested to the full.
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has underlined my point most ably. The subject involved here is art, and not many things in life are more subjective than that.
I have pursued the matter diligently over the past few months. A report from the school stated:
"If Michelle's English had been re-marked the work of all girls with the same grade would also have had to be re-marked as there was no final examination, just course work. There seemed no justification for this as we were pleased with our results and … the work of all pupils was submitted to an external moderation panel."
When I wrote to the county council, I encountered not only a similar phraseology, but the following information:
"The school therefore had to consider the possibility that the re-assessment of Michelle's course work might be lower than the grade awarded which would in all likelihood involve a shift in grade boundaries and a down grading of other girls."
What are people playing at? Those were the responses to an innocent request for the reassessment of a girl's examination results. It is not fair on the girl. Obviously, there has been friction between her and the school. When she takes independent exams that she is supposedly not up to, she does reasonably well, gaining an A and a C, but when subjective work is assessed internally, she manages only a grade 4. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, a grade 4 in GCSE oral English is low. I shall not say that it is on the moronic level, because that would be unfair, but it does not denote lucidity, and one would not expect it to be given to a girl who had managed to achieve a grade A in French and who is also taking Greek.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is on the Lambeth level.
Mr. Page: Hansard may or may not wish to record that remark.
The principle is unassailable. Course work is becoming too much a factor of GCSE, and assessments are subjective. It is, therefore, morally right for us to introduce

255
a reassessment programme or policy, so that justice is not only done, but seen to be done—and we can check that it has been done.
10.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): It is one of the signatures of parliamentary democracy that any hon. Member should be able to bring to the House not just a constituency matter but an individual case that involves a local family, and individual constituents with whom he is familiar and on whose behalf he has wrestled with a Government Department.
It is a unique advantage that, in such a debate, an hon. Member should take the opportunity to press the Department concerned not just to look again at an individual case, but to weigh and evaluate the general lessons involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) is, therefore, to be congratulated not merely by me, as convention dictates, but by the whole House.
I will begin by briefly examining GCSE as a whole. Like my hon. Friend, I suspect, I wish to emphasise that GCSE is still a new examination. It introduced a unified system of examining everyone at the end of compulsory schooling, and did away with the need to specialise early—to choose between 0-Level or CSE two years before taking the examination. My hon. Friend will recall that back in 1986 some teachers asked us to postpone the introduction of the exam and said that they were not ready for it. It is to the credit of Lord Joseph and his then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that they pressed ahead.
As I have visited schools, as an initial sceptic about the new exam, I have been left in no doubt about the commitment of teachers to it. The most recent HMI findings show that the energy and commitment of teachers in continuing to make GCSE a success, for the benefit of their pupils and students, remain undiminished. We already have evidence that GCSE results are improving year by year. In 1990, as in 1989 and 1988, the proportion achieving grades A to C improved. More importantly, last year we saw the A-level results of the first cohort to enter through GCSE. More entered for A-level, and more passed it.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: How does my hon. Friend know whether those grades reflect higher standards or a fall in the standards of exam marking?
Mr. Fallon: I was just coming to that. I was about to say that it is no discredit to GCSE—and it detracts in no way from my case that since 1986 GCSE has been generally successfully introduced—to warn the House against judging on any single first year's achievement. My hon. Friend will agree that it remains to be established how adequate this qualification is to those who want to pursue a more academic path. In that area, I find the evidence somewhat less compelling.
First, there is more and more anecdotal evidence from university departments to show that the small remaining minority from former British colonies who have continued with 0-levels reach higher standards than their United Kingdom counterparts. Secondly, and more interestingly,
256
every school that I have visited since becoming schools Minister tells me that for the more gifted pupils—those tackling more serious subjects such as the tougher sciences and the harder languages—a grade A at GCSE is no pointer and certainly no adequate preparation for study at A-level. Thirdly—this lies at the heart of the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West presented today—unlike any previous qualification, GCSE can be obtained by a disproportionate amount of course work.
It is significant that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his reply to the School Examinations and Assessment Council, has already limited the amount of course work that can count towards the final grades for A-levels. I, too, find it extraordinary that that same council now proposes a maximum of 70 per cent. course work to count towards such an important qualification. I seriously doubt whether such a high proportion of unexamined work validates the rigour that we want for the more gifted pupils.
SEAC is exactly the same body that worked so hard on the seven-year-old tests—the same group of shadowy education "experts" who, in one of the most incomprehensible and illiterate documents ever submitted to a Secretary of State, suggested the dilution of A-level standards in an attempt to remedy what they perceived to be the problem of GCSE.
If the challenge is to preserve the academic rigour of qualifications at 16 years, the answer surely does not lie in further dilution of our standards at GCSE. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West will therefore share my relief that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in last month's White Paper, firmly rejected the advice of SEAC on A-levels and the principles that it suggested should govern. Instead, he has sent back to the council the principles that he believes should govern A-level standards.
The challenge lies with the need to police much more rigorously the standards of the GCSE, to subject the examination, where we can, to external competition, and to continue to analyse the results. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West will welcome the fact that by 1994 the grades will have been metamorphosed into levels. Level 10 should be much higher than existing grade A when the GCSE is fitted into the national curriculum.
Above all, the challenge for the Department and its advisers is to continue to take notice of precisely the sort of complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West has brought before the House. First, the SEAC proposal that up to 70 per cent. of course work should count towards a supposedly academic qualification can no longer be taken seriously. Secondly, in assessment and moderation—what we used to know as marking—we should continue to be wary of any attempt to make the GCSE less rigorous than its predecessors.
As my hon. Friends will agree, an examination is effective only if those who mark do so accurately, rigorously and consistently. The marking of examination scripts in the GCSE, as in other public examinations, depends on rigorous procedures and on the experience and professionalism of examiners. In the GCSE, we have a combination of internal and external assessment. The precise balance depends on the syllabus of the course, and all markers are issued by the examining body with comprehensive instructions. They attend examiners'

257
meetings, which are aimed at ensuring that standards are rigorously, fairly and consistently applied. Furthermore, to safeguard standards, all the GCSE examining groups operate a process of moderation—in old language, of checking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West is asking what a school or parent can do if, despite the extensive care that is taken by the examining groups, a mistake is made. The scope of the appeal system that is now available to GCSE candidates is a little more extensive than used to exist for their predecessors who took 0-levels and CSEs. When the GCSE was introduced in 1988, there was instituted for the first time, in addition to the appeal structure of the individual examining bodies, a final court of appeal, which was operated by the joint council for the GCSE.
In 1990, a third tier—a final, final court of appeal, or a House of Lords—was added to the appeal structure in the shape of the Independent Appeals Authority for School Examinations. It was set up to deal with appeals that failed to be resolved with the framework of GCSE and A-AS examining bodies' appeal arrangements. Recent years have seen only relatively few such cases in respect of the GCSE. The joint council dealt with only six cases following the 1989 examinations, and only one last year.
There have been some instances where pupils, parents and schools have been left with a sense of injustice, which is damaging to the reputation of the GCSE and AS examinations and to public confidence in them. The new authority provides an additional assurance of fair dealing.
The remit of the independent authority goes well beyond what has previously been available. It can ask an examining body to reconsider a case and it can examine such issues as the suitability of an examination paper, the validity of a marking scheme, the quality of the marking and the way in which grade boundaries are set. The authority will publish its conclusions and the underlying reasons, and where an examining body has been asked to reconsider a case its response will similarly be published. The authority has been set up as a final arbiter. It supplements the appeals procedures of the examining groups, but as it is independent of the groups, it will provide an additional assurance of fair dealing and one hopes it will strengthen public confidence in school examinations.
Having given my hon. Friend an overview of the GCSE and the assessment procedures, I turn to the case to which he referred. He has already persistently brought it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, in correspondence and I sympathise with the frustration felt by the candidate
258
and her parents. I agree that in principle it would be desirable for all disputed examination results to be re-checked. However, an enormous number of candidates are disappointed with their grades, and it would not be practicable in terms of time and money for the examining bodies to re-check every case. Checking by an independent body with a separate team of examiners would involve even greater cost, all at the taxpayer's expense. I need hardly add that all the re-checking in the world does not guarantee that the candidates and all their parents would find that the grade finally awarded matched their best expectations.
Mr. Page: It is immaterial whether the grade is put up, put down or remains the same. It is the principle of being able to have it checked that I ask my hon. Friend to uphold. I will not say that the girl's grade is immaterial, but it is irrelevant to what I am asking for today.
Mr. Fallon: That could hardly have been put more clearly. That is the principle at the heart of the debate and I shall come to it.
The Government cannot instruct schools to lodge appeals on behalf of candidates. However, in the case of maintained schools, parents are entitled to pursue the matter with their local education authority. From the papers that I have seen on the case, the authority was closely involved and concluded that the school's decision not to lodge an appeal was justified.
I emphasise the importance that we attach to having the correct appeals machinery in place. I spoke earlier of the independent appeals authority, which was set up only a year ago. Its remit and method of operation may not be precisely what is required, but both will be scrutinised after the authority's first two years of operation—that is, later this year—and a report will be made to the Secretary of State.
This evening my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that there is currently no way in which a pupil or his or her parents can appeal against an examination result unless the appeal has either the school's or the examination centre's support. I have explained why that is the case, but I agree that serious consideration will have to be given to the matter when the operation of the independent appeals authority is reviewed later this year. I shall certainly ensure that the criticisms of the present appeals procedure that my hon. Friend made are given consideration at that time.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the arrangements for a police escort for the road transportation of nuclear products are rigorously enforced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Movements of radioactive materials by road must comply with the Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations 1974 and Amendment Regulations 1985.

  There is no requirement in these regulations for police escorts to accompany the road transport of radioactive materials.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many journeys involving the transport of nuclear waste there were on the road system in Northumberland in the years 1988, 1989, 1990, and the first three months in the current year;

  (2) how many times nuclear waste has been transported along the A1 between British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield, Cumbria, and Dounreay, Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many times nuclear waste has been transported along the A69 between British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield, Cumbria, and Dounreay, Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department does not collect data of the kind requested.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the numbers and dates of road accidents on the A69 involving the transportation of nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  There have been no accidents reportable under the Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations 1974 involving vehicles carrying radioactive materials, but I am aware of a minor road traffic accident at Hexham on 19 April this year to a vehicle carrying miscellaneous items which included a package of low-level nuclear waste. This did not cause any damage to the package or its contents.

  Motorways
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that section of the M1 which passes through Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire to be cleared of litter.

  Mr. Chope
  Litter clearance is carried out continuously on this section of motorway, with daily removal of large individual items of debris.

  Rail Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the Government now intend to make subsidies available to any InterCity services which might otherwise be jeopardised as a result of impending privatisation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he intends taking in the run-up to privatisation of the InterCity services of British Rail; if he will ensure that these branches of the intercity network which do not make a profit, are not run down by British Rail, or transferred to provincial services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No decision has yet been taken on the structure of a privatised British Rail. Detailed questions about transfers of services between parts of BR, or about the subsidy regime for particular services, must await that decision.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with his Irish counterparts concerning the implications for rail services between London and Holyhead arising from the Government's plans to privatise railway services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no discussions about the implications of privatisation for London-Holyhead rail services. He has had recent correspondence with his Irish counterpart about the Crewe-Holyhead line, in the context of channel tunnel services and the European Commission's proposals for a high-speed rail network.

  Freight Facilities Grant Scheme
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the main changes he intends to make to the freight facilities grant scheme: and when the changes will come into operation.

  Mr. Freeman
  With the agreement of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, the following changes will be made:

  (i) a tripling in the price which the Government are proposing to pay for environmental benefits. The ceiling for grant is to be increased to £l per lorry-sensitive mile from the current level of 34p, and will be revalued for inflation in future years;

  (ii) virtually all single-carriageway roads will be considered environmentally-sensitive, rather than the current narrower definition of unclassified, urban; and scenic roads;

  (iii) most urban dual carriageway journeys will count for grant;

  (iv) urban roads will be given a 50 per cent. higher weighting than other sensitive roads;

  (v) the grant rules will be revised to allow for the eligibility in principle of inter-modal systems;

  (vi) schemes of exceptional environmental benefit will no longer be restricted to a maximum rate of grant of 60 per cent;

  (vii) in appraising a grant application, the stream of future environmental benefits will be calculated on a discounted basis, so that they are expressed in the same way as costs, which are currently expressed on that basis;

  (viii) the period of appraisal will remain generally at 10 years, but with flexibility to apply a lesser or greater period if appropriate; and to consider substitute flows of traffic as meeting the grant conditions over the life of the project where appropriate;

  (ix) 5 per cent. of grant payable may be retained until monitoring returns showing that a scheme is operating satisfactorily;

  139

  (x) the grant rules will be amended to permit the Department(s) to take a charge on assets in particular circumstances;

  (xi) greater publicity will be given to the scheme.

  The new criteria on payment of grant will be introduced immediately.

  Shipowners
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made and what reports he has published concerning the comparative costs borne by

  Appendix 3.1 Some Comparative Crew-cost Options (30,000 dwt. Bulk Carrier)—1990 (£)

  OPTION A —UK officers —UK ratings (all UK rates)

  OPTION B —UK officers (offshore rates) —Filipino ratings (ITF approved rates)

  OPTION C —4 UK key officers (offshore rates) —6 Indian officers —Filipino ratings (all ITF approved rates)

  OPTION D —4 UK key officers (offshore rates) —6 Indian officers (ITF approved rates) —Hong Kong/China ratings (HK/PRC rates)

  OPTION E —Filipino officers —Filipino ratings (all ITF approved rates)

  OPTION F —Indian officers —Indian ratings (all ITF approved rates)

  Officers wages and leave

  314,064

  282,435

  217,589

  217,589

  147,340

  154.584

  Ratings wages and leave including overtime

  277,128

  95,425

  95,425

  81,803

  95,425

  120,654

  Crew travel

  59,400

  43,200

  39,600

  40,650

  29,700

  46,200

  Manning expenses

  4,770

  6,083

  7,000

  8,922

  7,376

  7,635

  Annual crew cost

  655,362

  427,123

  359,614

  348,964

  279,841

  329,073

  Daily crew cost

  1,796

  1,171

  986

  956

  767

  902

  Notes:

  Total crew complement: 22 = 10 officers + 12 ratings.

  Tours of duty: British—4 months.

  Asian/Eastern—8 months.

  Leave: British (United Kingdom rates)—12 days per month.

  British (Offshore)—l0 days per month.

  Asian/Eastern—6 days per month.

  Overtime: assumes mean of 100 hours per month.

  Salaries paid in: British—£.

  Others—US$ (at 1·70 = £1).

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his marine pollution control unit has taken to monitor(a) the DESMI Engineering contract for heavy duty skimmers, (b) the Alba International contract in relation to the clean-up of Musallamiyah bay and (c) the Alba International contract for the clean-up of the coastline of Karan island.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: In respect of the Department of the Environment contract with DESMI Engineering, the marine pollution control unit acting on behalf of DOE, checked that the heavy duty oil skimmers were in full working order prior to their despatch to Bahrain.

  As advised in my reply of 15 April at column 1, both of the contracts with Alba International were between that company and the International Maritime Organisation, which advises that the work has been completed satisfactorily. The MPCU had no monitoring role.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funds the United Kingdom gives to the International Maritime Organisation Gulf fund.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The Departments of Transport and of the Environment have
  140
  United Kingdom shipowners for comparable standards of manning and safety under flags of convenience and flags of Commonwealth states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The Department of Transport has, from time to time, commissioned information on crew cost comparisons, from ship managers and consultants, in order to help inform policy. Such information has not generally been published. The hon. Member may, however, be aware that the report of the joint working party on British shipping, published last year, included the attached table of case-specific figures, supplied by the General Council of British Shipping.

  each made a single £500,000 contribution to the International Maritime Organisation's Gulf oil pollution disaster fund.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement about the review of the financial conditions for legal aid which were announced in November 1990.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is publishing a consultation paper today canvassing the options for funding civil legal aid with particular reference to those people who are currently not eligible for legal aid. Copies of the paper have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. The consultation period will run until the end of October and no decisions will be taken before then. A separate consultation paper will shortly be issued in Scotland to take account of the different position there.

  Further stages of the review will cover legal aid in criminal and matrimonial cases and the green form advice and assistance scheme. Separate consultation papers will be issued for these stages.

THE ARTS

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give details of any proposed changes to the cash and running costs limits for his Department's votes in 1991–92.

  Mr. Renton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary summer supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XII, vote 4, is to be increased by £106,000 from £2,176,000 to £2,282,000. Additional provision is being transferred to meet the costs of certain services provided by the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Department of the Environment (Property Holdings). There is no net effect on the planning total.

  Royal Scottish orchestra £

  Scottish chamber orchestra £

  Scottish Baroque ensemble £

  Scottish Opera £

  Scottish Ballet £

  1988–89

  1,444,000

  636,350

  91,250

  3,260,000

  1,370,000

  1989–90

  1,473,000

  676,000

  91,800

  3,357,000

  1,407,000

  1990–91

  1,639,700

  709,000

  99,500

  3,669,000

  1,525,000

  1991–92

  1,735,000

  755,000

  107,000

  3,935,000

  1,640,869

  Some additional moneys have yet to be allocated in 1991–92 by the Scottish Arts Council from the enhancement fund and for touring; the companies above will be among the recipients of these funds.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the annual amount of grants to arts organisations and events in the cities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh for the financial years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and projected for the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Scottish Arts Council grants to client organisations are as follows. Information relating to local authority grants is not readily available.

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Aberdeen

  147,557

  160,543

  135,287

  180,000

  Dundee

  332,809

  371,520

  416,616

  399,285

  Edinburgh

  2,762,526

  2,857,636

  3,176,717

  3,101,000

  Glasgow

  7,569,290

  7,894,700

  8,662,421

  9,119,569

  Notes:

  (i) The figures above include grants to the three national companies based in Glasgow and the one national company based in Edinburgh. These companies are required, as a condition of grant, to tour throughout Scotland.

  (ii) They also include other touring companies, and galleries producing touring exhibitions, that are predominantly based in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

  (iii) Figures for 1991ߝ92 are based on budget plans and exclude funds yet to be allocated.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.
  142
  The running costs limit for the Office of Arts and Libraries will be increased by £106,000 from £2,136,000 to £2,242,000.

  Grants (Scotland)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the amount of grant paid to the Scottish national orchestra, Scottish chamber orchestra, Scottish Baroque ensemble, Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet for each of the financial years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and projected for the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The information requested is as follows:—

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: No energy audits have been carried out in my Department, but surveys to improve energy efficiency have been, and are being, undertaken.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his office in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Investment to improve energy efficiency has been the responsibility of the Property Services Agency and the major occupying Departments within the two buildings in which my Department is located. Staff are encouraged, however, to follow simple but effective no-cost measures to help reduce energy consumption.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The Office of Arts and Libraries has no dedicated energy managers but is advised in such matters by the Cabinet Office.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Woolwich Case
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what grounds the Inland Revenue lost the Woolwich case in the High Court;

  (2) how many judges in (a) the High Court, (b) the Court of Appeal and (c) the House of Lords did not agree with the original Inland Revenue contention that there was no double taxation in the Woolwich case;

  (3) on what grounds the Inland Revenue won the Woolwich case in the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Maples
  The High Court held that the Building Societies Regulations 1986 went beyond the scope of the
  143
  enabling powers, to the extent that they sought to bring into account payments made by building societies in transitional periods to 6 April 1986. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

  The House of Lords dismissed by a majority of four to one the Woolwich's principal argument in its appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision and confirmed that the enabling legislation did authorise the Inland Revenue to made regulations covering transitional periods to 6 April 1986. But the Lords held unanimously that there was no power to apply 1985–86 tax rates to payments in the transitional periods.

  Over the course of the litigation seven judges found that the enabling legislation authorised the Revenue to make regulations bringing into charge payments of interest in transitional periods to 6 April 1986; two found that it did not.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate in total how much the Inland Revenue received from building societies in 1985–86 and 1986–87; and how much will not be repaid as a consequence of clause 50 of the Finance Bill being approved by the House.

  Mr. Maples
  Receipts of income tax and corporation tax from building societies were £3,025 million in 1985–86 and £3,067 million in 1986–87. An estimated £130 million of 1986–87 receipts would be repaid if clause 50 was not approved; receipts of about £20 million in later years would also be repaid, together with accumulated interest amounting to about £100 million at the beginning of this financial year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many building societies, on or after 25 October 1990, asked for return of the tax which was in dispute; and how many received a written acknowledgement before the Budget speech in 1991.

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

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Treasury or Inland Revenue estimates of extra or accelerated payment of tax by building societies from(a) the changed tax arrangements and (b) the transitional arrangements were published in (i) 1985 and (ii) 1986.

  Mr. Maples
  The 1985–86 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" showed the effect of the building society measures on Exchequer revenue in 1985–86 to be nil and estimated the effect on tax liabilities for the first full year to be a reduction of £20 million in societies' liability to corporation tax.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a complete collection of Treasury press notices, ministerial speeches and pronouncements, and debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee on the change in taxation payments by building societies.

  Mr. Maples
  I have placed a collection of this information in the Library.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by the Central Office of Information in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Central Office of Information in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Maples
  This question falls within the scope of the policy announced in Cm. 1263: arrangements have therefore been made for the chief executive of the Central Office of Information to respond direct. Copies of the letter will be placed in the House Library and with the Public Information Office.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Treasury in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by Her Majesty's Treasury in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Maples
  The expenditure in the financial year 1990–91 is estimated to be some £5,902,000, which includes some £5,245,600 by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. Figures include the cost of development studies, which in turn include the cost of associated hardware and software; the later items are not separately identifiable.

  The following management and computer consultancy contracts were awarded by Her Majesty's Treasury in the financial year 1990–91.

  Contracts awarded:

  A Bobsin

  Office services project

  A. Morris

  Personnel project

  Admiral

  Quality Management

  AIAI

  Consultancy Support

  AMP Systems Lts

  Systems upgrade

  AMTEC

  Consultancy Support

  Anderson Consultants

  ITIL Project Support

  Ashford Associates

  Development Support

  B. Traynor

  Health project

  BBC Central Directorates

  Press office project

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Auditing contract

  BIS

  CRAMM Project Support

  BIS

  Consultancy Support

  Brameur

  Consultancy Support

  Brian Bolton

  Standards Support

  Brian Farrington Ltd

  Purchasing and Supply

  British Computer Society

  ITIL Project Support

  British Telecomm

  GTN Support

  C. Cubed

  Consultancy Support

  C. Makemson

  GOSIP Project Support

  CAMTEC

  Consultancy Support

  Cannon Rosen and Co.

  Personnel project

  CAPITA Group Ltd.

  Pursuit project

  Catering Consultants

  Pay division project

  CCMS

  ITIL Project Support

  Cego Mackrotest

  Market Research

  Chipboards

  IT Support

  City University

  Study in Estimating

  City University

  Study in Management

  Civil Service College

  Training Support

  CMGBIS

  SSADM Project Support

  145

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Purchasing research

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Management policy project

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Coding Systems for Purchasing

  D. B. I. Associates

  Development Support

  D. R. Moss

  Programming Support

  DAE University of Cambridge

  Capital gains and balance of payments

  Data Dictionary

  SSADM Project Support

  Data Systems

  Consultancy Support

  DCMS

  Network Management Support

  Delta Dimensions Ltd.

  Purchasing Database

  Deuce

  CRAMM Project Support

  DMW Group

  GTS Project Support

  Dr. D. Helm

  Economics project

  Dr. E. Burgess

  Personnel project

  DTI

  Management policy project

  EFD

  Consultancy Support.

  EOSYS

  Consultancy Support.

  ERA Technology

  Systems Interface.

  Ernst & Young

  GTS Project support.

  Ernst & Young

  GEMINI Marketing.

  Ernst & Young

  Methods Harmonisation.

  Ernst & Young

  ITIL Project support.

  Fischer & Lorenz

  Consultancy Support.

  Format Desktop Publishing

  SSADM Project Support.

  Frank Griffiths Associates

  Comments on DTp's Action Plan.

  Frank Griffiths Associates

  Highways Consultancy Commissions.

  Frank Griffiths Association

  Purchasing research.

  G. Hughes

  Development work on Project Database.

  Graftondale

  Open Systems Support.

  GTP Sales

  Telecomms Update.

  Healy R. Baker

  Accounting research project.

  Hedra Ltd.

  IT Review Support.

  Hoskyns

  Consultancy Support.

  HWPH Ltd.

  Nursery project.

  ICI C & P Headquarter

  Economics project.

  ICL

  Use of OSNET telecommunications system.

  Ideas Int.

  Database Support.

  IDU

  ITIL Project Support.

  IDU

  Infrastructure Support.

  Industrial Training Service

  Management policy project.

  Industrial Training Service

  Management policy project.

  Info Strategy

  GOSIP Project Support.

  Infologistix

  ITIL Project Support.

  Info. Design

  ITIL Project Support.

  Ingham Partnership

  SSADM Project Support.

  Ingham Partnership

  User Interface Project.

  Ingham Partnership

  Consultancy Support.

  Insieme

  ITIL Project Support.

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Personnel project.

  J. D. Barnett

  Office services project.

  J. Gammon

  Use of private sector purchasing agent.

  J. K. Microelectric

  Consultancy Support.

  J. Westgate

  Consultancy Support.

  K. Baldwin

  Consultancy support

  K. P. G. Computer Support Services Ltd.

  Computer project

  K. W. Gray

  Personnel project

  Kermon Associates

  Consultancy support

  Kermon Associates

  GTS project support

  Kiddy & Co.

  Account management

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Auditing contract for IBM 43/81

  Lancare

  Check of telecommunications links

  Logica

  Consultancy support

  Logica

  GEMINI project support

  Logica

  Capacity planning

  M. Brech

  Management policy project

  M. J. O. Willacy

  Purchasing adviser

  M. N. Pickett

  Estate management

  M. W. Townley

  Financial institutions project

  MARI Group

  Consultancy support

  Masons

  Consultancy support

  Model Systems

  Consultancy support

  146

  Mrs C Megan

  Pensions project

  Ms S Horder

  Personnel project

  Network Telecomms

  GOSIP project support

  Nolan & Norton

  SSADM project support

  Nottingham University

  CSCW support

  OASIS Limited

  Pursuit project

  Open Systems Foundation

  Open Systems support

  Open Systems Foundation

  Training support

  OSI Services

  GTS project support

  Ovum Ltd

  Consultancy support

  Oxford Economic Research

  Economics project

  P Chambers

  Personnel project

  P G Davis

  Pensions project

  P N Parry

  Guidance on works projects

  PA Consultancy

  Consultancy support

  PA Consultancy

  ITIL project support

  PA Consultancy

  GDN project support

  Pat Bacon

  Pursuit project

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Management policy project

  Peter Hyde

  ITIL project support

  Pi Limited

  Purchasing database

  Pink Elephant

  ITIL project support

  Pratten

  Consultancy contract

  PRAXIS

  Framework support

  Price Waterhouse Association

  Privatisation project

  Protocol Int

  ITIL project support

  PSC Int

  GOSIP project support

  QBS Ltd

  ITIL project support

  R H Willmott

  EPHOS Project Support

  R H Willmott

  GOSIP Project Support

  R L Harris

  Marketing Support

  R M O'Connor

  Standards Support

  R Morgan

  Economics research

  Roger Tym and Partners

  Aid and export finance project

  Salford

  Development Support

  SEMA

  GOSIP Project Support

  SEMA

  Consultancy Support

  Sensitive Visual Aids

  Braille Support

  Softlab

  ITIL Project Support

  Soutron

  Consultancy Support

  Strand S. T. Ltd.

  Consultancy Support

  Systems Associated

  Consultancy Support

  T C F Howard

  Personnel project

  T McCormack

  Personnel project

  T W Olle Associates

  Development Support

  Telecomputing Ltd

  Automated job assembly consultancy

  Theo Goddard

  Consultancy Support

  Touche Ross Ltd

  Consultancy Support

  Transform

  Pay Project

  Transtech Consultancy Service

  Personnel project

  Trove

  GOSIP Project Support

  Turing Institute

  Development Support

  W. E. Townsend

  Personnel project

  Woodway

  Consultancy Support

  Workplace Nurseries

  Nursery project

  X-Tel Services

  CSCW Support

  Key to abbreviations

  ITIL

  IT Infrastructure Library

  SSADM

  Structured Analysis and Design Methodology

  GOSIP

  Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile

  CRAMM

  CCTA Risk Analysis and Management Methodology

  EPHOS

  European Procurement Handbook for Open Systems

  GTN

  Government Telecommunications Network

  GTS

  Government Telecommunications System

  OSI

  Open Systems Interconnection

  CSCW

  Computer Supported Co-operative Working

  GDN

  Government Data Network

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by the Royal Mint in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or
  147
  computer consultancy contract awarded by the Royal Mint in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Maples
  This question falls within the scope of the policy announced in Cm. 1263: arrangements have therefore been made for the deputy master and chief executive of the Royal Mint to respond direct. Copies of the letter will be placed in the House Library and with the Public Information Office.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by HMSO in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by HMSO in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  £ million

  Small properties

  Large properties

  All properties

  County

  1973 Rateable value

  1990 Rateable value

  1973 Rateable value

  1990 Rateable value

  1973 Rateable value

  1990 Rateable value

  Bedfordshire

  5

  42

  38

  301

  42

  343

  Berkshire

  4

  46

  66

  639

  70

  685

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  44

  45

  427

  49

  471

  East Sussex

  7

  71

  27

  247

  34

  317

  Essex

  13

  120

  80

  717

  92

  837

  Hampshire

  11

  113

  80

  695

  91

  808

  Hertfordshire

  7

  67

  89

  698

  96

  765

  Isle of Wight

  1

  15

  3

  37

  5

  53

  Kent

  12

  124

  63

  580

  75

  705

  Oxfordshire

  4

  45

  31

  326

  35

  371

  Surrey

  7

  76

  64

  642

  71

  718

  West Sussex

  6

  57

  39

  379

  44

  436

  London Boroughs and City of London

  112

  1,031

  1,138

  8,983

  1,250

  10,014

  The table gives rateable values before and after revaluation for all properties in the rating lists as at 1 April 1990. Small properties are taken to be those with a 1990 rateable value below £15,000 in London, and below £10,000 elsewhere.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what was the total amount spent by the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the OMCS in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Renton
  The OMCS spent £747,500 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, in 1990–91. The management and computer consultancy contracts let by the OMCS during 1990–91 are as follows:

  Firm and Assignment

  Coopers and Lybrand—Informing decisions on advising Departments and Agencies about the evaluation of Agencies' performance.

  Computer Answers Ltd.—Design and write database system.

  148
  Mr. Maples
  This question falls within the scope of the policy announced in Cm. 1263: arrangements have therefore been made for the chief executive of HMSO to reply direct. Copies of the letter will be placed in the House Library and with the Public Information Office.

  Business Premises (South-East Counties)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of(a) small, (b) large and (c) all business premises in each south-eastern county (i) before and (ii) after the recent revaluation which coincided with the introduction of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:

  Daton Systems Ltd.—Design and write database system.

  DBI Associates—Feasibility study for replacement computer system.

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock—Evaluation of senior staff training and development programme.

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock—Evaluation of implementation of Management Charter Initiative guidelines.

  Linbert Spencer—Development of equal opportunity recruitment guidance pack.

  Nottingham Professional Development Services—Production of an access training manual and other training materials.

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.—Programming support in development of recruitment processing system.

  Pearn Kandola Downs—Development of equal opportunity learning programme and training materials.

  Praxis Systems—Assistance in the analysis, design and testing of software and production of user manual.

  Psytech Ltd.—Further development of computerised system to support use of psychometric testing in recruitment schemes.

  Raindrop Data Systems Ltd.—Design and write database system.

  Taylor Stewart Associates—Development of training material on managing people from diverse groups.

  Trident Computer Services—Design and write database system.

  The only consultancy contract let by an executive agency was that with DBI Associates, let by the occupational health service.

HEALTH

  Cigarette Advertising
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statutory provisions relating to the EC's powers concerning cigarette advertising.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Commission is proposing a new draft directive on tobacco advertising, the text of which is not yet available. Previous drafts have been based on article 100A of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total level of expenditure on pay for nurses, in cash and constant prices, in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested for the financial years since NHS reorganisation on 1 April 1974 is shown in the table.

  The level of expenditure in 1989–90 reflects the transfer of many senior nurse managers from the nursing and midwifery pay structure to general senior management pay categories, a planned reduction in the overall number of students in training and other factors.

  NHS expenditure on salaries and wages—nursing and midwifery staff

  Total salaries and wages costs

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1989–90 prices)

  1974–75

  761,521

  3,201,069

  1975–76

  985,114

  3,298,763

  1976–77

  1,122,979

  3,311,980

  1977–78

  1,220,263

  3,165,533

  1978–79

  1,375,652

  3,218,475

  1979–80

  1,679,338

  3,367,308

  1980–81

  2,338,084

  3,961,953

  1981–82

  2,554,240

  3,947,322

  1982–83

  2,747,676

  3,964,759

  1983–84

  2,858,812

  3,942,959

  1984–85

  3,074,483

  4,035,413

  1985–86

  3,261,598

  4,059,776

  1986–87

  3,566,025

  4,291,889

  1987–88

  4,013,321

  4,580,604

  1988–89

  4,750,229

  5,052,819

  1989–90

  5,028,195

  5,028,195

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

  NOTES TO THE TABLE

  1. The figures are gross pay costs including employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions. Expenditure on non-NHS (agency, etc.) staff is also included.

  2. The figures for earlier years have been expressed at 1989–90 prices by the use of Gross Domestic Product deflators.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of those people nominated to be chairs of second-wave NHS trusts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  An announcement of the names of the chairmen of second-wave NHS trusts will be made after the trusts have been formally established.

  Intestinal and Stomach Cancer
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has on links between diet and the incidence of intestinal and stomach cancer, with particular reference to the consumption of red meat.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Comparisons of diet and the incidence of intestinal cancer in different groups have prompted hypotheses of a possible increase in risk from the consumption of red meat or its fat content, but the evidence is inconclusive.

  The Department is not aware of any suggested link between the consumption of red meat and an increased risk of stomach cancer.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported reactions there have been to vaccines in the last year for which figures are available; which vaccines were reported; what were the reactions; and whether any of these resulted in permanent disabilities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There were 748 reports of suspected adverse reactions to vaccines in 1990; some of these reports may have featured more than one vaccine and/or more than one reaction. The report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

  The following vaccines were involved:—

  Anthrax

  BCG

  Diphtheria

  Hepatitis B

  Influenza

  Measles

  Measles/mumps/rubella

  Polio

  Rubella

  Tetanus

  Typhoid

  Whooping cough

  Yellow fever

  The reactions reported fell into the following categories:—

  Application site disorders

  Arrythmias

  Auditory and vestibular

  Autonomic nervous system

  Bleeding and clotting disorders

  Cardiovascular disorders

  Central nervous system

  Collagen disorders Endocrine disorders

  Fetal disorders

  Gastro-intestinal disorders

  General disorders

  Hepatic disorders

  Intra-cardiac disorders

  Male reproductive disorders

  Metabolic and Nutritional

  Muscular Skeletal disorders

  Other special senses

  Peripheral vascular disorders

  Psychiatric disorders

  Resistance mechanism

  Respiratory disorders

  Skin and appendages

  Urinary disorders

  Visual disorders

  White blood cell disorders

  A number of the reports indicated that, at the time of reporting, the patient had not yet recovered. A number of these patients have subsequently recovered.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made to the cash limits and running cost limits for his Department in 1991–92.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 1 (hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England) will be increased by £162,196,000 from £16,247,836,000 to £16,410,032,000. This increase allows for an additional £157,719,000 to help provide, from 1 April 1991, for the pay awards recommended in the 1991 reports of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine, and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 31 January 1991 and for a transfer of £4,758,000 from class XI, votes 2 (Department of Education and Science, higher and further education) and 3 (Department of Education and Science, student awards, loans and compensation payments) in respect of public sector higher education. These increases are partially offset by transfers of £ 191,000 to class XVI, vote 8 (hospital and community health services, family practitioner services (part) and other health services, Wales) in respect of occupational therapy training and £90,000 to class XIII, vote 3 (see below) in respect of a child health care initiative.

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 3 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be increased by £43,118,000 from £683,351,000 to £726,469,000. The increase provides for £1,281,000 to meet, from 1 April 1991, the review body recommendations mentioned above; for £42,000,000 for grants to haemophiliacs infected with HIV; for a net transfer of £847,000 from class XIV, vote 4 (Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services) following a reapportionment of costs between the two Departments; for transfers of £90,000 from class XIII, vote 1 (see above) in respect of a child health care initiative and £14,000 from class IV, vote 2 (Department of Trade and Industry, support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration) in respect of research undertaken by the laboratory of the Government chemist and the national physical laboratory. The increases are partially offset by a transfer of £1,114,000 to class XI, vote 2 (Department of Education and Science, higher and further education) in respect of social work training. The Department's running cost limit is decreased by £733,000 from £253,625,000 to £252,892,000.

  The increases have been charged to the reserve and therefore do not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Cigarette Consumption
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the source of his information that cigarette consumption in the Netherlands declined by 41 per cent. over the period 1975 to 1987; and whether this figure is for both manufactured cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco together, or for only one of these categories.
  152
  Mr. Dorrell
  The original source of this information is the Central Bureau for Statistics, the Netherlands. The figure relates only to manufactured cigarettes. It was recently published in the United Kingdom in Waterson M. J. "Advertising and Tobacco Consumption: An Analysis of the two Major Aspects of the Debate"International Journal of Advertising, 1990, 9, 59–72, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if priority will be given to the removal of tobacco advertising, not only from shops visible from schools and playgrounds, but also from shops close to schools and playgrounds.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The new voluntary agreement between the tobacco industry and the Government on tobacco advertising will require the industry to remove 50 per cent. of all permanent shopfront advertising over five years. The terms of the agreement will mean that the industry must give priority to removing signs clearly visible from schools. It is these signs which cause greatest concern to the Government.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the agreement with the tobacco industry announced recently to limit external permanent advertising on shops will apply to advertising stuck to the interior of shop windows facing outwards.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The agreement will cover permanent advertising material of this type, specifically window friezes and full window dressings.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the types of external permanent advertising material on shops to which his agreement with the tobacco industry will not apply.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No specific categories of external permanent advertising material on shops are excluded from the agreement.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what method will be used to measure the 50 per cent. reduction in permanent external tobacco advertising material on shop fronts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Once the agreement has been concluded, the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship will engage independent consultants to monitor compliance with this aspect of the agreement. The methodology used by the consultants will be agreed between them and the committee. This matter will be covered in the committee's annual reports.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an independent survey of the extent of tobacco advertising material on shops, comparable with those conducted for the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship by MAS Research Marketing and Consultancy Ltd. and reported in its first and second reports.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The precise nature of the independent consultancy work to be undertaken in monitoring compliance with the agreement is a matter for the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
  153
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he consulted the medical profession before concluding his agreement with the tobacco industry on advertising.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have not yet finally concluded the agreement. We are fully aware of the medical profession's views on this matter. The Department's own medical advisers took an active part in the negotiations.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that there is no increase in shop-front tobacco advertising in the period before the new voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry comes into effect.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The reference date for the number of permanent shopfront signs advertising tobacco will be 1 July 1991. The industry has given firm assurances that it is not its intention to use the period before 1 July to make significant increases in the number of such signs.

  "Registration: proposals for change"
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received following the publication of the White Paper on "Registration: proposals for change", (Cm. 939).

  Mr. Dorrell
  There has been generally a widespread welcome for the proposals made in the White Paper.

  Secular Marriages
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further consideration he has given to the form of service, person performing the service, authorised buildings and greater flexibility in the arrangements for secular marriages; if he will now consider introducing legislation to enable secular marriages to be carried out by magistrates, mayors or provosts, to allow them to take place in civic and other specified buildings, and to allow greater flexibility in the services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The proposals in Cm. 939 are designed to give greater flexibility in the form of civil marriage ceremony and the choice of venues where such ceremonies may be conducted. The Government intend to introduce legislation to give effect to those and other proposals in the White Paper as soon as other parliamentary business allows.

  The Government have no plans to allow civil marriages and the attendant responsibilities to be carried out by anyone other than registration officers.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received during the past six months from residents in South Yorkshire expressing support for the transfer of the South Yorkshire ambulance service to trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 May 1991 c. 394]: I regret that the identification of Yorkshire regional health authority as being responsible for the public consultation exercise on the trust application from the South Yorkshire ambulance service was incorrect. Trent regional health authority is conducting this exercise.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what caused the delay in replying to the letter of 25 September 1990 to the Minister of State responsible for prisons from the Member for Brent, East about his constituent, Ms. R. Louis; and for what reasons could a copy of the reply not be faxed to him on 23 May.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is regretted that the hon. Member's first letter of 25 September 1990 was lost at prison service headquarters during reorganisation and the reply not provided until the receipt of his further letter of 4 April. A copy of the reply was faxed to the House of Commons for the attention of the hon. Member on 23 May.

  Indecency
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury of 20 December 1990,Official Report, column 334, he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on any changes made since that date to force instructions contained in the Metropolitan police force instruction manual or elsewhere relating to police operations to detect possible offences of indecency; and whether clearer guidance has been provided.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that no such changes have been made since 20 December 1990, although this is being kept under review. The Metropolitan police instruction manual includes directions to officers as to the procedures to be followed in a wide range of street duties. It contains no specific instructions relating to the detection of offences of indecency. This is because the action to be taken by officers must be determined primarily by the circumstances of each particular case, within the overall guidelines.

  Visas
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions are taking place with the European Community concerning the validity of visas issued by one member state throughout the Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The question of co-operation between member states on visa matters is currently under discussion in the EC intergovernmental fora which are examining a draft convention on the crossing of external frontiers. It is too early to predict the outcome of those discussions.

  Cash Limits
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make any changes to the 1991–92 cash limits within his responsibilities and to his Department's running costs limits.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IX, vote 3, will be increased by £12,872,000, from £878,445,000 to £891,317,000. At the same time the Home
  155
  Office running costs limit will be increased by £9,007,000 from £1,294,993,000 to £1,304,000,000. This mainly reflects the additional provision sought in connection with an increase in the number of asylum applications.

  £9,000 of the increase will be offset by a transfer of provision from the Cabinet Office (class XIX, vote 1). The balance of £12,863,000 will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

WALES

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit(a) Sandycroft C. P. school and (b) Connah's Quay Bryn C. P. school, to discuss standard assessment tasks with staff members.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Although we have no immediate plan to visit these schools, my right hon. Friend and I have discussed assessment tasks with teachers in several schools we have recently visited. The Welsh Office in conjunction with HMI and the School Examinations and Assessment Council will be holding a one day conference at the end of June for primary teachers and advisers from all LEAs in Wales to discuss this year's assessment arrangements for seven-year-olds.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy initiatives he plans concerning homes in Wales for the elderly mentally infirm.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We recognise the vulnerability of elderly people with mental infirmities and the need for adequate networks of care for them and of support for their families and friends who provide care.

  Where it is no longer possible for an individual to stay in his or her own home, admission to residential, nursing home or hospital care should be a positive choice based on a full assessment of realistic alternatives. Such care should be in appropriately designed and staffed, locally based accommodation.

  Our detailed policies and programme of action are set out in the Welsh Chapter of the White Paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond" (Cm 849), in the guidance on social care plans published by the Welsh Office in September 1990 and in the all-Wales mental illness strategy published in May 1989. Copies of these documents are in the Library of the House.

  These are being carried into effect through complementary county plans for mental illness services and social care more generally which are to be published by April 1992. Earmarked Welsh Office funds under the mental illness strategy, the elderly initiative and the new grant scheme to promote more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and those with physical or sensory disabilities are helping to develop the required patterns of local services.
  156
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from the Care Homes Association concerning the fees paid to care homes and to nursing homes.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None this year.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take to enable local authorities to top up payments to homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local authorities have the power to top up payments to independent sector residential homes in respect of people receiving the residential rate of income support who are under 65 or who continue in such care from the age of 65. From 1 April 1993, the Government intend that these arrangements will remain in place for those who continue in residential or nursing home care which they entered before that date.

  For new residents of all ages from 1 April 1993 there will be new arrangements. Local authorities will manage a single unified budget to cover the costs of social care, whether in a person's own home or in a residential care or nursing home. People who enter homes under this new funding system and who need public financial support will no longer, therefore, have their care costs met by social security. The present rules on local authority topping up payments will, therefore, no longer apply to this group. In place of the present special income support limits, they will be able to claim help from the normal income support system of personal allowances and premiums, and from housing benefit. The financial incentives towards residential care under present income support rules will therefore be eliminated.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many residential homes for the elderly mentally infirm there are in each county in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of homes for elderly people as at 31 March 1990 is shown in the following table. Homes catering for elderly mentally infirm residents are included in these figures.

  Local authority homes

  Private homes

  Voluntary homes

  Clwyd

  20

  151

  5

  Dyfed

  29

  68

  2

  Gwent

  24

  22

  —

  Gwynedd

  27

  84

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  34

  32

  2

  Powys

  14

  17

  1

  South Glamorgan

  21

  79

  9

  West Glamorgan

  21

  26

  3

  Wales

  190

  479

  24

  Visits to Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schools he has visited in 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend visited Ysgol David Hughes, Gwynedd on 20 May 1991 and Ruthin school, Clwyd on 24 May 1991. During the course of 1991 I have visited four county primary schools and seven county secondary schools in Wales. These are as follows:
  157

  School

  Date

  Lansdowne County Primary School

  South Glamorgan

  18 January 1991

  Llanishen High School

  South Glamorgan

  18 January 1991

  Ysgol Pencae (County Primary)

  Gwynedd

  4 February 1991

  Ysgol Aberconwy (Secondary)

  Gwynedd

  4 February 1991

  Ysgol Llwyn Cnvn

  Mid Glamorgan

  22 March 1991

  Ysgol Rhydyfelen

  Mid Glamorgan

  22 March 1991

  Ysgol Glantaf

  South Glamorgan

  26 April 1991

  Ysgol John Bright

  Gwynedd

  2 May 1991

  Tywyn Primary School

  West Glamorgan

  10 May 1991

  Olchfa Comprehensive School

  West Glamorgan

  10 May 1991

  Primary School Tests
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet teachers' unions to discuss the impact of standard assessment testing on staffing levels in primary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I recently met the representatives of the Welsh Secondary Schools Association and will shortly meet with representatives of the National Association of Head Teachers in Wales to discuss assessment issues.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to the 1991–92 cash limits for class XVI, votes 4, 5, 8 and 10.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary and revised estimates, the cash limit on class XVI, vote 4 will be increased by £8,408,000, from £143,000,000 to £151,408,000; the cash limit on class XVI, vote 5 will be increased by £724,000, from £399,151,000 to £399,875,000; the cash limit on class XVI, vote 8 will be increased by £10,291,000, from £1,120,386,000 to £1,130,677,000; and the cash limit on class XVI, vote 10 will be reduced by £62,716,000, from £1,827,515,000 to £1,764,799,000.

  The increase to vote 4 provides additional resources for training and enterprise councils in respect of employment training.

  The increase to vote 5 comprises: (i) the provision of resources for grant-maintained schools (£500,000) which are offset by a corresponding reduction in class XVI, vote 10; (ii) additional provision in respect of various payments to be made to the Department of Education and Science (£1,108,000) which will be offset by a corresponding reduction in class XI, votes 1 and 2; and (iii) a reduction in the provision for rating work by valuation offices, following an amended VAT ruling by Customs and Excise (£884,000). This reduction will be used to offset in part an increase in class XVI, vote 11 in respect of flood, storm and emergency services.

  The increase to vote 8 comprises: (i) additional resources towards meeting the cost of the pay awards recommended in the 1991 report of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration (£10,100,000); and (ii) provision for the funding of occupational therapy training (£191,000).

  The reduction to vote 10 is made up as follows. (i) There is a decrease of £62,000,000 in respect of the community charge reduction scheme, provision for which is being sought by means of a summer supplementary estimate on class XVI, vote 11. (ii) There is a decrease in the provision
  158
  for rate support grant (£216,000) following the recalculation of local authorities' entitlements. The latter reduction will offset that element of the increase in class XVI, vote 11 in respect of flood, storm and emergency services (£1,100,000) not covered by the reduction from class XVI, vote 5. (iii) There is a decrease in the provision for revenue support grant (£500,000) to offset an increase in class XVI, vote 5 in respect of expenditure on grant-maintained schools.

  As already announced, the increase in respect of review bodies' pay awards and the provision for employment training have been charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. There is no net impact on public expenditure of the other changes shown above.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will make a statement about the management of children's homes in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We have already announced our intention to review local authorities' arrangements for the management and control of their children's homes: I intend to invite voluntary and private children's homes to co-operate in this exercise. The review will be conducted by the social services inspectorate Wales, and the report of its findings will be published.

  Separately, following the recent allegations in the press, I have decided to direct Gwent county council to set up a full independent inquiry into the management regime and practical day-to-day running of Ty Mawr community home, and into the county council's arrangements for oversight and control of the local management. Guidance to local authorities on the need for them to take early action to introduce complaints procedures for the children in their care has already been issued. In collaboration with the Department of Health, the Department will be issuing further comprehensive guidance on residential care as part of the process of implementing the Children Act 1989 which comes into force in October. We will take whatever further action is necessary in the light of the reports of the Ty Mawr inquiry and our own review of children's homes when these are to hand.

  In addition, officials have recently completed a thorough review of secure care for young people. The review, which took evidence from all interested parties, paid particular attention to the need for secure accommodation to avoid the use of prison for boys on remand. I am presently considering the final report of the review which we will be publishing for consultation next month. The consultation, which will be very wide, will be conducted with all urgency consonant with a proper consideration of the issues.

ENVIRONMENT

  Uniform Business Rate (Post Offices)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received concerning the effect of the uniform business rate on rural post offices; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to provide relief from the uniform business rate for community post offices.

  Mr. Key
  We have received a number of representations on this subject, and a Post Office survey has shown a varied effect on rates bills for this type of property. Some sub-postmasters have stated that they are better off under the new arrangements.

  We do not propose to give rate relief to "community" post offices. Such property is rateable only to the extent that the non-domestic use prevents part of it from being used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation at some time during the day. In view of concerns expressed about the rating of "community" post offices, valuation officers have checked the assessment of these properties.

  From 1 April this year, we have also improved the transitional arrangements for properties in mixed domestic and commercial use to limit year-on-year rates increases to 10 per cent. in real terms; this will benefit many rural post offices.

  Royal Parks Police
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many police were employed by the royal parks in(a) 1971, (b) 1981 and (c) 1991, respectively.

  Sir George Young
  The royal parks constabulary was formed in 1974. Prior to that there was a body of park keepers with a strength of 174 in 1971. The authorised complement of the RPC was 159 in 1981 and 160 in 1991.

  Ordnance Survey (Expenditure)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount spent by the Ordnance Survey in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Ordnance Survey in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the basis upon which service personnel and their families living in a group of properties, not having separate rateable values entered in the valuation list, will now be able to benefit under the Community Charge (England) (Reductions) Regulations 1991; and what steps he has taken to inform local authorities of this change.

  Mr. Key
  The aim of the reduction scheme is to limit the increase in community charges over rates in 1989. The 160
  improvements to the scheme announced on 25 March will help people who live in properties where there was only one rateable value covering several residences. Under transitional relief a maximum of two personal community charges only could be compared to the rates. Under the community charge reduction scheme local authorities are now required to compare the rates with the aggregate community charge liability of all the eligible charge payers living in one or more properties covered by one rateable value. This change will particularly benefit service personnel living in properties which did not have separate rateable values. Details of the changes to the scheme were sent to authorities on 26 March and 28 March.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals to the West Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunals were waiting to be heard on 22 May; how many appeals have been resolved since 1 April 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is as follows:

  Outstanding Appeals

  Appeals Cleared since 1 April 1990

  (a) 1973 Rating Appeals as at 22 May 1991

  339

  6,163

  (b) 1990 Rating Appeals at end of April 1991

  23,610

  324

  (c) 1990 Transitional and Completion Notice Appeals as at 22 May 1991

  2,086

  146

  (d) Community Charge Appeals at end of April 1991

  59

  181

  Most of the 1990 rating appeals were not transferred from valuation offices to the tribunal until February and March this year. Some of these have already been listed for hearing; the 324 cases cleared are those agreed or withdrawn since 1 December 1990.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent action he has taken to remind local authorities of their duties(a) to collect all the community charges owed to them and (b) actively to pursue non-payers and late payers of the community charge; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent local authorities from passing on the shortfall per head in revenue, caused by those charge payers who do not pay in full, to charge payers who do pay in full.

  Mr. Key
  All authorities are very well aware of their duty to collect the community charge from all those liable to pay it. In commenting on the latest community charge collection figures published on 29 May my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Inner Cities made it clear that authorities were still under an obligation to collect any outstanding charges and that there would be no amnesty for non-payers. It is right than when setting community charges authorities should take account of their estimates of any amounts which will be unrecoverable, as they did when setting rate poundages under the former rating system.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the departmental guidelines issued since February 1991 to local authorities on the poll tax, their date of issue and a brief summary of each of their contents.
  161
  Mr. Key
  My Department has written to local authorities about the community charge on the following occasions since February:

  11 March
  "Community Charge and Non-Domestic Rating: Statutory Instruments and Circular Letters"
  —This contained a list of all statutory instruments laid in 1990 and 1991 and all circular letters issued by the Department since October 1990.

  19 March
  "Community Charges in 1991–92"
  —This outlined the changes made to the community charge as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech.

  26 March
  "Community Charges in 1991–92"
  —This gave further details of the General Reduction of 140 and of changes to be made to the Community Charge Reduction Scheme.

  28 March
  "Community Charges in 1991–92"
  —This gave further guidance on the effect of the General Reduction in charges and explained in more depth the changes to the Community Charge Reduction Scheme.

  25 April
  "The Personal Community Charge (Reduction) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1991"
  —This explained the effect of the regulations amending the criteria by which chargepayers are eligible under the Reduction Scheme.

  7 May
  "The Community Charges and Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1991"
  —This explained the effect of these regulations on the instalment arrangements for the payment of community charges.

  16 May
  "Community Charge Liability: British Service Personnel in the Gulf"
  —This gave charging authorities guidance about the liability of British service personnel posted to the Gulf in the light of the High Court decision on Bradford City Council v. Anderton, and also gave details about the reimbursement scheme to be operated by the Ministry of Defence.

  20 May
  "You and the Community Charge: Reductions for 1991–92"
  —This enclosed copies of the new leaflet explaining how the £140 reduction and the Community Charge Reduction Scheme will work in 1991–92.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information local authorities are required to provide to community charge payers, on the community charge bill, relating to the item called other adjustments.

  Mr. Key
  Authorities are required to provide their charge payers with explanatory notes which form part of their community charge bill. These include a note on other adjustments which explains that the main adjustments taken account of in this figure are authorities' estimates of interest payable to or by the authority; changes in income due to movements on and off the community charges register; income from standard charges; and community charges not collected by the authority.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many individuals have been prosecuted 162
  for non-payment of the community charge; and what percentage of charge payers are estimated not to have paid their community charge in full.

  Mr. Key
  By the end of March 1991 local authorities in England had issued 4·1 million summonses for nonpayment of the community charge and had obtained almost 3 million liability orders. Information is not available on the numbers of charge payers who have paid their charge in full; but we estimate that by the end of March 1991, 91 per cent. of charge payers had made some payment.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the factors which he takes into account in calculating the standard spending assessments and the total external support for Basildon district council and Southend-on-Sea borough council; and the weighting that was given to each factor.

  Mr. Key
  The factors and weights used to calculate standard spending assessments (SSAs) which form the basis of grant distribution, are the same for all authorities providing the same range of services. They are set out in the "Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England)" as amended by the "Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England)" approved by the House of Commons on 29 January. Copies of both of these are in the Library together with the SSA handbook for 1991–92 which provides details of the service elements of SSA for every authority.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations regarding the lay-out of the community charge bill issued by local authorities and the information it provides.

  Mr. Key
  My Department received a number of responses from authorities and other organisations on the form of the community charge bill and its accompanying information following the issue of draft regulations on these matters last year.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities about backdating claims for rebate on the poll tax.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the "Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Guidance Manual", especially paragraph B2.34, which was issued to local authorities in January this year. A copy of the guidance manual is in the Library. In addition, local authorities were informed in March this year about the special arrangements for claims for benefit affected by the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table showing nationally, regionally and for each district, the total number of dwellings, the total number of owner-occupied dwellings, the number rented from (i) public and (ii) private landlords and the average rent charged for commercial dwellings in 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Key
  National and regional estimates of the stock of dwellings by type of tenure appear in "Housing and
  163
  Construction Statistics, Great Britain, 1979–1989". The national estimates for December 1979 and subsequent years are in table 9.3. The earliest consistent figures at regional level, showing housing association dwellings separately from private rented dwellings, are for April 1981 and these are in table 9.4. An unpublished table for December 1989 with these categories combined has been placed in the Library. The latest available estimates, for December 1990, appear in tables 2.23 and 2.25 of "Housing and Construction Statistics, Great Britain, December quarter 1990, Part 2".

  Estimates for individual authorities which are consistent with national and regional totals and tenure categories are not available. A table giving total stock for each local authority at the end of 1980 and 1990 has been placed in the Library.

  Region

  Number of domestic hereditaments (millions)

  Average value per hereditament (£)

  Implied value of housing stock (£bn)

  Northern

  1·2

  50,000

  60

  North West

  2·5

  58,000

  150

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·0

  60,000

  120

  East Midlands

  1·6

  66,000

  100

  West Midlands

  2·0

  63,000

  130

  East Anglia

  0·8

  67,000

  50

  South West

  1·8

  82,000

  150

  South East

  4·1

  96·000

  400

  Greater London

  2·8

  117,000

  330

  Royal Parks (Contracts)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all the work allocated by the district works office, royal parks, to Baker Bros. that was paid for, has now been completed.

  Sir George Young
  With one exception, the type of orders used by the district works office, royal parks, to place work with that company (which is now called Electrical Refrigeration (South East Ltd) requires the work to be completed before payment is made. The exception related to a specific contract which provided for interim payments; the work was completed before the final payment was made.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which district works offices of the Property Services Agency allocated electrical work to Messrs Baker Bros (Grays) Ltd. in the year since 1987.

  Sir George Young
  The district works offices concerned were central London palaces, City-London north, Kensington, museums and galleries groups 1 and 2, royal parks, special buildings 1 and 2, Whitehall, north and Whitehall, south.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he has taken to assure himself that electrical and buildings maintenance work carried out to the Rose Garden restaurant in Regent's park has been accurately apportioned and monitored;

  (2) what steps he has taken to assure himself that the arrangements for allocating work to Messrs. Baker Bros. (Grays) Ltd. on projects carried out at Regent's park were drawn up in compliance with departmental guidelines;
  164
  National and sub-national information on private sector fair rents registered with rent officers for 1979 are published in the Department's "Note for Rent Officers RO(S)33", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Comparable information for the fourth quarter of 1990 is in the Department's "Statistical Bulletin 91(2) Rent Officer Statistics, Third and fourth quarters 1990".

  Residential Property Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what is his estimate of the number and average value of residential properties in each English region and in Wales, together with his estimate of the value of the housing stock in each case.

  Mr. Key
  The table provides the information requested.

  (3) why it was decided not to use measured term contractors in the case of contracts allocated by the district works office, royal parks, for work carried out in Regent's park in the years 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Sir George Young
  PSA Services, Building Management. London (BML) is employed to undertake maintenance work at the Rose Garden restaurant. For that type of work detailed procedures exist relating to the selection of the appropriate method by which individual services are to be executed, the supervision of that work and the scrutiny of invoices prior to payment authorisation. The district works officer and regional management are required to carry out regular personal checks of randomly selected orders; and the district works office is the subject of other management reviews, the results of which are passed to BM L's management board.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts were given by the district works office, royal parks, to Baker Bros. (Grays) Ltd. of Essex in each year since 1988.

  Sir George Young
  The number of contracts placed with that company in those years was five.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to assure himself that the allocation of contracts by the district works office, royal parks, to Baker Bros. (Grays) Ltd. of Essex in 1988. 1989 and 1990 complied with all departmental guidelines.

  Sir George Young
  Three of the contracts were awarded to the company as a result of competitive tendering in accordance with departmental guidelines and in which the company made the most favourable offer. The other two
  165
  were for very small value works, which the district works officer placed with the company in accordance with his delegated authority.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether contract work to the open air theatre at Regent's park, allocated by the district works office, royal parks, was completed within budget.

  Sir George Young
  Since the formation of the district works office, royal parks, works services on this site have comprised minor maintenance and minor new works. Some cost overruns have occurred. By its very nature, work in existing property is likely to encounter unforeseeable problems which may result in additional expenditure. However, if the cost of such services exceeds the estimate, procedures require the matter to be referred to management for approval of the additional cost. Since 1 April 1990, the funding of works services in the royal parks has been the responsibility of DOE central's royal parks division, which approves each individual service and any significant variation.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what agreement as to the implementation of the tree planting scheme of Dame Sylvia Crowe at Heveningham hall was agreed by the purchaser at the time of the sale in 1981: and what steps the owner has taken to fulfil it.

  Sir George Young
  The purchaser covenanted to use his best endeavours to commence, carry out and complete the tree planting scheme recommended by Dame Sylvia Crowe in her report of November 1975, or an alternative scheme if agreed in writing by the vendor. The implementation of the scheme has been delayed, partly by the loss of a large number of trees in the storms of the past four years. Suffolk county council is currently formulating a new planting programme with the managing agents, Suffolk Coastal district council and Task Force Trees to reinstate these losses. Dame Sylvia Crowe's scheme is also being re-examined in the light of more recent research.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he took to verify the suitability of I. D. Investment Development AG to be the purchaser of Heveningham hall at the time of its sale in 1981.

  Sir George Young
  The negotiations for the sale of the hall were conducted with the late Mr. Al Ghazzi and his solicitors. It would not be appropriate to give details of the inquiries which were made at the time as to Mr. Al Ghazzi's suitability. The terms of sale include the acceptance of certain covenants by I. D. Investment Development AG and a deed of covenant by Mr. Al Ghazzi guaranteeing the company's performance.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to return the James Wyatt furniture to Heveningham hall.

  Sir George Young
  This is a matter which will need to be considered when the restoration work is completed.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to identify the ultimate beneficial owner of I. D. Investment Development AG as the legal owner of Heveningham hall and at the time of its purchase of the hall.
  166
  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend's concern is to ensure that this outstanding historic building is properly restored and maintained. He does not need further information about the ownership of the hall in order to monitor the progress of the work, which is going well.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictive covenants there are to cover the use by the Al Ghazzi family of Heveningham hall.

  Sir George Young
  There are no restrictive covenants on the use of Heveningham hall.

  Radon
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the exceptionally high radon levels found in tap water in Alnwick, Northumberland.

  Mr. Trippier
  A survey of tap water, organised by researchers at Bristol, is currently being conducted at secondary schools round the country. The survey involves the use of a simple kit to test for radon. A single sample from a school in Alnwick was found to contain radon activity of 65 bq/1. I am advised by the National Radiological Protection Board that this result is not a cause for concern.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of the recent publicity campaign in Cornwall and Devon relating to radon in homes.

  Mr. Baldry
  I launched a publicity campaign on 11 March to encourage householders in Cornwall and Devon to take advantage of the Government-funded free radon measurement service, which is available on request to householders throughout the two counties. My Department has produced a leaflet, "Radon in Houses", which has been distributed to all households in Cornwall and Devon.

  Seven hundred and fifty thousand copies of the leaflet have been sent out. The house-to-house leaflet drop was backed up by a widespread poster campaign. Posters have been displayed in libraries, citizens advice bureaux, DIY shops, estate agents etc, and additional leaflets were made available through these outlets. 160 copies of a Braille version of the leaflet were sent out through the blind welfare officers of the two counties. A public service announcement was recorded for use by local radio stations.

  I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the campaign has been a resounding success. The leaflet has a tear-off slip to enable householders to apply to the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) for a radon measurement. NRPB carries out radon measurements for Government. Up to the present, over 72,000 requests have been received from householders by the board. All those applying will receive a response within four weeks, and the radon detectors themselves within two months, Over 50,000 measurements are already in progress.

  Cornwall and Devon make up the only area of the country which has formally been designated by the NRPB as a radon affected area. About 12 per cent. of homes in the region may have radon concentrations exceeding the level at which householders are advised to take action to

  167
  reduce it; this is a much larger proportion than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Long-term exposure to radon increases the risk of contracting lung cancer.

  If the results show that the Government action level is exceeded, householders are advised to undertake the necessary remedial measures, which can usually be carried out effectively for relatively modest cost. Advice on remedies is given in the Department's free leaflet, "The Householders' Guide to Radon", a copy of which is always provided with the radon survey results. Local authorities may give discretionary house renovation grants for radon remedial works, subject to a test of resources.

  I most sincerely urge all householders in Cornwall and Devon to accept the advice to have their houses measured for radon.

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by year for the past 10 years, and for the current year to date, the number of(a) public footpaths and (b) public bridleways that have been (i) created and (ii) closed to the general public.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information is not held centrally in precisely the form requested, but records held by the Countryside Commission indicate that the number of public path creation and extinguishment orders made, and known to have to come into operation in England and Wales since the introduction of revised procedures on 28 February were:

  Orders made

  Orders known to have come into operation

  Creation

  19831

  65

  43

  1984

  60

  47

  1985

  79

  65

  1986

  93

  79

  1987

  71

  55

  1988

  108

  87

  1989

  97

  74

  1990

  113

  76

  19912

  45

  19

  Extinguishment3

  19831

  215

  143

  1984

  281

  187

  1985

  309

  196

  1986

  267

  186

  1987

  295

  157

  1988

  289

  177

  1989

  242

  143

  1990

  303

  151

  19912

  100

  23

  1 After 28 February.

  2 Approximately first half of year.

  3 These figures include orders for diversion or temporary extinguishment; orders made by magistrates' courts; and side road orders, which may include creation and extinguishment within the same order.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his communication of 26 February on behalf of Mrs. Meryl Hellevoort, of 3 Primrose gardens, Mary's Well, Redruth, on rate support grant payments.
  168
  Mr. Key
  I have replied to my hon. Friend today.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, 21 May, column 405, with regard to the number of jobs created or attracted in urban development corporations, how the figure for Sheffield was calculated; and where the jobs are located.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figure of 7,787 jobs for Sheffield development corporation is a gross estimate of permanent jobs created or attracted in the UDA, not a net figure as indicated in the answer given in the Official Report, 21 May at column 405. The figure is an estimate of jobs in the development corporation's area arising out of private sector developments completed since the corporation was established and an estimate of jobs created as a result of grant support to local firms for business development schemes. The majority of jobs, about 7,000, are at Meadowhall.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to consultation on the separation of local authorities' waste regulation and disposal functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  On 31 May my Department and the Welsh Office issued a circular giving guidance to those local authorities which are both waste regulation and waste disposal authorities under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on how to separate those functions as the Act requires.

  Some 30 replies were received on the draft circular, issued on 6 March, from local authority associations, individual local authorities and other interested bodies including the waste disposal industry. Responses generally supported the principle of separation, but raised a number of particular concerns.

  The local authority associations expressed considerable concern over the extent of separation requested and its possible cost. We have no wish rigidly to prescribe particular administrative structures. We have therefore rewritten the circular to offer authorities more flexibility, provided that they meet the important objective of independence for the regulation authority from pressures arising from their role as disposal authorities. No long-term increase in costs should therefore be involved.

  Concerns were also expressed about the future status of waste regulation and I am happy to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's policy that the status of waste regulation should be enhanced generally, and that this should be helped not hindered by its separation from waste disposal.

  We have set a timetable, taking account of local authority concerns, for them to submit their proposals to the Secretary of State; this should be done as soon as possible and at the latest by 31 December 1991.

  We have also now commenced a number of provisions of part II of the Act dealing with the establishment of waste regulation, disposal and collection authorities and some of their functions—in particular, the duty of waste regulation authorities to prepare strategic waste disposal plans for their areas.
  169
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the expected circular on new arrangements for waste disposal operations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, with particular reference to the introduction of competitive tendering for waste disposal contracts and the formation of local authority waste disposal companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department and the Welsh Office issued the circular to local authorities on 29 M ay. The circular provides guidance on new arrangements for waste disposal operations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, including the introduction of competitive tendering for waste disposal contracts, and advice on the formation of local authority waste disposal companies (LAWDCs). The new arrangements will provide the basis for fair competition and higher environmental standards in waste disposal and will, together with other parts of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, encourage the provision of improved services for the collection, keeping, treatment and disposal of waste.

  There has been consultation with the local authority associations, with the waste disposal industry and with other interested parties. The advice and guidance contained in the circular reflects the concerns which have been expressed to us.

  The circular explains that, under the Act, authorities will no longer be able to carry out waste disposal operations themselves. In the first instance, it will be for authorities to choose what sort of arrangements they wish to make in order to satisfy the provisions of the Act; available options include entering into a joint venture with the private sector, privatising the waste disposal undertaking or establishing a LAWDC under direction from the Secretary of State. Any authorities which do not take steps to make satisfactory new arrangements for waste disposal will he directed to form a LAWDC.

  Guidance on the formation of a LAWDC is contained in the circular, as is advice on provisions to be included in a scheme to transfer the authority's waste disposal undertaking to a LAWDC. Each transfer scheme must be approved by the Secretary of State. When authorities are directed to form LAWDCs, each authority will be provided with its own individual timetable for the creation of its LAWDC, reflecting that authority's particular circumstances and the Secretary of State's commitment to implementing this policy as soon as possible. Setting the new arrangements for waste disposal in place throughout England and Wales will be achieved through a co-operative effort, drawing on the resources of both central and local government.

  The circular also explains that the Act introduces competitive tendering for waste disposal contracts. With effect from 31 May, local authorities must award only new contracts for waste disposal through competitive tender. In framing the terms of any contract, authorities must consider whether to include conditions designed to maximise recycling and to minimise pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Authorities are not required to accept the lowest tender where an alternative offers environmental benefits. At all stages in the process, authorities must take care not to discriminate unduly against particular types of waste disposal contractor. The
  170
  competitive tendering process will identify the full costs of waste disposal, and will encourage an efficient and environmentally conscious waste disposal service.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limit on the Property Services Agency services vote in 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  Subject to approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class VIII vote 13 will be reduced by £470,000 from £91,416,000 to £90,946,000. The reduction is due to the transfer of £500,000 to Property Holdings (in respect of the transfer of the PSA security group function) offset by an inward transfer of £30,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry following the extension of charging for seedcorn research.

  This vote also covers the residual costs of the Crown Suppliers, following the closure on 31 March of the Crown Suppliers trading fund. Pending parliamentary approval of the estimates, urgent expenditure estimated at £5,000,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's running cost limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary summer supplementary estimate, the running cost limit for Property Holdings will be increased by £7,058,000 from £49,973,000 to £57,031,000. The increase reflects the transfer of responsibility to Property Holdings of the special services group from class VIII vote 13 and the interdepartmental despatch service from the Crown Suppliers.

  Sir Timothy Raison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised and supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 2 (miscellaneous housing administration and grants) will be reduced by £25,588,000 from £221,495,000 to £195,907,000. This mainly reflects a decision to transfer £25,500,000 of capital resources for projects for the single homeless to the DOE Housing Corporation (DOE/HC) non-voted cash limit. These transferred resources will continue to be available to provide for the single homeless. The remainder of the cash limit reduction is to the provision for grants to the priority estates project;

  (ii) the DOE/HC non-voted cash limit will be increased by £25,500,000 from £1,495,425,000 to £1,520,925,000. This results from the transfer of resources for capital projects to help the single homeless from the cash limited vote class VIII, vote 2 to DOE/HC as described above;

  (iii) the cash limit on class VIII, vote 5 (central environmental services, etc.) will be increased by £665,000 from £326,625,000 to £327,290,000. The increase is required mainly to cover higher charges for environmental research, arising from the introduction of full cost recovery by the Department of Trade and Industry (the offsetting increased receipts appear on class IV, vote 2). The increase also provides for an enhanced better environment

  171
  awards for industry scheme and for the costs of transporting oil recovery equipment to Bahrain, following the major oil spills during the Gulf conflict;

  (iv) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 6 (royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, etc.) will be reduced by £1,110,000 from £174,144,000 to £173,034,000. There will be a reduction in provision for the Royal Commission on historical monuments of England of £2,771,000 due to its relocation plans being rephased offset by minor increases in provision throughout the vote;

  (v) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 8 (Department of the Environment: Administration) will be increased by £466,000 from £187,951,000 to £188,417,000. There are various transfers which include a transfer of £675,000 from class VIII, vote 7 (Department of the Environment: Property Holdings) in respect of financial and administrative services to be provided for Property Holdings and a transfer of £200,000 to the Department of Education and Science for sport and recreation work;

  (vi) the running costs limit for the Department will be increased by £531,000 from £189,530,000 to £190,061,000.

  On behalf of the Director General of the Office of Water Services, I have to announce a cash limit reduction on class VIII, vote 11 (Office of Water Services) of £ 15,000 from £6,300,000 to £6,285,000. The Department's running cost limit will be reduced by £269,000 from £5,713,000 to £5,444,000. The reduction in running costs will offset increases in capital expenditure on accommodation and information technology. There are also some other minor changes on the vote.

  These increases will be charged to the Reserve and not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Peacetime Civil Emergency Plans
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to require local authorities to draw up peacetime civil emergency plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the amount of vacant, dormant, derelict, underused and under-utilised land owned by each Government Department.

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to his reply, Tuesday 19 February 1991, c115–16]: Holdings of unused and underused land in England at 31 March 1990, the latest available date, as reported by the Departments concerned, are shown in the table. Information about health authorities' land is not available. No unused or underused land is held by any other major Departments.

  Individual Departments are responsible for monitoring and managing their own property holdings. The rationalisation of holdings, the disposal of surplus land and the improvement of systems are encouraged through the public expenditure survey discussions and in other ways.
  172

  Unused and underused land held by Departments

  acres

  Ministry of Defence

  2,527

  Department of the Environment

  117

  Home Office

  299

  HM Land Registry

  18

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  9

  Department of Transport

  1,606

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade textiles committee meeting held on 16 May; and if he will make a statement on his policy on renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement for 17 months on existing terms.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The textiles committee discussed the basis on which the multi-fibre arrangement should be extended after its expiry on 31 July this year. No decision was reached. A further meeting is expected in mid-June. The European Community, on behalf of the United Kingdom and the other member states, is proposing a 17-month extension on existing terms.

  Cash Limit
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit and running cost limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lilley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 2 (support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection, and administration) will be increased by £4,559,000 from £758,460,000 to £763,019,000. The running costs limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £440,000 from £257,796,000 to £258,236,000.

  In order to establish the Patent Office and Companies house executive agencies as trading funds, the increase in the cash limit covers net provision of £7,252,000 for loans to Patent Office and £6,037,000 for loans to Companies House to provide initial working capital and finance for long-term projects. This expenditure will require the prior approval of the House to the establishment of the two funds. It is offset by decreases of £4,125,000 in net provision of Companies house and £655,000 for the Patent Office to reflect their transition to trading fund status together with increased appropriations in aid of £3,184,000 on the administration section as a result of receipts from those new trading funds.

  There are also increases of £250,000 in the consumer and investor protection programme to provide assistance for the share ownership movement, £120,000 in the space technology programmes in respect of residual espenditure on Dialtech retrieval services, £71,000 for the Department's promotion of consumer safety, to be fully met by receipts from the European Community, and £20,000 in the industrial research programme to meet the United Kingdom's subscription to the European resource centre for economic redevelopment and restructuring.

  These increases are partly offset by a net decrease of £268,000 in telecommunications and posts expenditure, comprising increases in subscriptions to international

  173
  organisations and regulatory publicity which are more than offset by an increase in related receipts; a decrease of £122,000 in administration in respect of consultancies and formal inquiries; and a decrease of £650,000 in the measurement and technology support programme for strategic research paid to the Warren Spring laboratory, the laboratory of the Government chemist and the national physical laboratory executive agencies, to reflect transfers to other Government Departments which will fund such research directly. These net running cost controlled agencies' gross total and appropriations in aid both accordingly increase by £556,000 for WSL, £84,000 for LGC and £10,000 for NPL. Increased appropriations in aid of £34,000 for the national engineering laboratory executive agency reflect recovery of strategic research costs from other Government Departments by NEL, which is on gross running cost control.

  In addition, there are net transfers of provision of £195,000 from NPL to LGC in respect of provision of common services and minor capital purchases, and of £255,000 from the support for industrial research and development programme to civil aircraft research and demonstration in respect of a project under the EUREKA programme.

  An increase of £206,000 for additional superannuation liability of suppliers of central services is more than offset by a reduction of £355,000 of superannuation liability in the administration section for export services; the net reduction will be matched by reduced receipts on the superannuation vote.

  The departmental running cost limit will be increased by £440,000, reflecting the reclassification to running costs of programme expenditure of £305,000 in respect of companies investigations, transfers of £67,000 from the FCO and Civil Service Commission for recruitment, publicity and the establishment of the export services joint directorate, an increase of £230,000 to facilitate DTI's policy of establishing strict customer/contractor relationships between their central services and customer divisions (fully offset by receipts of central service suppliers) and £120,000 from NPL to the national weights and measures laboratory in respect of the provision of common services. These increases are partly offset by a transfer of £282,000 from running costs to programme expenditure in connection with work on copyright policy by the Patent Office trading fund.

  This supplementary estimate increases the DTI's public expenditure provision by a net £623,000 when the non-voted public expenditure consequences of creating Patent Office and Companies house trading funds are taken into account. This increase will be charged to the reserve and therefore will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Tertiary Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all tertiary colleges in England by local education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Those colleges in England generally known as tertiary colleges are as follows:
  174

  College

  Authority

  Elm Park College

  Harrow

  Greenhill College

  Harrow

  Weald College

  Harrow

  Richmond upon Thames College

  Richmond upon Thames

  Bury Metropolitan College

  Bury

  Manchester College of Arts and Technology

  Manchester

  South Manchester College

  Manchester

  Leigh College

  Wigan

  Wigan College of Technology

  Wigan

  Knowsley Tertiary College

  Knowsley

  Castle College

  Sheffield

  Loxley College

  Sheffield

  Norton College

  Sheffield

  Park wood College

  Sheffield

  Parson Cross College

  Sheffield

  Stradbroke College

  Sheffield

  South Tyneside College

  South Tyneside

  Halesowen College

  Dudley

  Bilston Community College

  Wolverhampton

  Dewsbury College

  Kirklees

  Wakefield District College

  Wakefield

  South Bristol College

  Avon

  Isle College, Wisbech

  Cambridgeshire

  South Cheshire College of Further Education

  Cheshire

  Penwith Tertiary College

  Cornwall

  Derby Tertiary College (Mackworth)

  Derbyshire

  Derby Tertiary College (Wilmorton)

  Derbyshire

  South East Derbyshire Tertiary College

  Derbyshire

  Exeter College

  Devon

  North Devon College

  Devon

  Weymouth College

  Dorset

  Derwentside College

  County Durham

  Peterlee College

  County Durham

  Lewes Tertiary College

  East Sussex

  Harlow College

  Essex

  Royal Forest of Dean College

  Gloucestershire

  Alton College

  Hampshire

  Brockenhurst College

  Hampshire

  Cricklade College, Andover

  Hampshire

  Fareham Tertiary College

  Hampshire

  Accrington and Rossendale College

  Lancashire

  Blackburn College

  Lancashire

  Nelson and Colne College

  Lancashire

  Preston College

  Lancashire

  Runshaw Tertiary College

  Lancashire

  Skelmersdale College

  Lancashire

  Daventry Tertiary College

  Northamptonshire

  Selby College

  North Yorkshire

  Central Nottingham Tertiary College

  Nottinghamshire

  Henley College

  Oxfordshire

  Oswestry College

  Shropshire

  Bridgwater College

  Somerset

  Strode College

  Somerset

  Yeovil College

  Somerset

  Newcastle under Lyme College

  Staffordshire

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all sixth form colleges in England by local education authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  Maintained sixth-form colleges in England as at October 1990, within each local education authority, are as follows:

  Local education authority and college name

  1. Kensington and Chelsea

  St. Charles RC Sixth Form College

  2. Wandsworth

  St. Francis Xavier Sixth Form College

  3. Barnet

  Woodhouse Sixth Form College

  175

  4. Croydon

  Purley Sixth Form College

  John Ruskin Sixth Form College

  5. Harrow

  St. Dominic's Sixth Form College

  6. Merton

  Merton Sixth Form College

  7. Waltham Forest

  Leyton Sixth Form College

  Sir George Monoux Sixth Form College

  8. Birmingham

  Joseph Chamberlain Sixth Form College

  Cadbury Sixth Form College

  Josiah Mason Sixth Form College

  St. Philip's RC Sixth Form College

  9. Dudley

  King Edward VI College

  10. Sandwell

  West Park College

  Rowley Regis College

  11. Solihull

  Solihull Sixth Form College

  12. St. Helens

  Carmel Sixth Form College

  13. Sefton

  King George V College

  14. Wirral

  Birkenhead Sixth Form College

  15. Bolton

  North Bolton Sixth Form College

  South Bolton Sixth Form College

  16. Bury

  Holy Cross Sixth Form College

  17. Manchester

  Shena Simon College

  Loreto Sixth Form College

  Xaverian College

  18. Salford

  Pendleton College

  Eccles College

  De La Salle College

  19. Stockport

  North Area College

  The Ridge College

  Aquinas RC Sixth Form College

  20. Tameside

  Hyde Sixth Form College

  Ashton-under-Lyne Sixth Form College

  21. Wigan

  Winstanley College

  St. John Rigby RC Sixth Form College

  22. Rotherham

  Thomas Rotherham College

  23. Kirklees

  Greenhead College

  Huddersfield New College

  24. Leeds

  Notre Dame Sixth Form CN0

  25. Wakefield

  Pontefract New College

  26. North Tyneside

  Tynemouth College

  27. Avon

  St. Brendan's RC Sixth Form College

  28. Bedfordshire

  Luton Sixth Form College

  29. Cambridge

  Hills Road Sixth Form College

  Long Road Sixth Form College

  30. Cheshire

  Priestley Sixth Form College School

  Widnes Sixth Form College

  Sir John Deanes College

  31. Cleveland

  Hartlepool Sixth Form College

  South Park Sixth Form College

  Marton Sixth Form College

  Acklam Sixth Form College

  Stockton Sixth Form College

  Bede Sixth Form College

  176

  Prior Pursglove College

  Sir William Turners Sixth Form College

  St. Mary's Sixth Form College

  32. Cornwall

  St. Austell Sixth Form College

  33. Cumbria

  Barrow-in-Furness Sixth Form College

  34. Durham

  Queen Elizabeth Sixth Form College

  35. East Sussex

  Varndean Sixth Form College

  Brighton Hove & Sussex Sixth Form College

  Bexhill College

  Eastbourne Sixth Form College

  36. Essex

  Colchester Sixth Form College

  SE Essex Sixth Form

  Palmer's Sixth Form College

  37. Hampshire

  Totton College

  Queen Mary's College

  Barton Peveril Sixth Form College

  Havant College

  Farnborough Sixth Form College

  Itchen Sixth Form College

  St. Vincent Sixth Form College

  Portsmouth Sixth Form College

  Taunton's College

  Peter Symond's Sixth Form College

  38. Hereford and Worcester

  Hereford Sixth Form College

  The Sixth Form College, Worcester

  39. Humberside

  Wilberforce College

  Wyke College

  John Leggott College

  40. Lancashire

  Blackpool Sixth Form College

  Newman College

  St. Mary's Sixth Form College

  41. Leicestershire

  Gateway Sixth Form College

  Wyggeston & Queen Elizabeth College

  Wyggeston Collegiate School

  Rutland Sixth Form College

  42. Norfolk

  East Norfolk Sixth Form College

  North Walsham-Pashton Sixth Form College

  43. North Yorkshire

  Scarborough Sixth Form College

  York Sixth Form College

  44. Nottinghamshire

  High Pavement Sixth Form College

  Bilborough College

  Forest Fields College

  45. Shropshire

  Shrewsbury Sixth Form College

  New College

  Ludlow College

  46. Somerset

  The Richard Huish College

  47. Staffordshire

  Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College

  48. Surrey

  Godalming College

  Reigate College

  Esher College

  Woking College

  Spelthorne College

  Strodes College

  Farnham College

  49. Warwickshire

  King Edward VI College

  50. West Sussex

  Worthing Sixth Form College

  Haywards Heath College

  Collyers Sixth Form College

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department spent £1,080,368 on management and computer consultancies in the 1990–91 financial year. The contracts concerned were as follows:

  Consultant and subject of assignment

  AMTEC
  Feasibility study for Policy Branch Information System

  Butler Cox
  Post Implementation Review and Evaluation of the Further Education Statistical Record system

  BBT
  Data conversion work

  BIS
  Feasibility study of Enhanced Technical Data Service (ETDS)

  BIS
  Project review of Enhanced Technical Data Service (ETDS)

  BIS
  Full study for replacement of Data Collection Processing System

  CCTA
  Information Systems Strategy Review

  CMC, Communicatie-Management Consultants Contribution to seminar on Restructuring an Inspectorate

  CMG
  Evaluating network carriers

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte
  OU review of part-time costs

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte
  Study of requirements of maintained primary and secondary schools for software for the purposes of collating, managing and transmitting data generated by the statutory NC assessment arrangements

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte
  Comparison of costs and effects of an HMI Inspection Project with alternative approaches

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte
  Review of BACS payment system

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte
  Management of change for IT records management system

  Duhig Berry
  Project management for survey projects

  Elizabeth Braiden Management and Survey Consultant
  HMI survey on performance related pay: District Inspector's questionnaire

  Ernst and Young
  Sport and Recreation Division: Financial Management review of Central Council of Physical Recreation
  178
  Henley
  Feasibility of Enhanced Technical Data Service (ETDS)

  Howard Whitehead and Partners
  Management consultancy: survey of ESRC

  Hoskyns
  Resource planning

  ICL
  Report and general support to Core Resource Information System-Finance

  ICL
  Review repair status of mainframe operating systems and recommend

  INTAC
  Videoconferencing

  KINESIS
  Options for connecting Architects and Buildings Branch PCs to network

  KINESIS
  Secretariat review

  KINESIS
  Facilitator in implementation of IT records management system.

  KPMG Management Consulting
  Training needs analysis of proposed Teachers' Pensions Agency.

  KPMG
  Information Systems Branch annual business plan.

  KPMG
  Review of Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.

  LALCREST
  Productivity improvement programme.

  Neville Russell
  Accountancy advice on Assisted Places Scheme and Music and Ballet Scheme with particular reference to the review of assessment of parental contributions and an assessment of applications for fee increases for APS. Advice on financial agreement with 5 MBS schools.

  ORACLE
  Evaluation of software for Enhanced Technical Data Service (ETDS).

  ORACLE
  Programming work on HMI travel and subsistence.

  ORACLE
  Benchmark of hardware for Data Collection Processing System.

  Oxford Computer Training
  Programming advice.

  Peat Marwick and McLintock
  Pensions Branch: Pensions Administration System.

  PE International
  Development of grade 7 training.

  PE International
  Development of management training.

  Management Consulting P-E International
  For development of Schools Branch induction programme.

  Price Waterhouse
  Technical advice on financial controls for National Curriculum Council.

  RADIUS
  Enhancements and screen production on Accounts payable System.

  RML
  Advice on technical enhancements to PCs and network.

  SSADM (SCOLL)
  Productivity improvement programme.

  SYBASE
  Relational Database Management System Trials.

  Thorn EMI
  Review of Architects and Buildings Branch.
  179
  TRANRATE
  Programming work on New Basic Teachers' Record System.

  Touche Ross
  Local Management of Schools: extension to special schools (feasibility).

  Touche Ross
  Management consultancy: survey of NERC.

  Touche Ross
  Advice on extension of Local Management of Schools.

  Two B
  Amendments to software.

  Bob Young
  For rewriting school development plans.

  The Department had no executive agencies in 1990–91.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out his plans for funding education provision for the long-term adult unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 23 January 1991 at columns 196–97; and to the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st century", Cm 1536.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science further to his reply of 24 April,Official Report, columns 438–40, if he will give in 1990 prices, by local education authority, the level of capital spending on school buildings for 1978–79, 1984–85 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Fallon
  The following table shows the information requested:

  Capital spending by LEAs on school buildings 1990 prices

  £ million

  LEA

  1978–79

  1984–85

  1988–89

  Barking

  1·3

  3·0

  1·5

  Barnet

  3·3

  1·3

  3·0

  Bexley

  3·3

  3·1

  3·7

  Brent

  3·3

  2·5

  0·7

  Bromley

  1·8

  3·4

  7·6

  Croydon

  2·0

  1·8

  5·7

  Ealing

  3·0

  1·0

  1·8

  Enfield

  4·0

  1·0

  4·6

  Haringey

  2·3

  1·4

  3·8

  Harrow

  3·3

  1·3

  3·0

  Havering

  1·0

  1·3

  3·9

  Hillingdon

  5·3

  2·0

  8·9

  Hounslow

  5·0

  3·5

  6·3

  Kingston

  0·5

  0·6

  1·9

  Merton

  1·8

  1·3

  2·8

  Newham

  6·3

  6·4

  3·3

  Redbridge

  3·3

  2·5

  4·6

  Richmond

  1·8

  1·7

  0·9

  Sutton

  0·8

  1·8

  3·6

  Waltham Forest

  3·8

  1·3

  7·3

  ILEA

  32·0

  14·7

  24·4

  Birmingham

  7·1

  11·7

  4·8

  Coventry

  5·8

  2·1

  9·4

  Dudley

  3·8

  5·7

  4·1

  Sandwell

  4·5

  1·8

  0·7

  Solihull

  3·0

  1·6

  2·4

  Walsall

  6·1

  3·0

  3·2

  Wolverhampton

  5·0

  1·4

  2·2

  Knowsley

  2·0

  1·8

  1·4

  Liverpool

  4·8

  2·3

  11·1

  St. Helens

  6·3

  2·0

  1·7

  Sefton

  3·5

  1·7

  1·9

  180

  LEA

  1978–79

  1984–85

  1988–89

  Wirral

  2·0

  3·1

  5·4

  Bolton

  2·5

  1·8

  2·5

  Bury

  4·5

  0·8

  1·1

  Manchester

  2·8

  7·5

  9·9

  Oldham

  2·5

  2·1

  2·5

  Rochdale

  5·0

  1·7

  2·9

  Salford

  4·8

  2·5

  3·8

  Stockport

  2·0

  1·3

  3·2

  Tameside

  3·0

  2·5

  2·8

  Trafford

  1·0

  0·8

  1·6

  Wigan

  6·1

  2·5

  4·2

  Barnsley

  5·0

  0·1

  1·9

  Doncaster

  3·8

  1·0

  0·9

  Rotherham

  4·0

  1·8

  2·5

  Sheffield

  4·0

  12·9

  10·3

  Bradford

  5·5

  15·8

  12·1

  Calderdale

  3·3

  2·1

  3·8

  Kirklees

  4·8

  5·7

  3·3

  Leeds

  9·8

  7·4

  17·3

  Wakefield

  5·8

  1·8

  6·4

  Gateshead

  2·8

  3·4

  3·4

  Newcastle

  3·5

  2·3

  5·0

  North Tyne

  3·0

  1·8

  3·2

  South Tyne

  3·5

  4·7

  2·9

  Sunderland

  3·5

  3·4

  5·6

  Isles of Scilly

  0·3

  0·0

  n/a

  Avon

  7·6

  6·1

  7·5

  Bedfordshire

  14·4

  3·3

  5·0

  Berkshire

  12·4

  12·7

  n/a

  Bucks

  10·3

  12·2

  7·2

  Cambridgeshire

  14·9

  9·6

  17·7

  Cheshire

  26·2

  11·7

  25·1

  Cleveland

  8·3

  5·0

  5·8

  Cornwall

  10·8

  4·7

  7·5

  Cumbria

  4·3

  5·7

  6·0

  Derbyshire

  15·4

  12·0

  13·2

  Devon

  10·1

  9·5

  13·0

  Dorset

  8·6

  4·5

  4·0

  Durham

  7·1

  4·5

  4·2

  East Sussex

  7·1

  8·9

  11·7

  Essex

  29·3

  10·0

  n/a

  Gloucs

  7·3

  5·9

  6·6

  Hampshire

  29·3

  22·8

  28·2

  Hereford and Worcs

  12·9

  4·1

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  7·8

  11·3

  12·3

  Humberside

  19·4

  8·5

  12·7

  Isle of Wight

  3·0

  0·8

  2·1

  Kent

  23·2

  7·5

  13·1

  Lancashire

  15·4

  7·1

  12·1

  Leicestershire

  11·6

  6·9

  11·7

  Lincolnshire

  7·8

  7·4

  7·7

  Norfolk

  12·4

  6·5

  7·8

  North Yorks

  11·4

  12·0

  7·0

  Northants

  13·4

  6·2

  5·5

  Northumberland

  6·8

  1·8

  1·9

  Nottinghamshire

  14·9

  5·5

  n/a

  Oxfordshire

  3·5

  3·3

  7·0

  Shropshire

  8·8

  3·1

  4·8

  Somerset

  4·5

  3·5

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  21·2

  7·8

  8·8

  Suffolk

  12·9

  5·7

  11·6

  Surrey

  12·9

  12·9

  21·1

  Warwickshire

  6·3

  3·4

  3·8

  West Sussex

  5·5

  7·6

  8·3

  Wiltshire

  4·5

  7·8

  4·2

  Notes:

  1. n/a indicates data not available.

  2. expenditure is given in 1990–91 prices, rounded to the nearest £0·1 m; it includes provision from within the Department of the Environment's Urban Programme, and covers nursery, primary, secondary and special education.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date he received the letter dated 12 May from Mrs. Linda Bettany of Sandycroft C. P. school, concerning resources and class size; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Mrs. Bettany addressed her letter of 12 May to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has ministerial responsibility for the matters she raises.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of standard assessment tasks.

  Mr. Fallon
  Consultations have recently opened on the statutory orders on testing for next year. Copies of the consultation documents have been placed in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend has emphasised his commitment to review this summer's operation before deciding on the exact form of tests for next year.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will appoint extra teachers to primary schools where standard assessment tasks are carried out.

  Mr. Fallon
  The appointment and deployment of teachers is a matter for local education authorities.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with(a) teachers and (b) head teachers concerning standard assessment tasks.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had extensive discussions with teachers and head teachers on this issue, and will continue to do so.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any changes to announce to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimates, the cash limits for class XI, vote 1, schools, research and miscellaneous services, and class XI, vote 2, higher and further education, will be amended. The cash limit changes are as follows:

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised cash limit £

  XI. 1

  713,445,000

  -582,000

  712,863,000

  XI. 2

  2,919,806,000

  -3,521,000

  2,916,285,000

  The decrease on class XI, vote 1 results from the appropriation in aid of contributions from the Welsh Office to certain programmes which are on a joint England and Wales basis.

  The decrease on class XI, vote 2 results partly from the appropriation in aid of contributions from Wales to the programme of bursaries for the initial training of teachers
  182
  in shortage subjects. The remainder of the decrease results from the transfer of responsibility to regional health authorities for manpower planning to meet NHS needs across a range of professions allied to medicine and the accompanying costs of training courses. The decrease is net of an increase in provision for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to cover the costs to higher education institutions of providing two-year diploma in social work courses to replace certificate in social services courses run in further education colleges. Funding for this will be transferred from the Department of Health.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will announce the rates of supplementary allowances payable within the mandatory student award in 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Subject to Parliament's approval of the necessary regulations which will be laid in due course, supplementary allowances payable within the mandatory student award by local education authorities in England and Wales will be increased in the academic year 1991–92. In most cases, the rises will be broadly in line with the overall increase in student support through the loan and basic grant together which I announced on 22 May,Official Report, columns 499–500. I am placing details of the supplementary allowances in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Swan Hunter
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Swan Hunter Shipbuilders on Tyneside.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Professional Association of Teachers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Professional Association of Teachers is recognised in the determination of statutory and non-statutory pay and conditions of employment in each part of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  In England and Wales, the Government recognise the Professional Association of Teachers and consults it on statutory pay and conditions. For the future, the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill will require the new review body, which will deal with statutory pay and conditions, to invite evidence from representative bodies, such as the Professional Association of Teachers. The determination of non-statutory pay and conditions is a matter for local education authorities and the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools.

  In Scotland, the Scottish joint negotiation committee determines the statutory pay and conditions of service for school teachers. The Professional Association of Teachers is represented on the committee. In Northern Ireland, the association has not yet met the minimum membership requirement to satisfy the conditions laid down for representation on the Northern Ireland Teachers Council. Under the council's constitution, this is a precondition for representation on its negotiating committee for teachers' pay and conditions of service.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening, I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  10 Downing Street (Decorations)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what alterations he has made to the internal furnishing decorations within No. 10 Downing street since he became Prime Minister.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding reply 3 June]: None.

ENERGY

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised and new estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class V, vote 2 will be reduced by £7,915,000 from £329,164,000 to £321,249,000. The cash limit for class V, vote 3, will be reduced by £4,392,000 from £46,127,000 to £41,735,000. The running costs limit for the Department will be reduced by £5,530,000 from £49,507,000 to £43,977,000.

  These reductions reflect the transfer of ministerial responsibility for the regulation of offshore safety to the Secretary of State for Employment. This follows my announcement to the House on 12 November 1990, columns 329–345.

  The cash limit for class V, vote 9, which is a new vote providing for advisers' fees in connection with preliminary work on the privatisation of the coal industry, will be £1,000,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: There is one dedicated energy manager in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is FCO policy that all staff should be aware of the energy policies and the need for conservation. It is therefore impossible to identify the number of person-years devoted to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.
  184
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: It is not possible to provide the information in the detail requested as the figures are not readily available. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office only assumed direct responsibility for its fuel and utilities accounts in April 1990, before when they were paid by the Property Services Agency.

  In 1989–90, a total of £55,360 (£60,730 in 1990–91 terms) was invested in improving energy efficiency in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In 1990–91, the cash figure was £57,000, but in addition, the need for energy conservation was drawn to the attention of all staff working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: An energy survey, including an energy audit, of the main Foreign and Commonwealth Office building in Whitehall was carried out in 1990. The consultants concluded that annual savings of £53,000 could be achieved with no capital expenditure and further savings of £7,100 per annum could be achieved with a capital expenditure of £19,400. The majority of the recommendations have already been implemented.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ministerial visits were paid to each of the institutes of food research at(a) Norwich, (b) Reading and (c) Langford in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the past five years, four ministerial visits have been made to the Agricultural and Food Research Council institute of food research: once to Norwich in 1986, twice to Norwich in 1987 and once to Reading in 1990.

EMPLOYMENT

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to the cash limits or running costs limits for 1991–92 within the employment group.

  Mr. Jackson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 1 (programmes and central services) will be increased by £90,392,000 from £2,266,849,000 to £2,357,241,000. The increase is the net result of an increase of £105,000,000 for employment training in England and Wales which was announced to the House on 26 February (partly offset by increased receipts of £8,408,000 from the Welsh Office, class XVI, vote 4); a transfer of £4,500,000 to class VI, vote 3 for offshore safety; a transfer of £ 1,186,000 to the Ministry of

  185
  Defence class I, vote 1 for payments to participants in their youth training scheme and a transfer of £514,000 to the Employment Service, class VI, vote 2 to reflect the transfer of certain responsibilities for common services and telecommunications.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 2 (Employment Service) will be increased by £17,514,000 from £436,335,000 to £453,849,000. The increase is the net result of an increase of £55,000,000 for the increased costs of the administration of unemployment benefit and associated payments (offset by increased receipts of £38,000,000 from the Department of Social Security, class XIV, vote 4) and additional provision to help unemployed people, including extra counselling and jobsearch seminars, and a transfer of provision of £514,000 from class VI, vote 1 to cover certain common service responsibilities.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 3 (Health and Safety Commission and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service), will be increased by £18,071,000 from £160,735,000 to £178,806,000. The increase reflects the transfer of the offshore safety function to the Health and Safety Executive and is the net result of a transfer of £12,549,000 from the Department of Energy, class V, votes 2 and 3 (partly offset by increased associated receipts of £353,000); a transfer of £4,500,000 from class VI vote 1; a transfer of £300,000 from the Department of Transport, class VIII, vote 2 (More than offset by increased associated receipts of £325,000); and increased provision of £1,046,000 to cover superannuation payments for offshore safety staff (fully offset by increased receipts to the civil superannuation vote).

  The single running cost limit for the Department of Employment (class VI votes 1 and 2) will be increased by £55,000,000 from £1,002,699,000 to £1,057,699,000.

  The running cost limit for the Health and Safety Commission (class VI vote 3) will increase by £11,129,000 from £121,957,000 to £133,086,000.

  These increases will be charged to the reserve and therefore will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the east midlands in the textile or footwear industries; what percentage of the total work force of the east midlands this represents; what is his estimate of the number of people in the east midlands whose jobs depend upon the east midlands textile and footwear industry; if he will express this as a percentage of the total work force; and what the equivalent figures and percentages were in 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Estimates of employment at the required level of detail are only available from the census of employment.

  The available information is given in the table.

  Textiles and Footwear

  Number

  Percentage of Civilian Workforce

  1981

  September1

  103,000

  5·7

  1989

  September

  75,000

  3·9

  1 Earliest comparable date.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing nationally, regionally and for each district, the central Government provision in the standard spending assessment for tourist expenditure and the expenditure on and income from tourism; and if he will take steps to encourage local authorities to recover expenditure on tourism from a tourist tax.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  Tourism will have an impact on a range of services provided by local authorities. These include those provided by districts, for example, on environmental health, refuse collection and street cleaning. There will also be an impact on a wider range of services, predominantly provided by counties, such as police and highway maintenance. For some services it is possible for the authorities concerned to offset expenditure with income from charges; car parking and leisure facilities are the most obvious examples.

  There is no explicit element for tourism within the standard spending assessment for an authority, but, within the standard spending assessment components for district and county level services generally, the annual number of domestic visitor nights spent in the authority is one of the factors used in the distribution. A table showing the amount of standard spending assessment distributed on the basis of this factor alone for 1991–92 has been placed in the Library.

  I am also placing in the Library a table showing the latest information on estimated central Government expenditure on tourism-related activities; and one on income from tourism as measured by the estimated spending of visitors.

  On the question of a tourist tax, the Government have no specific proposals in this area. However, we are willing to consider as part of the local government review any suggestion for new local sources of revenue which might assist authorities in this area.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Agencies
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of launching the Benefits Agency at(a) national, (b) area and (c) district levels.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member, and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of launching the Contributions Agency at(a) national, (b) area and (c) district levels.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his assessment of the effect of the implementation of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill upon entitlement to motability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The motability scheme will be available to people on the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance in the same way as it is to people currently on mobility allowance. The extension of the higher rate of the mobility component to severely mentally handicapped people with severe behavioural problems means that more disabled people will have the opportunity to benefit from motability when DLA is introduced than at present.

  Local Offices, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change there has been in the numbers of claims and the time involved in(a) the assessment of a claim and (b) the notification of the assessment to the claimant in his Department's offices in the Doncaster area, following the installation of computer systems.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The delivery of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member, and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to change the pension rules so that expatriate Britons can have their pensions upgraded as they are in the United Kingdom; and how much such a move would cost.

  Mr. Jack
  Annual pension increases are paid to United Kingdom pensioners living in 32 overseas countries. We have no plans to extend the payment of these increases to all UK pensioners worldwide. Such a move would cost £337 million a year at April 1991 rates of benefit.

  Mortgage Debt
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table for the past five financial years showing how much his Department spent servicing mortgage lending debt incurred by borrowing from building societies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates of amounts included for mortgage interest in the assessment of supplementary benefit and, from 1988, income support, are given in the table for each of the past five years for which information is available.

  Information about building society loans is not collected. The amounts shown relate to the interest on loans from all mortgage lenders. In 1989, some 281,000 claimants had an amount for mortgage interest included in their assessment. For the vast majority, the amount is less than £100·00 per week.

  £million

  1984

  218·5

  1986

  351·2

  1987

  335·2

  188

  £ million

  1988

  285·6

  1989

  353·1

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries 1984–89.

  Notes:

  In 1985 the Annual Statistical Enquiry was not undertaken.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  Social Assistance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions are taking place with the European Community concerning the establishment of a minimum level of social assistance in each member state; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Officials have been taking part in preliminary discussions with the Commission and other member states on a draft Council recommendation on common criteria concerning social assistance schemes. The resultant draft has not yet been received by the Government, but the indications are that it will not present serious problems for the United Kingdom, which is one of the member states that already has a comprehensive scheme in the shape of income support.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there have been any changes in the cash limits or running costs limits of his Department for 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval on the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class XIV vote 4 (Administration and Miscellaneous Services) will be increased by £42,658,000, from £1,838,770,000 to £1,881,428,000. The revision takes account of the work involved in the uprating of child benefit and national insurance contributions on company cars as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement (£5,004,000); provision for the work carried out by the Department of Social Security on behalf of the Department of Employment (£4,589,000); a transfer to the Department of Health (class XIII vote 3) of £847,000; a transfer to the Home Office (class IX vote 3) of £4,000; a transfer from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (class XIII vote 6) of £269,000; a transfer from the Office of the Minister of the Civil Service (class XIX vote 1) of £10,000, an increase in agency payments to the Department of Employment (class VI vote 2) of £38,000,000 and a transfer from the civil superannuation vote (class XVIII vote 4) of £40,000. The additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts of £4,403,000. The balance will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  In addition, running cost changes result from a transfer to the Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) (£1,965,000) for the running costs of the Belfast social security centre. There will be a corresponding increase on the Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) vote 3 Administration and Miscellaneous Services; also a reduction of £50,000 to take account of a variation from a previously anticipated pattern of expenditure.
  189
  As a result of these changes, the running cost limit of the Department of Social Security is increased by £8,605,000 from £2,107,212,000 to £2,115,817,000.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will recalculate the tables provided, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell)Official Report, 27 March, columns 443–48, to include the effects of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 8 May 1991]: The information is set out in the tables. All assumptions are as set out in the published tax-benefit model tables. Each family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to its size and to pay estimated average rent and community charge.

  Gross earnings Charge

  Tax

  National Insurance

  Take home pay

  Rent rebate

  Community Charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and Community Charge

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  13·03

  1·78

  72·63

  46·34

  80·00

  4·16

  3·98

  71·86

  3·90

  0·00

  75·76

  49·47

  100·00

  9·16

  5·78

  85·06

  0·00

  0·00

  85·06

  58·77

  120·00

  14·16

  7·58

  98·26

  0·00

  0·00

  98·26

  71·97

  140·00

  19·16

  9·38

  111·46

  0·00

  0·00

  111·46

  85·17

  160·00

  24·16

  11·18

  124·66

  0·00

  0·00

  124·66

  98·37

  180·00

  29·16

  12·98

  137·86

  0·00

  0·00

  137·86

  111·57

  200·00

  34·16

  14·78

  151·06

  0·00

  0·00

  151·06

  124·77

  Married Couple

  £ per week

  Assumed rent

  21·59

  Assumed Community Charge

  9·40

  Gross earnings Charge

  Tax

  National Insurance

  Take home pay

  Rent rebate

  Community Charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and Community Charge

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  21·59

  7·52

  86·93

  55·94

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  19·14

  6·95

  102·11

  71·12

  100·00

  0·89

  5·78

  93·33

  7·89

  4·36

  105·58

  74·59

  120·00

  5·89

  7·58

  106·53

  0·00

  2·38

  108·91

  77·92

  140·00

  10·89

  9·38

  119·73

  0·00

  0·40

  120·13

  89·14

  160·00

  15·89

  11·18

  132·93

  0·00

  0·00

  132·93

  101·94

  180·00

  20·89

  12·98

  146·13

  0·00

  0·00

  146·13

  115·14

  200·00

  25·89

  14·78

  159·33

  0·00

  0·00

  159·33

  128·34

  Married Couple with one child aged 11

  £ per week

  Child Benefit

  9·25

  Assumed rent

  23·82

  Assumed Community Charge

  9·40

  Gross earnings Charge

  Tax

  National Insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent rebate

  Community Charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and Community Charge

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  54·40

  10·48

  4·44

  136·39

  103·17

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  44·76

  4·92

  3·16

  138·11

  104·89

  100·00

  0·89

  5·78

  93·33

  32·64

  1·54

  2·38

  139·14

  105·92

  120·00

  5·89

  7·58

  106·53

  23·40

  0·00

  1·78

  140·96

  107·74

  140·00

  10·89

  9·38

  119·73

  14·16

  0·00

  1·19

  144·33

  111·11

  160·00

  15·89

  11·18

  132·93

  4·92

  0·00

  0·60

  147·70

  114·48

  180·00

  20·89

  12·98

  146·13

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  155·38

  122·16

  200·00

  25·89

  14·78

  159·33

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  168·58

  135·36

  190
  The weighted average headline community charge for Great Britain in accordance with the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act is £246 a year as from April. The tables have been adjusted to take into account all the other April Budget proposals/benefit changes, as well as the proposed changes in October.

  It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay.

  Single person (aged 25 or over)

  £ per week

  Assumed rent

  21·59

  Assumed Community Charge

  4·70

  191

  Married couple with three children aged 8 and 11

  £ per week

  Child benefit

  16·75

  Assumed Rent

  26·03

  Assumed Community Charge

  9·40

  Gross earnings Charge

  Tax

  NI

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  64·10

  10·35

  3·90

  152·92

  117·49

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  54·46

  4·79

  2·62

  154·64

  119·21

  100·00

  0·89

  5·78

  93·33

  42·34

  1·41

  1·84

  155·67

  120·24

  120·00

  5·89

  7·58

  106·53

  33·10

  0·00

  1·24

  157·62

  122·19

  140·00

  10·89

  9·38

  119·73

  23·86

  0·00

  0·65

  160·99

  125·56

  160·00

  15·89

  11·18

  132·93

  14·62

  0·00

  0·06

  164·36

  128·93

  180·00

  20·89

  12·98

  146·13

  5·38

  0·00

  0·00

  168·26

  132·83

  200·00

  25·89

  14·78

  159·33

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  176·08

  140·65

  Married couple with three children aged 8, 11 and 15

  £ per week

  Child Benefit

  24·25

  Assumed Rent

  26·03

  Assumed Community Charge

  9·40

  Gross earnings Charge

  Tax

  National Insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  80·20

  8·01

  3·36

  173·64

  138·21

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  70·56

  2·45

  2·08

  175·36

  139·93

  100·00

  0·89

  5·78

  93·33

  58·44

  0·00

  1·30

  177·32

  141·89

  120·00

  5·89

  7·58

  106·53

  49·20

  0·00

  0·70

  180·68

  145·25

  140·00

  10·89

  9·38

  119·73

  39·96

  0·00

  0·11

  184·05

  148·62

  160·00

  15·89

  11·18

  132·93

  30·72

  0·00

  0·00

  187·90

  152·47

  180·00

  20·89

  12·98

  146·13

  21·48

  0·00

  0·00

  191·86

  156·43

  200·00

  25·89

  14·78

  159·33

  12·24

  0·00

  0·00

  195·82

  160·39

  Married couple with Four children aged 3, 8, 11 and 15

  £ per week

  Child Benefit

  31·75

  Assumed Rent

  26·03

  Assumed Community Charge

  9·40

  Gross earnings Charge

  Tax

  National Insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  89·90

  5·67

  2·82

  187·96

  152·53

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  80·26

  0·00

  1·54

  189·57

  154·14

  100·00

  0·89

  5·78

  93·33

  68·14

  0·00

  0·76

  193·98

  158·55

  120·00

  5·89

  7·58

  106·53

  58·90

  0·00

  0·16

  197·34

  161·91

  140·00

  10·89

  9·38

  119·73

  49·66

  0·00

  0·00

  201·14

  165·71

  160·00

  15·89

  11·18

  132·93

  40·42

  0·00

  0·00

  205·10

  169·67

  180·00

  20·89

  12·98

  146·13

  31·18

  0·00

  0·00

  209·06

  173·63

  200·00

  25·89

  14·78

  159·33

  21·94

  0·00

  0·00

  213·02

  177·59

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the percentages for national insurance contributions at each income band, using constant 1991 prices, for each year since 1979.
  192
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The information requested is in the table.
  193

  National Insurance contribution (NIC) percentage rates1 1979 onwards

  Tax Year

  Employees' NIC rate

  Employers' NIC rate

  Weekly income bands at which different NIC rates apply 3 £

  1979–80

  6·5

  13·52

  Single percentage rate applied to all earnings between lower and upper earnings limits

  1980–81

  6·75

  13·72

  1981–82

  7·75

  13·72

  1982–83

  8·75

  13·72

  1983–84

  9·00

  11·952

  1984–85

  9·00

  11·452

  1985–86 (to 5 October 1985)

  9·00

  10·452

  6 October 1985 to 5 April 1986

  5·00

  5·00

  35·50—54·99

  7·00

  7·00

  55·00—89·99

  9·00

  9·00

  90·00—129·99

  9·00

  10·45

  130·00—265·00

  NIL

  10·45

  Above 265·00

  1986–87

  5·00

  5·00

  38·00—59·99

  7·00

  7·00

  60·00—94·99

  9·00

  9·00

  95·00—139·99

  9·00

  10·45

  140·00—285·00

  NIL

  10·45

  Above 285·00

  1987–88

  5·00

  5·00

  39·00—64·99

  7·00

  7·00

  65·00—99·99

  9·00

  9·00

  100·00—149·99

  9·00

  10·45

  150·00—295·00

  NIL

  10·45

  Above 295·00

  1988–89

  5·00

  5·00

  41·00—69·99

  7·00

  7·00

  70·00—104·99

  9·00

  9·00

  105·00—154·99

  9·00

  10·45

  155·00—305·00

  NIL

  10·45

  Above 305·00

  1989–90

  5·00

  5·00

  43·00—74·99

  7·00

  7·00

  75·00—114·99

  9·00

  9·00

  115·00—164·99

  9·00

  10·45

  165·00—325·00

  NIL

  10·45

  Above 325·00

  Employee

  Employer

  5 October 1989 to 5 April 1990

  2·00

  5·00

  43·00

  43·00 to 74·99

  9·00

  7·00

  43·01

  75·00 to 114·99

  9·00

  to

  115·00 to 164·99

  10·45

  325·00

  165·00 or more

  1990–91

  2·00

  5·00

  46·00

  46·00 to 79·99

  9·00

  7·00

  46·01

  80·00 to 124·99

  9·00

  to

  125·00 to 174·99

  10·45

  350·00

  175·00 or more

  1991–92

  2·00

  4·60

  52·00

  52·00 to 84·99

  9·00

  6·60

  52·01

  85·00 to 129·99

  8·60

  to

  130·00 to 184·99

  10·40

  390·00

  185·00 or more

  Notes:

  1 All rates are in respect of not contracted-out employment.

  2 Includes National Insurance surcharge.

  3 Percentage rates are applied to all earnings once the level of earnings reaches a certain point. In 1986–87, for example, NICs would have been levied at a single rate of 7 per cent, on gross earnings of £65·00.

  4 All figures shown are those current at the time. The lower and upper earnings limits for the payment of NICs, and the earnings bands between those levels, increase broadly in line with price inflation.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in setting up the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Jack
  Pursuant to my reply of 15 April at column 9–10, no final decisions have yet been made on the location of administration centres for the Child Support Agency,194
  since its establishment depends on the passage of the Child Support Bill currently before the House. However, for planning purposes the assumption is that there should be up to six new offices housing about 3,000 staff—in addition to the CSA staff who will be based in local offices of the Department's Benefits Agency, making a total of about 4,500 in all. It is the Government's intention to locate the

  195
  new administration centres in different areas throughout the country as part of its policy of relocating civil service jobs.

  Substantial progress has been made in identifying suitable locations with over 100 sites visited by my officials at 31 different locations. Detailed negotiations and discussions are being conducted about six particular locations in Falkirk, Belfast, Birkenhead, the black country (Dudley), Hastings and Plymouth—all of which appear to meet the criteria required for supporting a large CSA office. The discussions are aimed at establishing the ability of each location to meet the Department's accommodation specification, cost requirements and timetable. Once I am satisfied on all these matters, I will confirm the final decisions on the locations of the new administration centres. If successful, this will create new jobs for people in the travel-to-work areas in these six locations.

  The Department's decision to locate the work of the new agency in different parts of the country should be seen in conjunction with the announcement earlier this year confirming the location of 700 more jobs in the north-east—at Newcastle—for the Contributions Agency, in addition to the 1,000 jobs for Newcastle announced last year. A further 800 DSS jobs are due to move to Leeds from mid-1992 as part of the initiative to relocate work from DSS headquarters offices in London and Southampton. From April 1992, the administration of the new benefits for disabled people will require about 1,100 staff who will be located in a number of areas spread around the country. Relocation of work from London social security offices has been in progress since 1989 and a total of over 1,500 new jobs have been created in Glasgow, Belfast and Ashton-in-Makerfield. By the end of 1992, it is estimated that about 83 per cent. of jobs in DSS will be in locations outside London.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Railways
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the cost of providing two years' pensionable pay when death occurs during service for employees of Northern Ireland Railways; and what is the cost of the present scheme.

  Mr. Needham
  Employees of Northern Ireland Railways qualify for membership of the pension scheme administered by the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee under the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.

  The cost of providing benefits under the NILGOSC scheme is not recorded on an individual basis. It would not be possible, therefore, without an actuarial valuation to calculate the cost of providing two years' pensionable pay when death occurs during service.

  The cost to existing members of the NILGOSC scheme is 5 per cent. of salary for manual employees and 6 per cent. of salary for non-manual employees with employing authorities contributing 6·2 per cent.

  Employees of Northern Ireland Railways are, of course, entitled to join a private pension scheme, the benefits and cost of which may differ from the NILGOSC scheme.

  Regional Waste Licensing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions are being made to establish a regional waste licensing system for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government are currently preparing proposals for a comprehensive waste management strategy for Northern Ireland which will take into account comments received from district councils on the Aspinwall report. The proposed strategy will be the subject of consultation in due course.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources are being allocated to ensure that stated targets for listed buildings, surveying historic monuments and sites and designating conservation areas can be met.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1991–92. the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will spend £5·1 million, including staff costs and programmes expenditure, on tasks or functions related to historic building and monuments. The Department remains on course for meeting the targets set out in Government's White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cmd 1200).

  Street Lighting
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used to decide whether any part of a road in the Downpatrick and Craigavon divisions of the Department of the Environment should be provided with street lighting.

  Mr. Needham
  The criteria used to decide whether any part of a road in the Downpatrick and Craigavon divisions should be provided with street lighting are traffic volumes, road safety, and the density of housing and other developments.

  Road Improvement Schemes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what major road improvement schemes have been carried out in the Downpatrick and Craigavon divisions between 1 March 1984 and 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is:

  DOWNPATRICK DIVISION

  Balloo Road, Bangor—Stage 1

  Union Bridge, Lisburn

  Lisburn through pass; Benson Street-Longstone Street

  Dunmurry by-pass—Stage 2A

  Lisburn through pass; Governors Road-Laganbank Road

  Balloo Road, Bangor—Stage 2

  Hillsborough by-pass; Lisburn Road junction

  Shimna Bridges, Newcastle

  Donaghadee Road, Newtownards

  Dunmurry by-pass—Stage 2C

  CRAIGAVON DIVISON

  Patrick Street/Borans Hill, Newry

  Upper Dromore Road, Warrenpoint

  Al—Ballintaggart Crest

  Al—Climbing Lane at Customs Station, Newry

  Kilmorey Street junction, Newry

  Al—Edenordinary final surfacing

  A1—Beechill

  Banbridge by-pass bridge

  197

  Newry by-pass—Stage 1

  Banbridge by-pass dualling

  Newry—Canal Street/Downshire Road link

  Tandragee Road/Bridge Street, Portadown

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what moneys have been invested in

  Expenditure

  £ thousands

  Financial year

  HQ1

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  Total

  1985–86

  612

  906

  3,154

  757

  1,434

  985

  1,568

  9,414

  1986–87

  418

  1,014

  3,268

  1,505

  1,804

  1,092

  879

  9,980

  1987–88

  690

  1,071

  3,169

  1,821

  1,784

  890

  793

  10,218

  1988–89

  1,755

  3,063

  1,999

  986

  1,844

  1,827

  694

  12,168

  1989–90

  100

  1,895

  6,510

  1,298

  1,233

  2,217

  3,144

  16,397

  21990–91

  35

  1,522

  5,012

  1,065

  1,300

  2,789

  3,339

  15,062

  2 Relates to specific schemes which were handled centrally.

  2 Provisional at this stage.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the increased fares on the ferry service between Strangford and Portaferry.

  Mr. Needham
  One representation to the most recent increase in fares has been received from Down district council.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much it cost to operate the Strangford to Portaferry ferry service in each of the years from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  Operating costs for the Strangford to Portaferry ferry service were:

  Financial year

  Cost (£'000)

  1985–86

  484

  1986–87

  553

  1987–88

  526

  1988–89

  674

  1989–90

  822

  1990–91

  783

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce reduced transport fares for women on reaching retirement age at 60 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is precluded by the provisions of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 from making a distinction on age grounds between men and women. The qualifying age for concessionary half-fare travel by bus and rail in Northern Ireland is 65 years for men and women, and there are no plans to alter it.

  Youth Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the education budget has been allocated to youth services in each year from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1991 in the Southern education and library board.

  Dr. Mawhinney

  198
  major road improvement schemes in each road division in the Six Counties between 1 March 1985 and 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  Expenditure on major road improvement schemes in the past six financial years has been:

  Year

  Percentage of recurrent block grant allocated to youth service

  Percentage of capital grant allocated to youth service

  1985–86

  2·88

  1·80

  1986–87

  2·80

  2·14

  1987–88

  3·03

  2·10

  1988–89

  3·14

  1·09

  1989–90

  3·10

  0·84

  1990–91

  2·74

  1·04

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by year for the past 10 years, and for the current year to date, the number of(a) public footpaths and (b) public bridleways that have been (i) created and (ii) closed to the general public.

  Mr. Needham
  The creation and closure of public footpaths and bridleways is a district council responsibility and the information sought is not held centrally.

  Renewable Energy Programme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland will be included in the review of the renewable energy programme.

  Mr. Needham
  Yes.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards correcting the under-employment of Protestants on the staff of the Fair Employment Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: I understand that the 1991 monitoring return made by the commission shows that 30, 53 per cent., of its employees are Protestant and 27, 47 per cent., are Roman Catholic. The commission's approach to the religious composition of its staff, including its wish to attract more applicants from the Protestant side of the community, was set out in its press release of 16 October 1990, a copy of which was placed in the Library.

  Detention Centres (Lay Visitors)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the criteria for appointments by the police authority in Northern Ireland for the selection of lay visitors to non-paramilitary suspects in Royal Ulster Constabulary detention centres.
  200
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The appointment of lay visitors is a matter for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Opera House Edinburgh
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for an opera house on the site of the Empire theatre, Edinburgh; and what public bodies are involved in taking this project forward.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been kept advised of Edinburgh district council's plans to convert the Empire theatre into an international venue for opera, ballet, concerts and drama. In addition to the district council, Lothian regional council, Lothian and Edinburgh enterprise company, Historic Scotland, the Scottish tourist board and the Scottish Arts Council are likely to be involved in the project.

  Scottish Agricultural College
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which agricultural advice services provided by the Scottish agricultural college are wholly publicly funded.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Services which are undertaken for the public good: that is, the benefits accrue to the whole community and not only to the individual. They include the following.

  (a) General advice on what is needed to conform with statutory requirements (Such as those on pesticides, health and safety at work or animal welfare).

  (b) All general advice on animal welfare.

  (c) Initial general advice on conservation and diversification.

  (d) General education and training for the rural community.

  (e) Veterinary investigation service tests related to notifiable diseases.

  (f) Monitoring services on patterns of animal health, welfare and infertility.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he applies, and by what authority, in determining which advisory work of the Scottish agricultural college shall be partly publicly funded.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Authority for the provision of agricultural advice is derived from section 4(4) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911. Advice which is partly publicly funded is advice the benefits of which accrue partly to the community and partly to the individual user. It includes the following:Specified services which would otherwise be fully chargeable but which are supplied to crofters at a reduced rate because of the effect of low income and relatively poor resources in the crofting area.
  Services which are charged at a standard price, which does not cover the cost of delivering them in remote or otherwise disadvantaged areas.
  Work associated with animal and crop disease surveillance.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the advisory work of the Scottish agricultural college which is partly publicly funded is chargeable to the client.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the year 1989–90, charges for partly publicly funded advice accounted for some 25 per cent. of total costs.

  Arts (Buildings)
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of those buildings used for the arts in Scotland which have been built, renovated or improved with Government funds since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table lists the properties occupied by the three Scottish national institutions, which are directly funded by my Department through building programme grant in aid. All of these properties have, to varying degrees, been subject to building or improvement works since 1979. In addition, the Government provided £9·4 million—on an exceptional basis—towards the construction of the Burrell gallery in Glasgow.

  In addition, my Department supports the development of local authority museums, galleries and libraries through the revenue support grant. Other support for the arts in Scotland, including an element for building projects, is provided by the Office of Arts and Libraries, through grants to arts bodies by the Scottish Arts Council.

  PROPERTIES OCCUPIED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

  Institution and Property

  National Galleries of Scotland

  National Gallery of Scotland, the Mound, Edinburgh

  Royal Scottish Academy, Princes Street, Edinburgh

  National Portrait Gallery, Queen Street, Edinburgh

  Gallery of Modern Art, Belford Road, Edinburgh

  Store, 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh

  National Museums of Scotland

  Royal Museum of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh

  National Museum of Antiquities, Queen Street, Edinburgh

  York Buildings, Queen Street, Edinburgh

  Leith Custom House, Leith, Edinburgh

  Scottish United Services Museum, Edinburgh Castle

  Museum of Flight, East Fortune Airfield, East Lothian

  Scottish Agricultural Museum, Ingliston, Edinburgh

  Shambellie House, Dumfriesshire

  Biggar Gasworks Museum, Lanarkshire

  Store, Port Edgar, South Queensferry

  Store, West Granton Road, Edinburgh

  Store, Newbattle Abbey, Dalkeith

  Store, Brighton Street, Edinburgh

  National Library of Scotland

  George IV Bridge, Edinburgh

  Causewayside Building, Edinburgh

  Offices, Lawnmarket, Edinburgh

  Law Court Buildings, Parliament Square, Edinburgh

  Bindery, Sighthill, Edinburgh

  Store (shared), Sighthill, Edinburgh

  Specific major capital building and maintenance projects since 1979 include (the figures are rounded to the nearest £0·5m):

  1. The conversion of the former John Watson's School to become the Gallery of Modern Art. (£3·5 million).

  2. The construction of the first phase of the National Library's accommodation at Causewayside, Edinburgh. (£11 million).

  3. Restoration and repair works at the Royal Museum of Scotland. (£8 million, on completion).

  4. Stonework restoration at the Findlay Building in Queen Street, Edinburgh (home of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland). (£4 million).

  5. Refurbishment of the National Gallery of Scotland. (£1 million).

  6. Recladding of the hangars at the Museum of Flight, East Fortune Airfield, East Lothian. (£1 million).

  Construction work has now begun on the second phase of the National Library's Causewayside Building (which is

  203
  costing £22 million), and I have committed resources of £22 million (exclusive of VAT and fees) to the construction of the new Museum of Scotland. Other major projects to be financed by the Government are: the provision of new storage accommodation for the National Museums (over £4 million), a major programme of fire precaution works at the National Library's HQ Building in George IV Bridge, Edinburgh (£4 million); and restoration work at the Royal Scottish Academy Building in Princes Street, Edinburgh (over £5 million).

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and for the current year to date, the number of(a) public footpaths and (b) public bridleways that have been (i) created and (ii) closed to the general public.

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

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place for formal consultation when marine fish farms, which were established before the formal consultation procedures were introduced in 1989, apply to the Crown Estate for the renewal of their sea bed lease.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Each lease will be subject to individual review by the Crown Estate as and when it falls due for renewal. The Crown Estate will undertake any consultations it considers necessary in the light of the circumstances at each review.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the Crown Estate's very sensitive areas in Scottish waters and the number of fish farm leases allocated in each;

  (2) how many sea bed leases for (a) salmon farms and (b) shellfish farms are located in areas designated as very sensitive areas by the Crown Estate.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table shows the number of sea bed leases allocated to salmon and shellfish farms in the very sensitive areas defined and identified by the Crown Estate:

  Very sensitive areas on the mainland coast

  Salmon farms

  Shellfish farms

  1. Loch Laxford/Loch a'Chadh-Fi

  Sutherland

  3

  3

  2. Loch Glendhu/Loch Glencoul

  Sutherland

  1

  1

  3. Loch Broom/Loch Kanaird

  Ross-shire

  2

  1

  4. Inner Little Loch Broom

  Ross-shire

  1

  1

  5. Inner Loch Ewe/Loch Thurnaig

  Ross-shire

  3

  4

  6. Inner Loch Gairloch

  Ross-shire

  0

  3

  7. Inner Loch Torridon/Loch Shieldaig

  Ross-shire

  3

  4

  8. Loch Carron

  Ross-shire

  1

  4

  9. Loch na Cairidh/Caolas Scalpay

  Skye

  1

  2

  10. Loch Brittle/Loch Scavaig

  Skye

  0

  0

  11. Loch na Dal

  Skye

  0

  1

  12. Loch Alsh/Loch Duich

  Lochaber

  3

  7

  13. Inner Loch Hourn

  Lochaber

  1

  1

  14. Inner Loch Nevis

  Lochaber

  0

  0

  15. Loch nan Uamb

  Lochaber

  0

  0

  16. Inner Loch Sunart

  Lochaber

  6

  7

  17. Inner/Outer Loch Leven

  Lochaber

  2

  3

  18. Tobermory Bay, Mull

  Argyll

  1

  1

  204

  Very sensitive areas on the mainland coast

  Salmon farms

  Shellfish farms

  19. East Lismore

  Argyll

  1

  0

  20. Inner Loch Creran

  Argyll

  0

  0

  21. Inner Loch Etice

  Argyll

  1

  6

  22. Sound of Kerrera/Loch Feochan

  Argyll

  1

  5

  23. Loch Melfort/Shuna Sound

  Argyll

  2

  2

  24. Loch Craignish

  Argyll

  1

  2

  25. Loch Sween

  Argyll

  2

  2

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sea bed leases for marine fish farms are now in force in Scotland, for(a) finfish and (b) shellfish; and how many of each were established before the formal consultation procedures were introduced in 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand from the Crown Estate that there are currently 308 sea bed leases for finfish farming and 392 for shellfish farming off the coast of Scotland. Of these 158 finfish and 112 shellfish leases were granted before October 1986.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of extant sea bed leases for marine salmon farms in Scotland, including(a) map reference, (b) area in hectares, (c) date of lease agreements, (d) date of expiry of lease, (e) production limits and when imposed or revised and (f) whether each application was subjected to (i) the formal consultation procedure, (ii) statutory environmental assessment and (iii) consideration by the advisory committee.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand from the Crown Estate that the information requested at points(a), (b), (c) and (d) is not available in the form requested except at disproportionate cost to public funds. Lists of leases giving basic information are, however, made available by the Crown Estate on request. I am also informed that Crown Estate leases granted under the formal consultation procedures contain conditions specifying the equipment which may be installed; the consequential production limits are not separately listed.

  All new site applications submitted to the Crown Estate have been subject to the formal consultation procedures since October 1986, and to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment (Salmon Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1988 which came into effect on 15 July 1988. One application has met the criteria for which such an assessment is required.

  One case has been referred to the advisory committee for its consideration.

  Whisky
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much whisky was sold in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) in export sales for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lang
  The statistics requested are as follows:

  Whisky sales–1981–1990 (million litres of pure alcohol)

  United Kingdom sales

  Export sales

  1981

  47·71

  244·24

  1982

  44·75

  251·28

  1983

  44·48

  227·84

  205

  United Kingdom sales

  Export sales

  1984

  43·36

  231·29

  1985

  46·15

  225·89

  1986

  45·64

  236·19

  1987

  44·60

  240·17

  1988

  45·18

  245·94

  1989

  43·03

  242·49

  1990

  41·52

  238·75

  Source: Scotch Whisky Industry Review 1990.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of total whisky sales in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) export sales was made up by malt whisky in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lang
  The statistics requested are as follows:

  Sales of malt whisky—1981 to 1990 Proportion of market by volume (per cent.)

  United Kingdom

  Export

  1981

  1·7

  10·6

  1982

  2·3

  10·3

  1983

  2·1

  12·3

  1984

  2·6

  13·1

  1985

  2·6

  10·4

  1986

  2·8

  11·4

  1987

  3·3

  10·4

  1988

  3·6

  11·2

  1989

  4·0

  12·2

  1990

  4·4

  12·8

  Source: "Scotch Whisky Industry Review" 1990.

  Substandard Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his estimate of the number of houses in Renfrew district which are below minimum required standards; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the number of (a) houses of all forms of tenure which are below tolerable standard, (b) local authority houses which have rising and penetrating dampness, (c) Scottish Homes houses which have rising and penetrating dampness, (d) local authority houses with condensation and rising and penetrating dampness and (e) Scottish Homes houses with condensation and rising and penetrating dampness, in (i) Renfrew district and (ii) Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office does not make estimates of houses that are below minimum required standards.

  Local authorities' estimates of the number of dwellings in their districts below the tolerable standard at 31 March 1990 were published in tables 16 and 17 of the "Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin HSG/1991/2". Copies were sent to all Members representing Scottish constituencies and are available in the Library.

  Local authorities provide estimates of the numbers of local authority dwellings affected by condensation and dampness to the Scottish Office each year. The figures for Renfrew district and Scotland setting out the position as at 31 March 1990 are shown in the table. Comparable information for Scottish Homes stock is not held centrally.
  206

  Local authority dwellings affected by condensation and dampness as at 31 March 1990

  Rising and penetrating damp only

  Condensation only

  Condensation and rising and penetrating damp

  Renfrew district

  0

  0

  8,603

  Scotland

  62,185

  132,612

  83,075

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about investment in housing for disabled people; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A small number of local authorities have made such representations in recent months in the context of housing capital allocations for 1991–92, and these were taken into account when decisions on final allocations were made in March. The Government have made gross housing capital allocations to local authorities for 1991–92 of £452·;5 million on the HRA block for investment in authorities' own housing stock and £111·1 million on the non-HRA block for investment in private sector housing. It is for local authorities to make decisions on investment in housing for disabled people, in the light of local priorities and the resources available.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to improve transport for people with disabilities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office works closely with the Department of Transport's disability unit to ensure that public transport is easier to use and that personal mobility is increased for disabled people. We have made a grant of £20,000 available to Disability Scotland to enable it to run a mobility roadshow in Scotland, at the Ingliston exhibition centre from 20 to 22 September 1991. This will be the first event of its kind in Scotland, and will be modelled on the biennial event held at Crowthorne, Berkshire. It will assist disabled people in Scotland to make informed choices on the vehicles, equipment and mobility aids best suited to their requirements.

  A Scottish Office official acts as an observer on the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the statutory committee set up to advise the Government on transport and mobility matters relating to disabled people. Two of the 20 members of this committee are Scottish. The Scottish Office also has an observer on the access and mobility committee of Disability Scotland.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals to confer on the police additional powers to prosecute those who abuse or illegally use orange badges intended only for the benefit of genuinely disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is already an offence for an able-bodied person to use a parking place reserved for an orange badge holder on public roads or in a local authority off-street car park which has been designated by an order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act
  207
  1984. It is also an offence for a non-badge-holder to display a badge on a vehicle which is parked illegally in circumstances where a badge holder would have been entitled to park. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of level 3 on the standard scale. However, in the light of comments made during debate on aspects of the orange badge scheme at the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill in another place, further consideration is being given to the introduction of an offence which would be committed by the display of an orange badge when the legitimate holder is not with the vehicle.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to launch a public campaign to discourage the abuse of parking in areas designated for(a) the specific use of disabled people and (b) the exclusive use of disabled people in possession of orange badges.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The regulations relating to the orange badge scheme of parking concessions have been the subject of a major review. The abuse of parking areas designated for orange badge holders was among the matters considered in the review. Appropriate publicity will be arranged when amending regulations are introduced to advise the public of the changes to the scheme and of the importance of respecting the concessions on parking for the disabled.

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the housing authorities with capital debt at high enough levels to attract Government subsidy in each year for the past 10 years; if he will show the total of subsidy to each authority in each year; and if he will express the subsidy as per house.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A local housing authority receives housing support grant when estimated eligible expenditure exceeds estimated eligible income in respect of the authority's housing revenue account. The level of capital debt is one of the factors which influences estimated eligible expenditure. The amounts of housing support grant paid to individual authorities in each year since 1981–82, expressed as a total and as an amount per council house, are shown in the table.

  1981–82

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  1,038,356

  366

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,154,679

  235

  Roxburgh

  1,537,295

  247

  Tweeddale

  109,055

  66

  Clackmannan

  1,283,981

  133

  Falkirk

  4,428,554

  132

  Stirling

  1,016,562

  77

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,272,965

  247

  Nithsdale

  100

  0

  Stewartry

  542,539

  217

  Wigtown

  767,726

  164

  Dunfermline

  2,800,067

  122

  Kirkcaldy

  3,077,166

  117

  North East Fife

  979,538

  122

  Aberdeen

  9,533,966

  241

  Banff and Buchan

  4,343,622

  336

  208

  1981–82

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Gordon

  2,379,107

  390

  Kincardine and Deeside

  933,388

  265

  Moray

  3,552,254

  321

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  435,542

  392

  Caithness

  876,132

  207

  Inverness

  1,631,231

  226

  Lochaber

  1,813,360

  522

  Nairn

  251,993

  219

  Ross and Cromarty

  4,199,542

  672

  Skye and Lochalsh

  316,747

  430

  Sutherland

  519,316

  303

  East Lothian

  3,155,554

  194

  Edinburgh

  7,869,440

  140

  Midlothian

  1,791,607

  136

  West Lothian

  2,182,016

  99

  Argyll and Bute

  2,811,692

  332

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  193,589

  106

  Clydebank

  3,285,203

  276

  Clydesdale

  578,477

  60

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  117,762

  27

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  819,727

  79

  Cunninghame

  2,744,500

  118

  Dumbarton

  1,177,708

  89

  East Kilbride

  98,060

  61

  Eastwood

  15,462

  8

  Glasgow

  44,099,691

  254

  Hamilton

  3,243,635

  141

  Inverclyde

  4,443,201

  225

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  1,885,952

  103

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,807,798

  155

  Monklands

  4,252,050

  149

  Motherwell

  5,737,727

  143

  Renfrew

  2,186,158

  55

  Strathkelvin

  1,539,073

  141

  Angus

  2,499,757

  172

  Dundee

  5,285,879

  131

  Perth and Kinross

  1,309,294

  80

  Orkney Islands

  1,082,222

  758

  Shetland Islands

  2,624,591

  993

  Western Isles

  1,267,392

  519

  1982–83

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  686,226

  245

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  552,583

  114

  Roxburgh

  1,165,695

  191

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  689,627

  73

  Falkirk

  1,494,309

  45

  Stirling

  1,335,195

  101

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,387,048

  274

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  412,797

  169

  Wigtown

  452,325

  96

  Dunfermline

  683,115

  30

  Kirkcaldy

  696,260

  27

  North East Fife

  829,197

  107

  Aberdeen

  7,089,761

  180

  Banff and Buchan

  3,306,069

  258

  Gordon

  2,240,622

  377

  Kincardine and Deeside

  817,907

  232

  209

  1982–83

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Moray

  2,301,798

  209

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  505,386

  457

  Caithness

  817,378

  200

  Inverness

  1,375,208

  198

  Lochaber

  1,383,564

  402

  Nairn

  206,063

  182

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,493,364

  559

  Skye and Lochalsh

  316,309

  434

  Sutherland

  477,942

  285

  East Lothian

  2,079,858

  130

  Edinburgh

  2,327,904

  42

  Midlothian

  906,746

  70

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  2,767,417

  331

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  2,201,808

  186

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  167,191

  15

  Cunninghame

  745,237

  32

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  37,292,928

  217

  Hamilton

  1,543,988

  67

  Inverclyde

  3,048,261

  155

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  298,335

  16

  Kyle and Carrick

  911,439

  50

  Monklands

  3,222,528

  113

  Motherwell

  3,296,551

  83

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  1,198,935

  111

  Angus

  1,221,795

  86

  Dundee

  1,820,168

  45

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  852,422

  591

  Shetland Islands

  2,654,652

  1,015

  Western Isles

  1,358,959

  541

  1983–84

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  648,884

  238

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  373,420

  79

  Roxburgh

  1,260,321

  207

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  45,021

  5

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  20,431

  2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,574,069

  311

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  414,643

  169

  Wigtown

  255,317

  55

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  309,583

  41

  Aberdeen

  3,724,702

  96

  Banff and Buchan

  2,437,206

  193

  Gordon

  1,709,877

  294

  Kincardine and Deeside

  972,194

  279

  Moray

  1,987,151

  182

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  515,570

  466

  210

  1983–84

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Caithness

  819,544

  204

  Inverness

  1,241,308

  182

  Lochaber

  1,334,449

  392

  Nairn

  265,393

  241

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,091,946

  500

  Skye and Lochalsh

  323,325

  439

  Sutherland

  446,107

  265

  East Lothian

  1,050,527

  67

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  2,554,514

  307

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  1,855,408

  157

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  32,355,851

  191

  Hamilton

  119,816

  5

  Inverclyde

  1,865,250

  96

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  447,952

  25

  Monklands

  1,705,278

  60

  Motherwell

  1,037,418

  26

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  326,922

  31

  Angus

  181,321

  13

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  731,864

  509

  Shetland Islands

  2,409,052

  915

  Western Isles

  1,723,845

  703

  1984–85

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  486,805

  183

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  107,262

  24

  Roxburgh

  1,265,786

  213

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,673,013

  330

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  359,095

  147

  Wigtown

  200,315

  44

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  87,427

  12

  Aberdeen

  3,053,523

  80

  Banff and Buchan

  1,943,394

  157

  Gordon

  1,940,317

  342

  Kincardine and Deeside

  854,052

  246

  Moray

  1,790,081

  167

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  487,297

  442

  Caithness

  826,248

  207

  211

  1984–85

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Inverness

  1,305,145

  191

  Lochaber

  1,225,816

  365

  Nairn

  227,117

  210

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,241,650

  527

  Skye and Lochalsh

  394,993

  534

  Sutherland

  467,987

  277

  East Lothian

  392,369

  26

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  2,308,945

  278

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  1,774,590

  151

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  32,269,404

  191

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  1,162,804

  60

  Kilmarnock and Boudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  Monklands

  1,956,032

  69

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  2,775

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  779,233

  531

  Shetland Islands

  2,764,219

  1,049

  Western Islands

  1,863,547

  762

  1985–86

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  446,429

  171

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  1,306,156

  223

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,759,500

  347

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  343,400

  142

  Wigtown

  95,565

  21

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  2,260,303

  60

  Banff and Buchan

  1,599,685

  132

  Gordon

  1,800,235

  326

  Kincardine and Deeside

  942,305

  276

  Moray

  1,509,258

  142

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  497,879

  446

  Caithness

  750,997

  191

  Inverness

  1,510,450

  224

  212

  1985–86

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Lochaber

  1,398,166

  431

  Nairn

  218,689

  206

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,474,516

  562

  Skye and Lochalsh

  467,318

  626

  Sutherland

  518,431

  307

  East Lothian

  23,235

  2

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  2,155,278

  264

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  1,778,773

  152

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dunbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  32,675,646

  194

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  562,537

  29

  Kilmarnock and Boudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  Monklands

  328,169

  12

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  804,942

  549

  Shetland Islands

  2,778,672

  1,054

  Western Isles

  2,171,685

  881

  1986–87

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  201,135

  78

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  951,730

  166

  Tweedale

  0

  0

  Clackannan

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  Annadale and Eskdale

  1,382,490

  275

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  253,704

  106

  Wigtown

  0

  0

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  0

  0

  Banff and Buchan

  558,241

  47

  Gordon

  1,838,802

  337

  Kincardine and Deeside

  779,199

  224

  Moray

  682,537

  66

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  388,218

  352

  Caithness

  663,077

  170

  Inverness

  1,033,853

  153

  Lochaber

  1,441,327

  471

  213

  1986–87

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Nairn

  181,633

  163

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,178,298

  518

  Sky and Lochalsh

  586,754

  747

  Sutherland

  522,874

  308

  East Loathian

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argle and Bute

  1,373,972

  171

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  804,237

  70

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  21,891,239

  131

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  Monklands

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  684,343

  463

  Shetland Islands

  2,934,933

  1,129

  Western Isles

  2,137,164

  883

  1987–88

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  225,306

  90

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  1,115,301

  200

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,337,917

  270

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  386,158

  164

  Wigtown

  265,382

  61

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  0

  0

  Banff and Buchan

  617,681

  53

  Gordon

  2,723,337

  506

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,267,315

  364

  Moray

  982,346

  96

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  462,702

  429

  Caithness

  759,297

  197

  Inverness

  1,157,218

  173

  Lochaber

  1,396,801

  458

  Nairn

  209,500

  196

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,339,315

  545

  214

  1987–88

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Skye and Lochalsh

  789,606

  1,010

  Sutherland

  643,801

  376

  East Lothian

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  1,709,251

  215

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  51,224

  29

  Clydebank

  786,456

  69

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  63,514

  47

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  15,116,893

  91

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  Monklands

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  743,450

  513

  Shetland Islands

  3,172,405

  1,225

  Western Isles

  2,595,347

  1,066

  1988–89

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  91,417

  37

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  1,124,198

  208

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,557,353

  323

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewarty

  413,062

  179

  Wigtown

  410,486

  96

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  0

  0

  Banff and Buchan

  246,862

  22

  Gordon

  3,276,799

  602

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,617,844

  458

  Moray

  614,211

  61

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  384,299

  367

  Caithness

  1,012,850

  268

  Inverness

  1,370,584

  207

  Lochaber

  1,800,599

  622

  Nairn

  271,618

  257

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,793,708

  624

  Skye and Lochalsh

  985,932

  1,275

  215

  1988–89

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Sutherland

  796,808

  463

  East Lothian

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  1,586,284

  202

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  124,971

  73

  Clydebank

  1,031,201

  94

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  33,496

  26

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  24,660,513

  154

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  Monklands

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  850,377

  605

  Shetland Islands

  3,677,667

  1,427

  Western Isles

  2,894,620

  1,201

  1989–90

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  48,841

  21

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  1,339,141

  259

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,684,048

  364

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  509,240

  230

  Wigtown

  551,246

  132

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  0

  0

  Banff and Buchan

  136,883

  12

  Gordon

  3,788,264

  689

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,922,521

  544

  Moray

  528,935

  55

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  393,499

  389

  Caithness

  1,229,421

  328

  Inverness

  1,949,824

  302

  Lochaber

  2,148,759

  789

  Nairn

  344,628

  322

  Ross and Cromarty

  4,154,244

  694

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,203,495

  1,495

  Sutherland

  969,864

  572

  East Lothian

  0

  0

  216

  1989–90

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  1,775,900

  229

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  278,995

  167

  Clydebank

  1,010,546

  96

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  30,697,621

  197

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  Monklands

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  776,917

  568

  Shetland Islands

  4,112,702

  1,593

  Western Isles

  3,741,152

  1,579

  1990–91

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  Berwickshire

  0

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  1,321,472

  261

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,504,110

  332

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  436,944

  198

  Wigtown

  600,795

  148

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  0

  0

  Banff and Buchan

  0

  0

  Gordon

  3,792,482

  691

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,882,382

  534

  Moray

  0

  0

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  386,736

  400

  Caithness

  1,330,831

  360

  Inverness

  1,934,977

  310

  Lochaber

  2,398.530

  914

  Nairn

  350,804

  335

  Ross and Cromarty

  4,231,891

  717

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,303,836

  1,606

  Sutherland

  1,006,044

  588

  East Lothian

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  217

  1990–91

  HSG £

  HSG per house £

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  1,041,664

  140

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  317,125

  195

  Clydebank

  650,646

  67

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  24,536,123

  165

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  Monklands

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  783,399

  588

  Shetland Islands

  4,395,805

  1,729

  Western Isles

  3,757,098

  1,598

  Horticulture
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office spent on the promotion of the Scottish horticultural industry in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department has a general sponsoring role in relation to the Scottish horticultural industry. This is discharged in a variety of ways and detailed costs are not held centrally.

  The Department funds research and development on horticulture at the Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee. Since 1981–92, expenditure has been as follows:

  £'000s

  1981–82

  1,698

  1982–83

  1,567

  1983–84

  1,174

  1984–85

  1,064

  1985–86

  918

  1986–87

  1,104

  1987–88

  1,080

  1988–89

  835

  1989–90

  840

  1990–91

  1,168

  1991–92

  855

  Hospitality
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by the Scottish Office on hospitality in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is shown in the table:
  218

  Year

  Amount spent on hospitality £

  1979–80

  15,283

  1980–81

  19,427

  1981–82

  20,762

  1982–83

  31,588

  1983–84

  26,287

  1984–85

  27,301

  1985–86

  35,815

  1986–87

  38,315

  1987–88

  41,983

  1988–89

  42,987

  1989–90

  60,173

  1990–91

  65,123

  Rents to Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sales have been completed under the rents to mortgages scheme in Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  By 30 April 1991, 15 sales had been completed under the rent to mortgage scheme within Scottish Homes' Renfrew and Inverclyde district and a further six applications were being processed. Since the extension of the rent to mortgage scheme to local authority tenants from 1 April 1991, some 20,000 expressions of interest have been received from across the country, including over 1,300 from Renfrewshire and Argyll.

  Homeless Persons Act
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been considered for priority under the Homeless Persons (Scotland) Act by Renfrew district council in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of households that applied to Renfrew district council under the homeless persons legislation and were assessed as being in priority need are set out in the table. The returns do not record the numbers of persons in these households. Returns for 1990–91 are not yet complete.

  Year of application

  Number

  1980–81

  390

  1981–82

  486

  1982–83

  612

  1983–84

  520

  1984–85

  572

  1985–86,

  979

  1986–87

  867

  1987–88

  693

  1988–89

  800

  1989–90

  727

  Ferguslie Mills
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach a decision on the application to demolish the category A listed Ferguslie Mills in Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The hon. Member has written to my right hon. Friend on this matter. I expect to be in a position to reply to him shortly.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the relevant chief constables giving the total policing costs arising from(a) the Conservative party conference in Perth and (b) the Labour party conference in Aberdeen in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand from the chief constables of the forces concerned that the additional costs involved were £120,000 and £560, respectively. The level of resources provided for the policing of party conferences is an operational matter for the chief constable concerned in the light of all the circumstances including the threat assessment.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount spent by the Registers of Scotland in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Registers of Scotland in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total amount spent by the Registers of Scotland was £38,234·59 for contracts placed with CCTA system consultancy service of HM Treasury to assess their information systems requirements.

  "Registration: Proposals for Change"
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, following the publication of the White Paper "Registration: proposals for change" (Cm. 939), he will consider the introduction of legislation to enable secular marriages to be carried out by magistrates, mayors or provosts, to allow them to take place in civic and other specified buildings and to allow greater flexibility in the services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The White Paper, Cm. 939, presented proposals for change in England and Wales. Scotland's registration system, governed by more recent legislation, already provides considerable flexibility, notably the opportunity for couples to be married in a civil ceremony at any office where there is an authorised registrar, and not just in the area or areas of residence of the parties. The registrar general has invited local authorities to consider how additional flexibility might be provided within the present system, and to submit to him schemes for such improvement. As an example, he has suggested that authorities might wish to designate suitable rooms in other civic buildings as part of registrars' offices, for the purpose of holding civil marriage ceremonies there. My right hon. Friend has no plans for legislation to permit the solemnisation of civil marriages by persons other than registrars.

  Students' Allowances
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of any changes in students' allowances for session 1991–92.
  220
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am publishing today the main rates of allowances payable under the postgraduate students' allowances scheme for vocational postgraduate courses which do not attract student loans, together with the rates of various supplementary allowances payable to both undergraduate and vocational postgraduate award holders. The main rates of maintenance allowance for undergraduates will remain frozen at their 1990–91 cash levels following the introduction of student loans.

  Details of the new rates have been placed in the Library. The increases in these rates are broadly in line with the 6 per cent. increase in the overall student maintenance provision announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  In addition, there are two significant changes to the terms of the students' allowances scheme with effect from session 1991–92. These are:

  (i) Eligible students undertaking full-time courses leading to the award of a Higher National Certificate, and certain analogous courses, will be offered assistance under the Scheme; and

  (ii) Eligible students who have successfully completed a Higher National Diploma, or any comparable 2-year course, may qualify for assistance from year two of a degree course, irrespective of the subject being studied.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decisions he has reached on the location of the company headquarters for Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. and the future of the company's services on the upper Clyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has accepted the advice of the board of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. that, on grounds of cost effectiveness, the headquarters of the company should remain in Gourock. He welcomes, however, the company's commitment to Oban, as indicated by the substantial improvements made to shore facilities for passengers and commercial vehicles in recent years.

  My right hon. Friend has also decided, in the light of current demand uncertainties, arising particularly from the proposed closure of the Holy Loch naval base, that arrangements for Caledonian MacBrayne's services in the upper Clyde, between Gourock and Dunoon and between Wemyss bay and Rothesay, should continue unchanged meantime. He will ensure, however, that the board of the company, and the Scottish Office, monitor the position closely over the coming months; and he has not ruled out privatisation of these services in the longer term.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for 1991–92 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes, I intend to make changes to six of the cash limits within my responsibility as follows.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 3: Training programmes; roads and transport, and industrial support, Scotland, previously known as training programmes and industrial support, Scotland, will be increased by £161,194,000 from £444,488,000 to

  221
  £605,682,000. This increase reflects the transfer of responsibility for roads and transport from the Scottish Office Environment Department to the Scottish Office Industry Department with effect from 29 July 1991, and takes account of increased provision of £13,600,000 for Scottish Enterprise and £1,400,000 for Highlands and Islands Enterprise in respect of Scotland's share of the increased provision for adult training, previously announced by the Secretary of State for Employment on 26 February 1991. There will be a consequent reduction of £146,192,000 in the cash limit for class XV, vote 5, roads, transport and environmental services, Scotland from £279,635,000 to £133,443,000.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 13, law, order, miscellaneous health services and social work services, Scotland, previously known as law, order and miscellaneous health services, Scotland, will be increased by £31,326,000 from £180,438,000 to £211,764,000 to reflect the transfer of provision for social work services from class XV, vote 14, education, arts and libraries and also to cover the transfer of the provision for Scottish prison headquarters staff from class XV, vote 20, Scottish Office administration. This latter transfer will increase the running cost provision on class XV, vote 13 by £2,797,000 from £100,662,000 to £103,459,000.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 14, education, arts and libraries, Scotland, previously known as education, arts, libraries and social work, Scotland, will be reduced by £32,041,000 from £253,004.000 to £220,963,000 to take account of the transfer of responsibility for social work services from the Scottish Office Education Department to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. A corresponding increase is being sought on class XV, vote 13, law, order and miscellaneous health services, Scotland.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 20 will be decreased by £2,797,000 from £143,239,000 to £140,442,000 to cover the transfer of prison headquarters staff to class XV, vote 13. Accordingly the running cost provision on class XV, vote 20 will be decreased by £2,797,000 from £139,395,000 to £136,598,000.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 26, hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland is being increased by £26,162,000 from £2,306,242,000 to £2,332,404,000 to help meet the costs of pay awards following the 1991 report of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration. This also includes an amount of £3,462,000 as a result of the transfer of provision for training from class XV, vote 13, law, order and miscellaneous health services, Scotland to class XV, vote 26.

  There is no change overall to the Department's running costs limit. As already announced the increase in respect of the review bodies' awards and the provision for employment training have been charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. There is no net impact on public expenditure from the other changes shown above.

  First Aid
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assist local education authorities to meet their responsibilities for first aid provision in schools and colleges.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: My Department drew the attention of education authorities in October last year to the revised version of the Health and Safety Commission's approved code of practice which gives practical guidance with respect to the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. In addition my Department is currently preparing guidance on first aid provision in schools and colleges in Scotland which will be issued to education authorities this summer.

  Gas and Oil Policies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his Department has invested in educational establishments, organisations and individuals for training and retraining in work connected with the gas and oil industry over each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Gas Pipeline
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local fishermen, marine-ferry operators and local authorities, concerning the laying of a gas pipeline between Rothesay and Dunoon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: None. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department consulted interested parties, including the local fishermen's association. A licence for the pipeline, required under the provisions of part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, was issued by the Department on 2 May 1991.

  Farming Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers, partners, directors and farm workers were employed on a county-by-county basis in Scotland in June 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Scottish counties ceased to be used for agricultural statistics purposes after 1975 following local government reform. The number of farmers, spouses doing farm work and farm workers employed on main holdings in June 1990, by local authority region, is shown in the table. Partners and directors are not separately enumerated in the census, but are included either as farmers or farm workers.

  Region

  Number of farmers

  Number of spouses doing farm work

  Number of farm workers

  Borders

  1,296

  512

  2,492

  Central

  771

  379

  1,032

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,282

  1,064

  3,846

  223

  Region

  Number of farmers

  Number of spouses doing farm work

  Number of farm workers

  Fife

  722

  270

  1,704

  Grampian

  4,643

  1,829

  5,198

  Highland

  2,755

  1,079

  2,103

  Lothian

  730

  309

  1,673

  Strathclyde

  4,101

  2,165

  5,391

  Tayside

  2,066

  806

  3,706

  Islands

  2,141

  982

  963

  Scotland

  21,507

  9,395

  28,108

  Trunk Road Schemes
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress on trunk road schemes during 1990–91 and the progress expected in 1991–92.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 24 April, at column 460.

  Road Schemes
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress on road schemes from(a) Ballygrant to Bridgend, Islay (A846), (b) Salen to Tobermory (A848) and (c) Strachur to Leanach (A886).

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: These roads are local roads and, as such, are the responsibility of Strathclyde regional council as the local roads authority.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each available year from 1978, the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Information for the period prior to 1 April 1990 is not available. My Department is currently collecting details of energy consumption and costs in 1990–91, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when the information is complete.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: A part-time energy manager has been appointed and many staff with other duties devote part of their time to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.
  224
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Thirty-five audit were carried out in my Department, excluding the associated Departments and the Scottish prison service, and these led to a large number of recommendations—mainly of a technical nature—designed to improve energy efficiency.

DEFENCE

  Job Losses
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning job losses in the defence industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what analysis he has made of the effect of air power in winning the war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The success of the allied air campaign clearly paved the way for the liberation of Kuwait. We are continuing our detailed analysis of the conflict, together with the conclusions to be drawn from it.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to report to the House on his consideration of "Options for Change".

  Mr. Tom King
  We are proceeding in consultation with our NATO allies to carry forward our work on "Options for Change". The achievement of agreement on the United Kingdom role in the rapid reaction corps is an important further step forward in this. As I have already made clear, I intend to set out the progress so far, and the way ahead, in the annual defence White Paper, which I hope to publish before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the role of the Territorial Army as part of his "Options for Change" discussions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have received a number of representations concerning the Territorial Army's role in our future plans for the armed forces.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings have taken place with civil service trade union representatives regarding the "Options for Change" study.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings have taken place with civil service trade union representatives regarding the "Options for Change" study.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Progress on the work on "Options for Change" has been discussed at the last two meetings of the departmental Whitley council and at the last four meetings of the joint industrial Whitley council. In addition, there have been a number of informal meetings between trade union representatives and Ministers and senior officials.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any new radar equipment for use in low-flying training exercises has been set up on the Scottish side of the border in the vicinity of Spadeadam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. A number of mobile ground radar installations are, however, held at RAF Spadeadam and are deployed as necessary during low flying exercises.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further delays he anticipates before the announcement of the replacement for the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the outcome of the completion for replacing the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Allan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Leeds. West (Mr. Battle).

  Frigates
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current number of frigates on order for the Royal Navy and when he expects the next ship of the type 23 class to be brought into service.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are currently seven type 23 frigates on order. The next ship of the class is expected to enter service before the end of the year.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to minimise the risk of accidental detonation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The designs of all British nuclear weapons comply with stringent safety standards. Nuclear weapons are afforded the highest practicable procedural and physical safeguards during manufacture, storage and transport.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has of the development of nuclear weapons by countries outside NATO and the former Warsaw pact.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Outside NATO and the Warsaw pact, China is the one declared nuclear weapons state. Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa all have significant nuclear facilities not subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, as does North Korea which is not recognised as a state by Her Majesty's Government. None of these countries has declared itself to have or to be seeking nuclear weapons. In addition, Iraq was thought to have an active nuclear programme prior to the Gulf conflict. UN Security Council resolution 687 requires that Iraq unconditionally agrees not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.

  Gurkha Regiments
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Gurkha regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend told the House this afternoon, detailed work on the composition of the Army and the future of specific regiments continues. Once the process of consultation within the Army on how to proceed is complete, we shall come forward with more detailed announcements.

  NATO
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with other Defence Ministers regarding NATO forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett).

  Closures, Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to close any defence establishments in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed measures implementing the changes foreshadowed in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 July 1990 will be announced at the appropriate times.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his counterpart in Indonesia; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not met General Moerdani, though he hopes to have the opportunity to do so at some stage.

  Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to meet the German Minister of Defence to discuss the numbers of European fighter aircraft to be ordered by the German air force and the RAF; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with his German colleague at which a wide range of issues are discussed.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the British defence manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 23 May 1991 Official Report, column 613.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he can announce any changes to the defence cash limits for 1991–92.
  227
  Mr. Tom King
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary summer supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  Defence cash limits

  £'000s

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit

  I, 1

  10.203,592

  +256,740

  10,460,332

  I, 2

  8,680,982

  + 868,841

  9,549,823

  I, 3

  1,615,717

  +4,630

  1,620,347

  I, 5

  487,395

  +26,523

  513,918

  These changes, which increase the block defence cash limit by £1,156,734,000 from £22,875,780,000 to £24,032,514,000, are principally to cover increased expenditure identified so far arising from the United Kingdom military commitment in the Gulf area, and its related effect on other parts of the defence programme. This increase is within the estimate of about £.1·5 billion announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 18 April 1991 at column 558. The increase in defence provision for 1991–92 will be charged to the Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure. This increase will be offset by the cash contributions from other Governments expected to be received in this financial year.

  Ceremonial Duties
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the performance of soldiers and horses concerned with ceremonial duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The consistently outstanding performance of both the soldiers and the horses concerned with ceremonial duties is a source of national pride. I look forward to seeing them at the Queen's birthday parade on 15 June.

  Gulf Trust Fund
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been collected for the Gulf trust fund; which organisations or individuals have benefited, and by how much; what he intends to do with any remaining or additional money; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Donations to the Gulf Trust currently total around £2·5 million. This money is being passed to the service benevolent funds where it will remain earmarked to meet the needs of service personnel and their families which have arisen as a result of death or injury in the Gulf conflict. Individual grants are being made by the benevolent funds in accordance with their trust deeds.

  Army Command Structure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the Army command structure in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I expect to be able to make an announcement shortly on the reorganisation of the United Kingdom land forces district structure and its implications for Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will meet the chairman of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve for Wales, Maindy barracks, Cardiff to discuss the Army command structure in Wales;

  (2) if he will meet the Assembly of Welsh Counties to discuss the Army command structure in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans for such meetings.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had concerning the Army command structure in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of representations have been made, principally in the form of letters from Members of Parliament and parliamentary questions.

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

Computer Hacking
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What investigations they are undertaking into electronic raids on medical and other research data on computer, with a view to action under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, this type of investigation is a matter for the police. Current investigations by the police do include allegations of electronic raids on medical and other research data on computer.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Are the Government nonetheless concerned about reports of recent hacking into hospital and university computers which could cause valuable material to be destroyed by deliberate delayed action? Are the Government giving any advice or warnings?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are concerned at allegations of computer hacking of the type to which my noble friend refers. That is one of the unpleasant aspects of these new systems of technology. The Department of Trade and Industry is helping to promote awareness and understanding of the Act through an information technology security awareness campaign directed chiefly at the needs of small and medium sized businesses.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned a study by Coopers & Lybrand to investigate whether or not companies and the police have enough expertise and information to discover, combat and prosecute under the Act. The findings, I believe, are to be discussed at a conference in the autumn. Can the Minister confirm that the study will look at all aspects of computer misuse and not just at those which affect businesses? Will evidence be taken from hospitals and education establishments—precisely the places which the noble Lord who asked the Question had in mind —and will such bodies will be invited to take part in the conference on the Act when it takes place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the study to which the noble Lord refers has been commissioned to examine whether sufficient expert advice and information are available to meet the needs of business and the police. We shall have to wait for the consultants to carry out their study and to report their findings. I cannot tell the noble Lord whether it will involve universities or
536
medical establishments, but I have no reason to think that it will not. I cannot tell him who will be invited to the seminar when it takes place.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a special computer crime unit exists within the police force and, if so, that it is not short of the equipment needed to detect and identify the offending hackers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the investigation of this type of crime is a matter for the police. As my noble friend rightly says, a computer crime unit has been set up by the Metropolitan Police. It acts as a central contact point for all police forces in the United Kingdom. I have no reason to believe that it is in any way inadequately equipped to deal with the task.

Mr. Ian Richter: Imprisonment in Iraq
2.41 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations are being made to the Government of Iraq concerning the abuse of human rights involved in the imprisonment of Mr. Ian Richter.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have raised our concerns about the human rights aspects of Mr. Richter's initial detention and trial on many occasions directly with the Iraqi Government. Since we now have no diplomatic presence in Iraq we have asked the ICRC and the Russians to visit Mr. Richter regularly to ensure his needs are met. They have agreed to do so. We will continue to give Mr. Richter's case high priority and raise the matter in whatever forum is appropriate.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Most people recognise that the Government are being as vigorous as it lies within their power to be in the steps they are taking. However, is the Minister aware that Mr. Richter has now been in prison on dubious charges for something like five years? Is he further aware that there is a great feeling in this country at the moment that, after the extremely successful prosecution of the war against Iraq, the country is now being left, both in the case of the Kurdish dissidents and, at the other end of the scale, in the case of Mr. Ian Richter, to the tender mercies of Saddam Hussein? Are the Government content with that state of affairs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I dispute the suggestion that we have done nothing in Iraq since the end of the war. As the noble Lord will know, it was my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's initiative to set up the Kurdish safe havens. That has been a most successful operation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm the report that Sir David Hannay has written to the sanctions sub-committee of the United Nations linking the release of Mr. Richter with the

537
possible lifting of sanctions? If that is the case, does the noble Earl think that the sub-committee will accept the linkage?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are in touch through every appropriate means. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right to draw attention specifically to Security Council Resolution 687 which calls for the lifting of sanctions on imports to Iraq to be considered in the light of the policies and practices of the Iraqi Government. We shall certainly be drawing the attention of the Security Council to Mr. Richter's case in that context.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for going into detail on the matter. However, he did not reply specifically to my question about our representative at the United Nations, Sir David Hannay. Has Sir David been in touch with the sanctions sub-committee to make a proposal that there should be a linkage between our attitude to sanctions and the release of Mr. Richter?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister understand that the general public are absolutely bewildered that Saddam Hussein is able to get away with what appears to be monstrous behaviour? He has left behind a Kuwait that is still burning, devastation of the most appalling order and thousands of Kurds have been killed. But he is still there, gaining the applause of his people. Are the Government doing anything about the situation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's interest in the matter. However, I think that his questions are slightly wide of the one that appears on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, if he would like to table a Question I am sure that it would lead to a most interesting debate.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Government do anything to strengthen the backbone of the Secretary General of the United Nations who on every occasion appears to drag his feet on the matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that, too, is another Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any form of trial or imprisonment in Iraq under the regime of Saddam Hussein is a grave offence as regards human rights? Is he also aware that not only Ian Richter but also many other people are now suffering from appalling abuse caused by a man who stole another country, started a war and now seems to be getting away with everything? Is he further aware that we should now make specific representations to the United Nations so that all these matters can be taken into account and the power of Saddam Hussein is not reduced but is ultimately abolished?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are certainly, under the Security Council resolutions, drawing such questions to the attention of all our partners in the
538
United Nations. I am sure that that covers the point I made earlier about the policies and practices of the Iraqi Government.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister have any knowledge—if he has, perhaps he can give us some figures —about any British people who are still missing in Iraq in the Turkish border area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have any figures because that, too, is another Question.
Lord Wynford: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the swiftly worsening conditions in Abu Ghrail desert prison due to the approach of the hot weather? Will he make urgent representations to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State about this state of affairs and the health risk involved to this man, who has now been in prison in such conditions with a very poor diet for almost exactly five years? Further, will my noble friend seek agreement from the Secretary of State that an envoy be sent to Baghdad to put forward representations to the Iraqis to make it absolutely clear that they are responsible for the life of this frail man?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend certainly draws attention to one important aspect of imprisonment in Iraq; namely, the difference in the climate during the hot weather which is now approaching. I can reassure him that we have made consistent representations to the Iraqi Government both before the war and subsequently through other fora. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out just how much the Government have done. However, I am not sure that sending an envoy to Iraq is the best way to secure the release of Mr. Richter. It may be better to continue the process through the United Nations.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can we not send in the SAS and get him out?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note with interest the suggestion made by my noble friend.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was no implied criticism of Her Majesty's Government in my Question? Both Mrs. Richter and I know that the Government have been directing all their efforts to securing the release of Mr. Richter. My Question is directed to the possibility that Her Majesty's Government might address themselves rather more forcefully to the situation which exists in Iraq as a whole. I believe that I am in danger of repeating myself when I say that there is a great feeling in the country that the war has left Saddam Hussein in a position where he can continue his abuses of human rights almost without let or hindrance.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I fully understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, both in his first Question and that which he has just put to me. However, I should tell the House again that this matter will be discussed in the Security Council under the heading of Resolution 687.

ECGD: Insurance Services Group Sale
2.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will postpone indefinitely the sale of the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, no. Responses to the invitation to tender made by AG of Italy, NCM of Holland and Trade Indemnity are currently being evaluated. It is the Government's intention to proceed with the sale as quickly as possible, subject to the successful passage of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill through Parliament.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that the Trade Indemnity bid is nugatory in the sense that it has not proposed an outright purchase, has itself lost many millions of pounds last year and must therefore be ruled out as a purchaser? Is he further aware that the Dutch company which is bidding for the insurance services group has a political risk reinsurance facility with the Dutch Government which will not be available under the present arrangements? Is he further satisfied that British exports will be encouraged if a Dutch or an Italian company takes over this vital part of the export effort?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the names of the short-listed bidders were announced to Parliament on 5th March. They were invited to submit tenders by 30th April. Three responses were received by the closing date. NCM and AG have tabled an offer to pay for the acquisition of the short-term business and Trade Indemnity has submitted an alternative proposal which aims to meet government objectives for the privatisation of the business. All three responses are being evaluated. NCM is an independent private sector company which is not under Dutch Government control. It insures certain Dutch exports for the account of the Dutch Government, but that is equivalent t to the national interest reinsurance arrangements which would apply between ECGD and the new company after privatisation. On foreign owners, there is no reason why the nationality of the owner should be seen as a key factor. The main issue should be the facilities and services to be provided.
Lord Morris: My Lords, do my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government detect any national interest for exporters in the foreign ownership of the short-term insurance services?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we are talking about the short-term and not the project business. The decision to privatise grew out of the independent Kemp review of the ECGD's work which recommended privatisation for the short-term business.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as a former Minister with the ECGD which did so much to boost British exports after the war, I feel that it is scandalous to think that that export boost, achieved through British knowledge and persuasion, should be entrusted to foreign agents. They will not do the job half as well as the ECGD, which came into existence under a Labour government.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government will be continuing their support for project insurance on a medium and long-term basis. I do not agree with the noble Lord's remarks about privatisation. Privatisation will enable the insurance services group to be better placed to face increasing competition from the private sector insurers, especially as a single market becomes a greater reality and as the distinction between domestic and export credit risks becomes blurred. For example, there is a move towards insurance policies combining cover for domestic and export risks. ECGD is restricted by its own governing legislation from doing that. The risk therefore is that ECGD would lose the better quality business and be left only with the risks which competitors would not want to take on.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, am I right in assuming that the Minister believes in market forces and that this service was advertised for sale; that six companies applied; and that there are only two genuine bidders at the moment, both of them foreign? Does that suggest that the market for this enterprise has collapsed? Secondly, as the Minister has quoted with approval from the Kemp report set up by his department in 1989, will he confirm that the report includes a paragraph which states that no pressure from the UK exporting community, or the commercial sector in the United Kingdom, generally supported a change in the status of any part of the ECGD? Will he please listen to business?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are keen to listen to business. We have taken various measures to try to meet the concerns that business has been expressing. For example, the private market is expected to take on the bulk of the current short-term business reinsurance portfolio. Good progress has been made, but the arrangements cannot be finalised until the Bill becomes law. To ease the transition the Government remain willing to provide supplementary top-up reinsurance for up to three years after privatisation. In addition, the Government recognise that there are a few countries for which ECGD cover is currently available which are unacceptable to the private sector under present circumstances. To avoid the risk of a sudden reduction in the facilities available to exporters in those cases, the Government will, in the national interest, provide 100 per cent. reinsurance support for the company to enable it to maintain those facilities. That facility will be kept under close review but it will not be time-limited.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can we have an assurance that, notwithstanding the change in the planned arrangements, the Government will continue to accept

541
responsibility for those credits and that Ministers will be willing to answer Questions in Parliament about them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, on medium and long-term project insurance, the ECGD's position will remain as it now is. We are talking only about the short-term insurance credit facility.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while I appreciate that the term "public interest" has uniquely been enunciated from the Government Front Benches, is the Minister aware that the proposed steps cannot be justified on any economic grounds; are of no assistance to this country's export trade; and that the decision is entirely doctrinaire, mainly dictated, I suspect, by a desire to build up negative expenditure —a delightful accountancy term—to diminish the public expenditure total?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I could not agree less with the noble Lord. In the private sector, the insurance services group will be able to offer its customers a more flexible, comprehensive and up-to-date service. There is a threat of a legal challenge to the continued operation of official export credit schemes on the grounds that they constitute unfair competition incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. All EC Governments, not just ours, are taking that threat seriously. Most of them are also taking steps to lessen the degree of state involvement.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, notwithstanding the blandishments, amounting almost to bribes, on the part of the Government, why does the Minister think that the business community has found the Government's explanations so unconvincing and, by and large, is opposed to the proposal?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept what the noble Lord says. We believe that we have gone a long way towards meeting the concerns of industry which have been expressed to us.

BOA: Tax Concession Representations
2.58 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration has been given to granting a corporation tax concession on funds raised by the British Olympic Association in the four years to mid-1992, and what conclusions they have reached.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, a number of representations have been made over the years about the tax treatment of the British Olympic Association, and also other sporting bodies. Those representations have been considered, along with all others made, in the context of the annual Budget and Finance Bill. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that it would not be possible to single out the BOA for special tax privileges.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised if I express my disappointment in his Answer. Some weeks ago in the debate in your Lordships' House on sport and leisure figures given to me by the BOA were quoted. Its target was £4 million, and if the present financial arrangements are continued it will lose £1.8 million of that to the Treasury. If that is the case, does the Minister consider that such treatment will be a disincentive to people to donate to that fund? As £1.8 million is a small proportion of the annual Budget would it not be right and proper for the Government to write off that sum? He should bear in mind that most of the major countries competing in the Olympic Games adopt that practice or tax Olympic funds very little. Will the Minister raise the matter again with the Chancellor in order to try to help the organisation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware that last year the BOA said that it paid about £¾million in corporation tax over a four-year cycle. More recently, it has referred to a total of £1½million. However, the Government remain to be persuaded of the case for a special tax exemption for the BOA or any other sporting body.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord or his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer feel constrained by the provisions of the Finance Bill which he mentioned? If so, is he aware that all the Government have to do is to instruct the Board of the Inland Revenue to add to a long list of extra statutory concessions? This would facilitate what I am sure is the noble Lord's wish and possibly the subconscious wish of the Government to which he belongs.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to receive the noble Lord's advice. I am well aware of the special procedures that can be worked out. However, the plain answer is that the Government remain to be persuaded of the case for a special tax exemption for this body.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the Minister care to deal with the point that I made? People are asked to donate to the Olympic fund knowing that 40 per cent. of donations will go straight to the Treasury, Mr. Lamont. Will the noble Lord respond to the point that I raised—that that is a terrible disincentive to people to give to the fund? Will he bear that in mind and speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he will review the situation in the light of what other competing countries do?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, plenty of organisations pay tax and still have to raise sizeable amounts of money. There is no reason why the BOA should not be able to do so. As to the example that the noble Lord gave of what people in other countries do, I am not sure that it is relevant in this case.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister may not think it relevant, but all we ask for is equal treatment with our competitors.

Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Offences) Bill
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hesitate to do this, but I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that the Order Paper is incorrect. It refers not to "The Lord Dean of Beswick" but to "The Dean of Beswick". I wonder what the ecclesiastical Benches think of that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill
Report received.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Restrictions on imposing custodial sentences]:
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a magistrates' court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence.
(2A) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Crown Court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion£

(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or

(b) where the offence is a violent or sexual offence, that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. In this series of amendments we return for the third and last time to the restrictions on the imposition of custodial sentences which are contained in Clause 1. We return also to the special provision in Clause 2 enabling the courts to pass sentences longer than would otherwise be justified in certain defined circumstances, up to the maximum permitted by law.
I remind the House of these circumstances: first, where the offence is of a violent or sexual nature; and secondly, where in the opinion of the court it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. The key terms in that formulation are defined in the Bill, and may be found in what is now Clause 30:>
"'violent offence' means an offence which leads, or is … likely to lead, to a person's death or to physical injury to a person".
The reference to serious harm is construed as follows:
"protecting the public from serious harm",
means protecting members of the public:
"from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological".
So it is evident that we are talking about grave offences likely to cause serious harm or even the death of the victim. I ask the House to keep those definitions drawn from the Bill in mind as we debate these amendments.
The issue before us is how to relate the objectives, questionable though they may be—but that is something to be left on one side at this stage—to the sentencing powers of the courts. As it is now drafted, the Bill does not distinguish between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. The fact that it makes no such distinction does not represent any stable policy on the part of the Government, since the wording of this part of the Bill has been changed several times during its passage through Parliament.
When the Bill was originally introduced in another place last November, only the Crown Court had the power to pass a longer sentence for a violent or sexual offence in order to protect the public from serious harm. Curiously, the power was limited to what are known as either way offences; that is, offences which can be tried either in the Crown Court or in the magistrates' courts. It excluded the most serious offences triable only on indictment in the Crown Court. On Report in another place the Bill was amended to include offences triable either way in the Crown Court or in the magistrates' court, and also offences triable summarily in the magistrates' court.
In this House, after the illogicality of excluding indictable offences—the most serious offences triable only in the Crown Court—had been strongly argued in Committee, the Government amended the Bill to bring within its scope the more serious offences, as now indicated in Clause 2. However, the extension at the other end of the sentencing range—if I may put it

545
like that—to the lesser offences which are tried and sentenced only in the magistrates' courts remained unchanged. It is the aim of these amendments to remove the power to top up sentences from the magistrates' courts. My noble friends whose names are appended to this all-party amendment and I contend that it is quite inappropriate to the language of the Bill and its stated purpose that the magistrates' courts should have this power.
On Report the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave an example of why the Government believed the power was justified in the hands of the magistrates. The noble Earl mentioned a rather complicated matter which concerned reckless driving. I believe it is charitable to say that he did not entirely succeed in convincing the House that the offence cited would constitute a violent offence within the meaning of the Bill. The central fact is that the maximum terms of imprisonment allowed to the magistrates' courts are six months for a single offence and consecutive sentences up to a maximum of 12 months' imprisonment, with 50 per cent. remission applicable in both instances. Those sentencing powers effectively define the gravity of the offences with which magistrates are empowered to deal. The idea of the protection of the public from serious harm does not square with imprisonment for a few extra weeks.
I am sure we can all agree that any proposal to pass sentences that are more severe than an offence deserves is an altogether exceptional one. That must be so. Any proposal of this kind runs counter to the principle of proportionality in sentencing which is incorporated in the Bill. It also runs counter to existing sentencing practice. The justification for its introduction must therefore be stronger than anything we have yet heard from the Government Front Bench.
The magistrates' courts do not have this power now and they do not need it in the future. If they are given it by this legislation, one of two things will happen. Either it will be disregarded, with some routine formula being found to state why it is inapplicable to the circumstances of a particular case, or it will be used and in the process it will stretch the meaning of a violent offence to include what are essentially property offences such as taking and driving away a motor vehicle.
On Report my noble friend Lord Ferrers, speaking for the Government, acknowledged the concern that had been expressed by noble Lords in all parts of the House. He undertook to reflect further on the matter, although his undertaking to do so was given without commitment. On that basis the amendments were not pressed. Unless my noble friend can satisfy the House today, it may not be possible to be so accommodating. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 1A.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I did not expect to be on my feet quite so soon. I support the amendment and I wish to emphasise to the House the purpose behind
546
it. This group of amendments would restrict to the Crown Court the power to impose on certain kinds of offender sentences more severe than their offences deserve. The whole structure of sentencing as proposed in the Bill seeks to ensure that the severity of a sentence should be proportionate to the just deserts of the offender. In the Bill there is one major exception to that general principle. Clause 1 permits the courts to impose custodial sentences, even though the seriousness of the offence would not require custody, when the courts judge it necessary to protect the public from serious harm in the case of violent or sexual offenders.
It is the view of those of us who have been concerned with this amendment that it is absurd to suggest that a short period of imprisonment of a length which magistrates can impose could ever be said effectively to protect the public from serious harm. Serious harm is defined in the Bill as death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out, the maximum sentence a magistrates' court can impose is six months. Even if such a court were to impose two consecutive sentences, that would still only constitute a maximum sentence of 12 months. We are talking about an absolute maximum of six months in custody. It cannot seriously be argued that imprisonment for such lengths of time can effectively protect the public from death or serious personal injury.
In our view the logic of the argument inevitably points in the direction of restricting this power to top up sentences —to impose punishments greater than the just deserts principle would produce—to courts which try serious offences; namely, the Crown Court. I shall not weary the House with any further examples or indeed with any further argument. This is a fairly simple point and I believe the House has heard it three, if not four, times already in the course of the passage of the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will recognise the force of the logic of the argument and accept the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, your Lordships have heard it announced that Amendment No. 1 A must be considered with Amendment No. 1. If that is not done, Amendment No. 1A will fall. Therefore I rise to my feet to deal with Amendment No. 1A. I learn slowly through my mistakes but I imagine that because Amendment No. 1 proposes an alteration to a subsection, if it is passed it will swallow up my amendment.
Unlike Amendment No. 14 to Clause 28 which proposes to remove the whole of Clause 28, my Amendment No. 13 merely seeks to alter Clause 28. However, it is taken before the amendment which seeks to delete Clause 28. That is a procedural nicety which explains why we must deal with Amendment No. 1A together with Amendment No. I. Amendment No. 1A in no way conflicts with Amendment No. 1. I had hoped that the groupings list would stand. On that list Amendment No. 1A is grouped with the next batch of amendments. However, in view of the warning I have been given, I rise to my feet to speak on a subject which, although related, is significantly

547
different to the matter we are discussing. It must seem quite remarkable to your Lordships that a Bill which is heralded as laying down a coherent sentencing principle should require the amendment which I propose. That amendment would add to line 14 on page 1 the words:
"that the offence of which he has been convicted or found guilty is one of a series of similar offences committed by him which together were so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified".
I ask your Lordships to consider the following scenario. It concerns an appeal.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I wonder about the procedure being followed here. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House can help us. Are we now going to debate the noble and learned Lord's amendment at the same time as Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham? Is that the correct procedure, and is it the procedure that we are now to follow? I understood that all that we had been told was that if Amendment No. 1 is carried Amendment No. 1A falls. Does that mean that both amendments have to be debated together?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Leader of the House, in an interrogatory tone, that surely if it has been ruled that Amendment No. 1A falls if Amendment No. 1 is passed, the only way of discussing Amendment No. 1A, which has been grouped with it, is in conjunction with Amendment No. 1. I stand to be corrected, but that is what I understand.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the problem is that the amendments are not grouped.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I do not know whether or not I can help your Lordships. I adopt the argument advanced by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Whatever may be the legal niceties of this matter, the fact is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will have no opportunity of deploying his arguments unless we accept the procedure which he adopted. Therefore, in fairness to the noble and learned Lord, we must allow him to express the arguments in favour of Amendment No. 1A.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, far be it from me to suggest a way round the problem to these legal gentlemen, who are experts, but surely the situation arises because the noble and learned Lord was honest and referred to Amendment No. 1A. He could have debated Amendment No. 1 and brought in his argument in relation to Amendment No. 1A. Honesty does not pay. However, if he likes to return to the argument without referring to his own amendment we shall all know what he is talking about.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in fairness to the noble and learned Lord we must allow him to proceed.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, this is no legal nicety; it is the procedure of the House as I understand it. If I am to be heard it requires me to be heard only at this
548
stage. I should have much preferred Amendment No. 1A to be wholly separate from Amendment No. 1 because it has no connection with that amendment. As I understand it, the relevance is that an attempt is being made to remove a subsection, and if that is successful my prospect of amending that subsection goes out of the window.
Perhaps I may continue. I was saying to your Lordships that it is remarkable that the amendment is required at all. One would have thought that any coherent sentencing policy would enable a judge to deal appropriately with an habitual criminal. I was asking your Lordships to contemplate a scenario. Imagine that the Court of Appeal Criminal Division has heard an appeal against the imposition of a custodial sentence. The question of the length of that sentence is not at issue, merely the fact that the person has been sent to prison.
The presiding judge sums up his judgment in this way. He points out that the appellant is an habitual offender. He has stolen from his employers £100 a week over a long period so that there is outstanding a total of £10,000. He has done that before. The judge of the Court of Appeal begins by saying: "The learned trial judge imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment. There is no issue about the length of the term, merely that imprisonment was imposed at all. The learned judge first said, have considered your response to previous sentences imposed upon you. You have been subjected to conditional discharges. You have in the past broken all those conditions. You have been subjected to probation orders. You have failed to comply with those orders. Notwithstanding that fact, community service has been imposed upon you on no fewer than three occasions. You have fallen down on the requirements of those orders. Much as I dislike sending anyone to prison on that basis I have no alternative but to send you this time to prison'."
The presiding judge at the Court of Appeal continues: "The learned judge's approach is wholly common sense. It has now been rendered impossible by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 because, if you look at Section 28"—which is subject to amendments by myself and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but his amendment does not touch this point—"you are not allowed to have regard to responses to previous sentences. That cannot any longer be considered".
The judge in the Court of Appeal continues: "The next basis for the trial judge sending the accused to prison was the large number of outstanding offences which the offender asked to be taken into account. They were all of a similar kind, numbering 50, and involving losses to various people of £100,000." Again, everybody would conclude that that in itself was a clear pointer to a custodial sentence. But under Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (which I seek to amend with my Amendment No. 15A) you can only take into account one of those 50 outstanding offences. The judge could not even take that into account, for reasons which I shall explain. So that basis for sending him to prison goes.
The learned trial judge based his custodial sentence on a third criterion. He said, "You have been

549
convicted of these offences on no fewer than 20 occasions over the past three years. In those circumstances prison is clearly a pointer in your case". The judge in the Court of Appeal says: "Unfortunately, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 you cannot do that".
That is certainly the case as Clause 28 is intended to be amended by Amendment No. 14, which we shall discuss later. Your Lordships have only to read the first paragraph of that amendment to see that. So once more the learned trial judge, acting in a way which was full of common sense, has been unable to impose just deserts—the platitudinous philosophy which has been constantly stressed through the passage of this Bill.
Lastly, one comes to the fourth basis of the trial judge's justification for a custodial sentence. He says, "I have before me 10 offences. You pleaded guilty to five of them just before the trial took place. You contested the other five and you have been found guilty of those five. Each is a specimen charge relative to the theft of £100 a week, and on those 10 charges prison is clearly appropriate". Not so, says the Court of Appeal presiding judge, having regard to Section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (the very section that I seek to amend) the trial judge can aggregate only two offences. If he aggregates the two offences, he cannot take into account any outstanding offences which the accused has asked him to take into account. Noble Lords have only to look at Clause 30 to see that.
So, says the Court of Appeal judge, the appellant has to be sentenced for two dishonest thefts involving £200 in the aggregate. For that prison is clearly not appropriate if you disregard his response to previous sentences, as the judge has to do under the new Act; if you disregard the number of offences to be taken into consideration, as you have to do under the new Act; and if you disregard his previous convictions, as you have to do under the new Act. Accordingly, once more the most that can be done to that man —and perhaps that is straining the matter—is to put him on probation.
All that is the result of a sentencing policy that places the judge in blinkers. He is not allowed to look with reality as he did before or to have regard to the response to previous sentences, to the number of offences to be taken into consideration and to the previous convictions. That is why I have sought to incorporate this amendment which makes specific reference to a case in which a person is found guilty of one of a series of similar offences committed by him which, together, are so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.
I cannot conceive how that argument can be faulted on any jurisprudential basis because it is wholly consistent with the sentence complying with the just deserts. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not only always courteous and fair but makes wise concessions in his speeches, although he does not necessarily implement them in any amendments. In the debate on 14th May at col. 1501 of Hansard, dealing with the case to which I referred, he said that, if you look at Clause 3(2) (a)—it is now Clause 3(3) (a); I invite your
550
Lordships to look at it in a moment—you can take all those previous conviction cases into account. I have looked at Clause 3(3) (a) and I invite your Lordships to look at it again. The rubric is:
"Procedural requirements for custodial sentences".
The subsection states:
"In forming any such opinion"—
that is, on the seriousness of the matter—
"a court shall take into account all such information about the circumstances of the offence".
The phrase "circumstances of the offence" does not include offences to be taken into consideration. It does not include responses to previous sentences, and I do not think that it includes previous convictions. If it is intended so to cover them, my proposal must be justified. However, there is a slight feeling about the Government protestation that this provision covers them which makes one recall the War Crimes Bill. It was said then that, even though the Government supported legislation for trials in criminal cases to take place 45 years or more after the event, a judge had the inherent jurisdiction to strike out the indictment on the basis that the delay was such that justice could not be done. As noble Lords will recall, that is what stimulated my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich to say that that was not apparent from the clause; if that is what the Government wanted, it should be in the Bill. This is a similar situation. There should not be clothed within Clause 3(3) (a) this hidden provision which is meant to be a cure-all.
As I indicated at the outset, I am sorry that procedure obliges me to ask your Lordships to consider this aspect and I apologise sincerely to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I would not have it this way, but it appears to be the only way.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps at this stage I may make an intervention which is partly procedural and partly substantive and which may help the House. Many Members of the House may like to have in the Bill both Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As we have been told, if Amendment No. 1 is carried, it pre-empts the moving of Amendment No. 1A, but it would be possible for this to be achieved if Amendment No. 1 was agreed to. Amendment No. 1A and perhaps Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 could then be inserted into the Bill in the House of Commons as amendments to the Lords' amendments. I say that merely so that noble Lords may not be impaled on what would otherwise seem to be a dilemma from which they could not extricate themselves.
I wish to say only one thing in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. In the Government's White Paper last year, entitled Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, it was proposed that the power should be confined to the Crown Court. I, and I am sure a number of others who read that White Paper, thought that there was a good case for it to be included, provided that it was so confined. Some of us have been dismayed by its extension to the magistrates' courts. I regard the arguments then put forward in the White Paper

551
restricting the power to the Crown Courts as as strong today as they seemed to those of us who read it a year ago.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said because we have not so far heard any explanation from the Government as to why the White Paper restriction, which seems to so many of us in the House to be absolutely sensible, has now been changed. We have never been given any reason for the change, and it would be most helpful if the noble Earl could give us the reason for that change.
The last thing in the world that I wanted to do by rising to my feet earlier was to shut out the noble and learned Lord. It seems to me that the procedures of the House are absolutely extraordinary. If his long and interesting speech in support of his amendment comes in the middle of the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—I am sure that most noble Lords will have forgotten a great deal of what the noble Lord said in moving Amendment No.1—and if noble Lords have been moved by the words of the noble and learned Lord, I suppose that it behoves one to answer the argument of the noble and learned Lord in case anyone here feels that they do not wish to vote for Amendment No. 1 because they do not want to shut out the excellent arguments in support of Amendment No. 1A. Speaking personally, I do not intend to do that. The whole procedure would become completely confused. In supporting Amendment No. 1, I simply wish to comment that when one puts forward a Bill which has a fundamental philosophy and fundamental principle—although the noble and learned Lord has just called it platitudinous—and if there is then to be an exception to it, that exception must be absolutely clear and sensible.
At Report stage, the noble Earl answered the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, by giving the example of driving a car recklessly as an offence for which the retention of this power by magistrates would be useful. In doing so it seems to me that he exemplified the reason for accepting this amendment. Reckless driving is surely not a violent offence. It is an offence which may result in violence, but it is not a violent offence. If it is considered as a violent offence, magistrates will be in a state of great confusion unless this amendment is accepted. Driving a car recklessly involves driving in a certain manner with no necessary proof of injury to anybody and no necessary proof even that the offender was aware of such danger.
It seems to me difficult, as I am sure it will to many magistrates, to accept that reckless driving is a violent offence. It is therefore difficult to accept that this power is useful to magistrates. If it is useful, one must ask: what about all those offences of conduct likely to cause breaches of the peace? They may lead to some form of Violence. What about threats and insulting words arid behaviour? What about distributing material which is threatening or insulting under the Race Relations Act? All sorts of offences may lead to violence. Even under the Theatres Act, having
552
material which stirs up hatred in the audience may do so. There are innumerable offences which may lead to violence.
It seems to me that in bringing forward that example the noble Earl has made the argument for the proposer of the amendment and has shown how necessary it is that it should be accepted by the House. I hope that noble Lords will accept it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, I start by echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. For my part, if I were free to do so, I should vote in favour of both amendments. As to the first amendment, I was present, as indeed were many of your Lordships, when this matter came up on Report. I recall that in defending the Government's attitude the noble Earl gave the Chamber an example of reckless driving. My recollection is that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said that he did not think that reckless driving was a violent offence.
If I may respectfully say so, that is absolutely right. It is also worth saying that what is said by the Minister or anyone else in your Lordships' House or in another place is not admissible for the purpose of construing the statute if the matter comes up in court. If there is some doubt or ambiguity as to the meaning either of Clause 28 or of the clauses that we are now discussing, that ought to be put on the face of the statute. I respectfully echo what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. There is at the moment an indefensible inconsistency that ought to be put right.
Amendment No. 1A was debated on Report and, I believe, in Committee. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example to show how absurd the position would be unless the House is prepared to accept the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, or something like it. I recall a case which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, may also remember. It happened at Hampshire Quarter Sessions when I was chairman a good many years ago. I had the advantage of listening to the noble Lord on many occasions in that court. In central Hampshire there was a hospital for geriatrics, the dead and dying. Over a period of years the hospital manager had stolen old age pensioners' money when it was drawn and when they were dead he forged their weekly pension books. If my memory is right, there were perhaps 80 or 90 offences. He pleaded guilty to some. The amounts involved in each offence were of the order of £5 or £10. With the Bill as drafted I believe that I should have been constrained to say, "I must not look at anything else except two offences of £5 or £10 and therefore I shall fine". If I had done that, I should have expected a justifiable howl at the inadequacy of the sentence. Indeed, were it possible, I should have expected the Attorney-General to use his powers to refer the matter to obtain an increased sentence under the Criminal Justice Act.
That is quite wrong. There is nothing inconsistent with what any noble Lord has said about the general policy. All we want is for the court to be able to look at the reality of the situation. Without both these amendments I respectfully suggest that we are barring

553
the courts from doing so. It will lead to the Court of Appeal having to adopt the ridiculous attitude that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner illustrated.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I hasten to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson —I think he would be disappointed if I did not respond to him—that I can give a personal example of a case in which reckless driving caused violence. I have referred to this matter before. Just two months ago in Parliament Square I was sitting in a stationary Mercedes car at the lights when a van driven at a reckless speed collided with it and completely destroyed the back of the car. The impact caused my driver to be knocked out. He was taken to hospital. Therefore he was the victim of some violence, whichever way the noble Lord likes to look at it. I can assure him that he need not worry because under the criminal evidence Act no one will bother to take the young man to court. He has not done anything wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, need not worry; there is no danger of any injustice but only, once again, injustice to the victim. So certainly reckless driving can cause violence and lead to violence.
The noble Lord's argument illustrates one of the reasons why sometimes one does not obtain justice in our courts. The convoluted arguments put forward by the legal profession in the end produce such confusion that proper justice cannot be administered. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, an example of someone who experienced reckless driving which caused violence.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is perhaps unfortunate that the practices and procedures of the House or indeed the amendments tabled have resulted in a somewhat unstructured debate on this matter. I do not blame the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for speaking to his amendment when, as he put it, he suddenly saw it going out of the window. For reasons that we shall come to later I like to think that he need not worry that it will go out of the window. However, in the rare event of Amendment No. 1 being accepted, the noble and learned Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 1A, will go out of the window. He was therefore quite right to speak to it and make his point quite clear.
I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, did not wish intentionally to shut out, as he put it, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He does not often shut him out. I am glad to know that that was not his intention by the intervention today. But I had thought that it heralded such sparring as we have seen before between the two noble Lords, one of whom is noble and learned.
To refer to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, he said that we were now returning to the subject for the third time. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he was returning to it for the fourth time. I was aware that we had considered some of the amendments previously. I considered the position with regard to the Marshalled List this morning. I put up a marker as to the practice that I believe is creeping in of debating the same subject at Committee, Report
554
and Third Reading. The practice always used to be to use Third Reading only for fulfilling Government undertakings, improving drafting and raising new matters. Indeed the Companion to the Standing Orders states that,
"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill".
I raise that marker. I am entirely happy to debate any of the amendments. However, I wonder whether we are not having a lot of bites at the same cherry on a number of different occasions.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that when a Minister agrees at the end of a debate on Report to give further consideration to arguments that have been put forward, and an amendment is withdrawn on that basis, it is entirely proper to return to the matter again on Third Reading?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be so. But it is interesting to note that of the 25 non-government amendments that have been tabled for consideration at Third Reading, 22 were considered either on Report and/or in Committee either in exactly the same form or in a very similar form; 13 were considered on Report; 10 were the exact wording of today's amendments; and nine were considered both on Report and in Committee, one of which had exactly the same wording.
It would be far outside my business to try to suggest to your Lordships what we do. I am entirely happy to answer all the amendments. I accept that when undertakings have been given to consider them, of course we shall consider them. However, I just make the point that a number of amendments listed today have been considered previously in either exactly the same or a similar form.
I turn to the point of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. We believe that the power to impose a custodial sentence on a violent or sexual offender, in order to protect the public from serious harm from him, should continue to be available to a magistrates' court as well as to the Crown Court. It was always intended that it should, as was indicated in the White Paper. The White Paper proposed that only the Crown Court should have the power to impose a longer custodial sentence under Clause 2, but on reflection we concluded that this would have been inconsistent with preserving, under Clause 1, the magistrates' courts' powers to impose a protective custodial sentence under Clause 1. I explained on Report why we had to bring Clause 2 into line with Clause 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked why there was a change from the White Paper. In fact there is no change in the power of the magistrates to give a custodial sentence to protect the public. The only change relates to the length of sentence which can be imposed. Originally the magistrates had a power to give a prison sentence to protect the public, but not a longer sentence. That was illogical, as we now accept. The change that we made removes that illogicality.

555
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that magistrates' courts do not now have the power to sentence on the ground of protecting the public. I am not sure that my noble friend is entirely right. The criteria for sentencing in the magistrates' courts are not now defined in statute. I think that it is open to doubt whether or not magistrates can now impose a sentence on the ground of protecting the public. However, it is my impression that magistrates have in mind the need to protect the public in their sentencing.
Any example of how magistrates' courts might use their power to give a sentence which protected the public is necessarily hypothetical and unlikely to be representative of the vast variety of cases with which magistrates' courts have to deal. I gave one example on Report and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then pounced upon it. My noble friend Lord Windlesham pounced upon it today, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. It dealt with reckless driving. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, stated that reckless driving is not a violent offence. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that reckless driving can be a violent offence as defined in Clause 30. The definition refers to an offence which is likely to lead to death or physical injury to a person. That will certainly catch some cases of reckless drivers.
Perhaps I could give another example. I am hesitant to do so in case some other noble Lord pounces upon that too. But I believe that examples are always helpful.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, not always.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, says, "Not always", and that is perfectly true. But I always try to be helpful even though I may not succeed. I hope that I carry the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, with me in the clarification that I am trying to give arid that he will not reckon that every example is necessarily a strict format of what will happen.
Let us take a young offender who is convicted of common assault. The current offence may not be very serious. The offender may have been alone and no great injury may have been inflicted. But it may be clear that he has committed other such offences involving a group of other people in more serious acts of violence. A six-month sentence which would include three months in custody and three months' supervision could help to protect the public. That is one example.
If we were to accept my noble friend's amendments, we would have to be absolutely sure that no circumstances could ever arise in which a magistrates' court would be justified in sending a violent or sexual offender to prison in order to protect the public from serious harm from him. I simply do not believe that it is in fact possible to be confident that no such situation could ever arise. I think that it would be most unwise to leave magistrates' courts with no power to pass a sentence de signed to protect the public. That is, after all, one of the main functions of the criminal justice system.
556
We should not forget that the Bill already limits the sentencing powers of the courts in a variety of ways. It requires them to concentrate mainly on the seriousness of the offence committed in passing sentence. It lays down carefully circumscribed rules about the account which can be taken of matters such as multiple offences or the offender's previous record. Exceptionally, the courts can give a heavier sentence to protect the public, but only if the offence is sexual or violent and—in the words of Clause 30, subsection (3)—the public needs to be protected from death or serious personal injury caused by the offender.
My noble friend's amendment would limit the courts' powers even further, by taking away the magistrates' courts' powers to pass sentence on grounds of protecting the public. I suggest that it is really up to my noble friend to justify this further curtailment of the magistrates' courts' powers, and to demonstrate how this would be in the public interest, rather than for me to go on producing further examples of how the power might be used.
I fear that if my noble friend's amendment were accepted, it would have one of two results, both undesirable. Either the public would be denied proper protection in respect of offenders sentenced in the magistrates' court; or the magistrates would commit more offenders to the Crown Court for sentence, under the provisions of Clause 23 of the Bill. If that were to happen, this would be contrary to the efforts that we are all making to ensure that cases are not committed unnecessarily to the Crown Court for trial or sentence, so that the best use is made of Crown Court resources and delays in cases coming to trial are reduced.
For those reasons I hope your Lordships will not accept my noble friend's amendment. Indeed, I hope that on reflection my noble friend will consider that the Bill is better as it stands.
Perhaps I may refer to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He kindly said that I made wise concessions. That was most courteous but he went on to say that they were not represented in the amendments that I have put forward. I hope that on reflection he will consider the comment to be a little harsh because some of the amendments that I have tabled are aimed at meeting his points and those raised by other noble Lords.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment raises the question, to which he referred at the Report stage, of the offender who is being sentenced for multiple offences. He expressed anxiety about whether the rule in Clause 1(2) (a) that only two offences can be considered in combination means that the courts are required artificially to ignore other offences committed by the offender for the purpose of deciding whether a custodial sentence is justified. I have some considerable sympathy with the noble and learned Lord's point, but I hope to be able to persuade him that the Government's response to it, a concession which is set out in Amendment No. 14, is to be preferred.
I hope that your Lordships will permit me to foreshadow the contents of Amendment No. 14 in replying to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry that

557
such a course will take us wide of Amendment No. 1 which we were originally discussing but I believe that it is necessary to do so. It is relevant to my response to Amendment No. 1A tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
As I explained at an earlier stage, we do not regard it as right that the courts should aggregate large numbers of very minor offences to justify a custodial sentence. The effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendment is that any number of offences, however minor individually, could be aggregated to justify a custodial sentence, if it could be shown that they were part of a series of similar offences. That would seem to mean, for example, that someone who had perhaps stolen a variety of small items from different shops over a period of time might end up with a custodial sentence, even if it were clear that his behaviour was compulsive rather than calculated. The Government do not believe that custody is the right answer in these circumstances. Our approach to the issue is contained in Amendment No. 14 which substitutes a revised version of Clause 28.
The key aim of Clause 28 is to discourage what is known as sentencing on record. That is giving a heavier sentence than the offence itself might deserve because of what the offender has done in the past—
4 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. We shall shortly debate Clause 28 but I understand that it deals with only one of the four matters to which I referred; that is, previous convictions. It does not deal with, except to prohibit, response to previous sentences, with outstanding offences taken into consideration because they are not previous convictions, nor with multiple offences all of which are the subject matters of convictions contemporaneously—that is arising out of one trial.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be the case but in replying to Amendment No. 1A it is right to consider the amendments that we have tabled in an attempt to meet a majority of the points that worry the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is most irritating to be interrupted and I apologise. With great respect, Amendment No. 1A has nothing to do with previous convictions. It deals with a course of conduct which is the subject matter of a given prosecution. It all relates to the present and not to the past, and I associate previous convictions with convictions that have occurred in the past.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand what the noble and learned Lord is pointing at but Clause 28, as amended, deals with multiple current offences. Indeed, that is the point of our amendments. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will bear with me because I think he will see that I attempt to meet his points.
If we asked the courts to ignore completely the offender's past conduct—or indeed other current offences of which he has been convicted—this would
558
quite artificially prevent them from considering information which can in some cases be highly relevant to their judgment about the seriousness of the offence for which sentence is now being given. I gave some examples at the Report stage. There can be patterns of offending which show for example that an assault was racially motivated or that a shopkeeper selling bad food was not just an isolated lapse but showed deliberate disregard for his customers' safety.
The point about these examples is that the circumstances of the other offences show that the new offence is in fact more serious than it would have been if it had occurred in isolation. In other words, they point to aggravating factors of the offence. Your Lordships will recall that under Clause 3(3) (a) the court is required to have regard to an offence's aggravating and mitigating factors in assessing its seriousness, and hence the type of sentence it should receive. The revised version of Clause 28 brings out in subsection (2) more clearly the fact that here we are concerned with factors which aggravate the seriousness of the offence.
The revised version of Clause 28(2) also ensures that there is no ambiguity as regards the significance of other current offences as opposed to other past offences. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, drew to our attention at the Report stage—and has quoted again today—examples, such as the dishonest employee who regularly steals sums of money from his employer over a considerable period of time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, was anxious about similar cases. I indicated that I thought that the fact that an offence was part of, for example, a systematic and persistent fraud would be regarded as an aggravating factor. The court would obviously have to take note of the other offences which had been committed in order to reach that conclusion and the Bill as originally drafted would not I think have prevented them from doing so.
But it was put to me that there was a doubt about that matter. Since Clause 28(2) as originally drafted referred only to offences of which the offender had previously been convicted, it might have been interpreted as meaning that the circumstances of offences of which the offender had been convicted at the same time could not be taken into account in the same way. That would obviously lead to anomalous and unjust results and the new version of Clause 28(2) therefore makes it clear that the circumstances of any other offence can, where appropriate, be taken into account as aggravating factors.
For that reason I hope that your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will agree that the new version of Clause 28 is an improvement on that tabled by him. I realise that the procedures that we are obliged to adopt make the matter confusing. However, Amendment No. 1A tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is relevant to Amendment No. 14 that I have tabled. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that my amendment is better. I hope also that your Lordships will agree that it would not be correct to include the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Windlesham in the Bill.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am persuaded by the Minister that Amendment No. 14 is a reasonable alternative to that tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. With due respect to his position, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has read Amendment No. 14 in its entirety. He read it as though it applies only to previous convictions. However, if lie looks at the caption at the side of the first part of the amendment he will see that it states:
"Effect of previous convictions etc.".
The "etc." must refer to the second part of the provision which has nothing to do with previous convictions—
Lord Roskill: My Lords, it is a rule of construction that in construing a statute one must not look at the side note.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, that is where one has an advantage if one is a layman because one can apply common sense instead of judicial preference.
I had not finished what I intended to say. I am quite certain that whether the "etc" must be taken into account or ignored, it is clear that the second part is not confined to previous convictions but concerns any aggravating factors of an offence. There is nothing about previous convictions in the second part. Therefore, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has defined clearly the effect of Amendment No. 14.
Having said that, without Amendment No. 14, I should like to vote for both Amendments Nos. 1 and 1A, but we are told that it is not possible to do that. That would have been possible if the noble and learned Lord had tabled his amendment as an amendment to Amendment No. 1 rather than as an amendment to the Bill. If Amendment No. 1A had been tabled for insertion at line 11 after the word "offence", we could have dealt with both amendments at the same time with the exception that it would not have applied to the magistrates' courts.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure that it is the custom of the House to entertain interventions from any noble Lord other than the mover of the amendment after the Minister has spoken.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, in that case, I must apologise for what I said but I hope that your Lordships will remember what I said.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this has been an unexpectedly disjointed start to the proceedings on Third Reading. We have been debating two unrelated amendments and have had some helpful suggestions on procedure thrown in as well.
Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 1 which is in my name and that of other noble Lords and which I moved over an hour ago. In his reply the Minister relied en the power contained in Clause 1 to allow magistrates' courts to impose a custodial sentence where the offence was of a violent or sexual nature in order to protect the public from serious harm. However, he did not deal with the main thrust of my argument; namely, that in Clause 2 the magistrates' courts may top up—to use a distasteful expression —a sentence of imprisonment if it had already decided that a term of custody was necessary under Clause 1.
560
The simple point is this. Despite the Minister's efforts to persuade the House, he has not convinced me that the type of offence which is triable in the magistrates' court—the less serious criminal offence which is triable summarily—is of sufficient gravity to warrant the exceptional power to pass a sentence of disproportionate severity. On that point, I shall seek the opinion of the House.
4.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kirkhill, L

Adrian, L.

Kissin, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Ampthill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brain, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Chester, Bp.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs,B.

Richardson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston. L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stokes, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunter of Newington, L

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jacques, L.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

4.22 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("(aa) that the offence of which he has been convicted or found guilty is one of a series of similar offences committed by him which together were so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified, or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, for the reasons which I gave in the earlier debate I hope that your Lordships will agree to Amendment No. 14 in preference to Amendment No. 1A.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I shall not weary the House with another speech. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
4.23 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
4.26 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 1A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Chairman of Committees: The "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 [Length of custodial sentences]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert ("suitable for the offender and shall be").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name. At the last stage, when I withdrew the amendment after discussion, I said that I attached tremendous importance to it. Without it the Bill contains no reference to the interests of the vast majority of offenders. There is no reference to the interests of the prisoner.
I feel that the Bill is incomplete. The Bill should not go on to the statute book, especially a far-reaching Bill of this kind, without some reference to the interests of the vast majority of offenders. I shall explain what I mean when I say the "vast majority" of offenders.
Reference has been made to the fundamental philosophy of the Bill. I would not credit the Bill with anything novel in the way of a philosophy except on one important point—punishment in the community, which is very important. The reference to "just deserts" is simply retribution dressed up under another name. I have always said that there is room for retribution, but there must be room also for the reformation of a prisoner. In the vast majority of cases, without my amendment, there is no such reference. There is some reference made to the interests of offenders and the way in which they should be considered.
It is laid down in the Bill that where a community service order is passed as sentence, it should be suitable for the offender. Let there be no mistake about that. When a sentence of community service is passed it is a punishment. There is no distinction between that and a sentence of custody. Therefore, in logic the sentence should be suitable for the offender when a sentence of community service is considered, and likewise where the offender is sentenced to custody. There is no distinction in logic.
As regards mentally disordered prisoners there is reference to the effect on their mental condition which has to be considered. That is taken into account. The interests of those who receive community service orders and those who are thought to be mentally

563
disordered are considered. The vast majority of prisoners have no reference made which helps them at this time. Personally, it will be a terrible and historic blot on the Bill if it were passed into law without any reference to the effect on the lives of the vast majority of those who are sentenced. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I fully understand why the noble Earl has moved this amendment. It surely stems from a false premise. He said that in a sense retribution equals or rides with the concept of just deserts. That is a strange starting point for the argument. The concept of sentencing is that it should be related to just deserts. If the court sentences in error then, with the present appellate system, the Court of Appeal can correct it. I can see no need whatever for putting the judge under some kind of statutory restraint as proposed by the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendment and the intention behind it. My noble friend wants statutory recognition of the principle that imprisonment should attempt to rehabilitate the offender and not just punish him. As I say, I support the thrust of the amendment and the intention behind it. However, I am not entirely happy that the appropriate place is in Clause 2 of the Bill. That establishes the criteria governing the length of prison sentences and lays down the general principle that the length of sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
No doubt the Government are considering the Woolf Report at the moment. One assumes that at some stage legislation about prisons will be introduced following the Government's consideration of the report. In that legislation it would be appropriate to lay down the principle that prison regimes should be geared to the offender's needs for training and rehabilitation and not merely, to use the words of my noble friend, to retribution for the offence for which the individual has been sentenced.
At that stage it would be highly appropriate for an amendment of the kind proposed by my noble friend to be included in legislation. I have a great deal of sympathy with his intention, but I am not convinced that Clause 2 of the Bill is the appropriate place to put it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I agree with what has just been said about this not being the right place for the amendment. It is a matter that we should consider for the future especially in the light of the Woolf Report and proposals. The question of being ''suitable for the offender" ought to be a consideration. Not only is the measure suitable for the offender but if he is appropriately treated he will not offend again. Therefore such a provision would not only be suitable for the offender but for all of us. I very much hope that that principle will be pursued by the noble Earl in future though it is incompatible with the Bill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I support the thrust of the noble Earl's amendment. He
564
has made a very good point by indicating that under Clause 5 and community sentences, these very words appear. If the words appear for community sentences where the court is told to consider the most suitable disposal for the offender, why should it not also take the same attitude and approach when dealing with a normal sentence of imprisonment? It seems to me that if the provision appears in one context it should appear in the other. The noble Earl said that under Clause 5 the court has a choice and therefore the words appear referring to the number of different types of order as set out in Clause 5(4). The court has, and should have, a choice when sentencing a person to imprisonment. As I have mentioned on a previous occasion, if the words appear in the Bill judges should then be able to specify the institutions to which they send convicted people. At the moment they are not equipped to do that. Naturally, in future I would like the judges to be so equipped. For those reasons I support the thrust of the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has returned to a subject which we debated at Report stage. He said that he would return to it again and that he had every intention of tabling a similar and perhaps a better phrased amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I believe that the amendment he has tabled today is exactly the same as the one he put forward at Report. The observations which I made during my opening remarks concerning the first amendment passed through my mind again as regards the noble Earl's amendment.
The noble Earl explained at Report, and he has done so again, that his main concern is with the rehabilitation of prisoners. That is a thoroughly worthy aim. He believes that the aim of rehabilitating prisoners is valuable. He also believes that it is in danger of being lost and that it is necessary to insert into the Bill a statement of its importance. I do not think that is so. The extent to which prisoners can and should be reformed is an extremely important issue. It is one that has occupied a number of your Lordships for a long while during the passage of the Bill.
I do not believe that this is the right occasion for a debate on the subject. I remind the noble Earl of the Prison Board's statement of purpose to which he himself referred at Report stage. Part of that report reads:
"Our duty is to look after them [that is, prisoners] with humanity and to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release".
That is a very positive statement of aim of the prison service. Lord Justice Woolf dealt with its implications for the prison service in Section 10 of his report. He concluded:
"while we would not suggest that an offender should be sentenced to imprisonment for reformative treatment, we regard it as part of the Prison Service's role to ensure, where that is practicable, that a prisoner, while serving his sentence, should have an opportunity of training".
Those are the views of Lord Justice Woolf. As the noble Earl knows and as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has said, the Government intend to respond to Lord Justice Woolf's report in a White Paper later this year. I do not share the noble Earl's view that the reformative ideal has been lost sight of and that this

565
Bill offers one last opportunity to reaffirm it. The issue is firmly inscribed in the Prison Board's statement of purpose. But, however you look at it, I do not think that the Bill is the right vehicle for the noble Earl's idea.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Where is it clearly stated? The noble Earl tells us that it is clearly stated in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what I was saying was that it is clearly stated in the Prison Board's statement of what they do and what their intent is. I do not think that it is necessary to state these aims in the Bill as it is, and for this reason. The Bill sets out in Clause 1 the reasons why someone might be sent to prison. These are either that the offence is very serious or that the offender is a danger to society or some combination of the two. Clause 2 establishes similar criteria for determining the length of a prison sentence.
But I think it would in fact be a mistake to do as the noble Earl's amendment seeks, to make the possibility of reforming the offender a reason for giving a prison sentence, or a sentence of a particular length. Reform and rehabilitation may well result from a prison sentence, and we hope that they will; and, as I have said, the prison service has set itself the aim of bringing this about in as many cases as possible. But it is simply unrealistic to sentence people to imprisonment in order that they may be reformed or rehabilitated, and the danger in suggesting that reform or rehabilitation should be a reason for sending people to prison is that this might result in more people being sent to prison in the vain hope that it will somehow cure them of their offending ways. I know that this is not what the noble Earl would wish.
The fact of the matter is that the reasons for sending people to prison—which is what Clauses 1 and 2 are concerned with—are to punish their offences and to protect the public, and it is confusing the issue, in a way which may be quite counter-productive, to ask the sentencer to consider also whether prison would be suitable from a reformative or rehabilitative point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to community sentences. Of course the question of suitability for the offender arises if a court is considering a community sentence because the reform and the rehabilitation of the offender can be a realistic reason for giving a community sentence in a way it cannot be if you are giving a prison sentence. A court will have a range of several different types of community order from which to choose, and suitability for the offender in those cases could quite clearly be a factor.
I do not think that a court can choose between prison establishments, and the question of which prison is most suitable for the offender does not come into the sentencing decision. While it is right for the court to consider the methods of sentencing and whether a certain sentence will benefit the offender when dealing with community sentences, I do not think that the argument can carry the same weight when a prison sentence is being considered. Having
566
said that, of course it is common knowledge, and a common purpose of all people connected with the prison service, that once you have prisoners in your custody you have to do all that you can to reform them, to look after them with humanity, and to see that they leave the prison better than they went into it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the House has a great deal of business before it today and I shall be brief. I am grateful to those who sympathised with my intentions or even supported the thrust of my argument. I found the noble Earl's remarks totally unconvincing. If a fair minded person such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, or some judge was asked to take the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and put it against the reply it would be unlikely that he would decide that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had answered the noble Lord's point.
I shall not go on to discuss these matters today. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made an important suggestion, with which I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, sympathises, that if anybody has anything valuable to say on this subject it can be said perhaps often and strongly when we debate the report of the Woolf Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Procedural requirements for custodial sentences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and, if I may, speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 10, 12, 15 and 34. All these amendments fulfil, so far as is possible within the confines of this Bill, the undertakings which I gave at Report stage to bring forward amendments concerning mentally disordered offenders. These respond to the concerns expressed by your Lordships about the way in which such offenders are treated within the criminal justice system. These concerns are ones with which the Government have great sympathy, and I am therefore very glad that we have been able to find ways of meeting at least some of the points which have been raised.
The amendments to and after Clause 3 deal with the question of medical reports, and take up the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone that where pre-sentence reports are called for, these should, where appropriate, include a psychiatric assessment by a qualified practitioner. I hope that my noble friend will find that the amendments meet the spirit of his suggestion, though we have, on reflection, adopted a somewhat different approach from the one he suggested to meet the desired end. There are, we think, difficulties about making the psychiatric report actually part of the pre-sentence report. Clause 3(6) provides that a pre-sentence report must always be in writing, whereas the psychiatric report could be, and should be, capable of being given orally, particularly of course if a duty psychiatrist is available and the

567
scheme operates at the court concerned. Moreover, the psychiatric report will contain the doctor's independent clinical judgment and it did not seem to us right that this should be subsumed in, or subordinated to, a pre-sentence report being prepared by a probation officer or social worker. We felt that it should be different.
The new clause after Clause 3 therefore provides that when a pre-sentence report is being obtained, and the offender is or appears to be mentally disordered, the court should also obtain a medical report before it passes a custodial sentence. An exception is provided in subsection (2) for cases where the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a medical report. This might for instance be where sufficient information about the offender's mental state is already available to the court without the need for a new report.
The proposed new clause after Clause 26 responds to the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the courts should be given access to better information about the facilities available for guardianship or hospital treatment for mentally disordered offenders, and that the time limits for the admission of mentally disordered offenders to hospital should be tightened up. The new Section 39A of the Mental Health Act 1983, which subsection (1) of the new clause inserts, requires local social services authorities to inform the courts, if requested to do so, whether they or any other person approved by the authorities would be willing to receive the offender into guardianship. If so, the court can additionally request the authority to give such information as it reasonably can about the way in which it, or the approved person, could be expected to exercise the powers of guardianship conferred by Section 40(2) of the 1983 Act.
The amendment which we discussed at Report stage also extended to the provision of information in connection with remands of accused persons to hospital for reports or treatment under Sections 35 and 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983. I had hoped that we would be able to cover this in the government amendment, but I have, I am afraid, been advised that this would go beyond the scope of the Bill, Part I of which deals only with the position of convicted offenders and not of accused persons. I hope, nevertheless, that your Lordships will agree with me that the new Section 39A will be helpful in ensuring that the courts will have access to information which will help them when they are minded to make guardianship orders. This will not, of course, preclude the Government from extending the scope of Section 39 of the 1983 Act to cover cases of accused persons in the way envisaged should a future legislative opportunity arise.
Subsection (2) of the new clause after Clause 26, Amendment No. 10, fulfils the undertaking I gave to introduce a power to reduce, by statutory instrument, the time periods for the admission of mentally disordered offenders to hospital. This amendment actually goes further than the amendment which we discussed on Report, since it relates not only to the
568
time limits mentioned in Sections 37 and 40 of the Mental Health Act but also those in Sections 38 and 44.
A reduction in the present time periods could be made only if hospitals were in a position to admit mentally disordered offenders within the new timescales; otherwise, the effect would be that mentally disordered offenders could be committed to prison because the hospital could not admit them within the prescribed time limit. But we shall he working towards the speeding up of the admission of mentally disordered offenders to hospital, and the power provided in subsection (2) of the new clause after Clause 26 will help to encourage that process.
The remaining amendments are either paving amendments or consequential drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having moved to take account of the amendments put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and myself. Before coming on to the substance of the matter, as the noble Earl chose to make a number of general observations about the procedures of the House during the course of his reply to the first amendment, perhaps I may make a few myself.
I do not believe that the debate on Amendments Nos. 1 and 1 A reflected well on the procedures of the House. Even in the brief time that has elapsed since that debate there has been a recognition among many noble Lords on both sides of the House that it will be necessary to look again at our procedures to see whether we can avoid a recurrence of the problem. I say at once that it will not be easy to find a solution to it—I recognise the difficulties that are involved—but I very much hope that the Procedure Committee will look at the matter. Many noble Lords felt deeply dissatisfied. We were discussing two matters simultaneously and creating in the minds of a number of noble Lords some degree of confusion as to what they were being asked to decide upon.
The first substantial amendment in the group requires the courts normally to obtain a medical report before sentencing a mentally disordered offender to custody. This represents a significant improvement on the present legal position and goes some way to meet our view that the courts should always have to obtain a medical opinion in circumstances of this kind. However, if the provision is to work properly the establishment of duty psychiatrist schemes will be required, a matter which we discussed fairly fully at the previous stage of the Bill. These schemes will be required throughout the country to enable reports on mentally disordered offenders to be prepared speedily. If such schemes are not established there is the risk that courts will remand defendants in custody; into the suicide-inducing conditions of prison medical wings. That is what this well intentioned and highly desirable amendment could lead to.
The Government, for reasons which I found difficult to understand, were opposed to laying a duty on the Secretary of State to establish duty psychiatrist schemes, on the same basis as community service when

569
it was first introduced. They resisted it and won a vote on the question, using the argument that they wanted such schemes but were not prepared to have such a duty imposed on the Secretary of State. However, without an extension of duty psychiatrist schemes, there is a risk that the present wholly unsatisfactory position of mentally ill people being remanded into the often appalling conditions of medical wings in Brixton and elsewhere will continue and in some circumstances will be accelerated because of the requirement of this amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 10. The second part of this new clause will give the Secretary of State power to reduce to 28 days the time limit by delegated legislation. As I indicated when we discussed this on the previous occasion, I think that this is a sensible way of approaching the problem. Most of us recognise that the 28-day limit is now too long. We very much hope that it will be limited in the way that is set out in the new clause.
I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on matters that were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Mottistone, and myself. However, without duty psychiatrist schemes there is a risk that the situation could become a great deal more difficult.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reflecting in Amendment No. 6 what I sought to put before your Lordships on Report in Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. What he has proposed is slightly different in that the report will not be part of the ordinary probation report. Perhaps that is beneficial. On the other hand, I very much agree with the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the provision will work properly only if we can be sure that a duty psychiatrist is available. It is said that between 10 and 15 per cent. of people in prison today are mentally ill. Psychiatrists will be needed in all courts, not just in a few trial courts. I hope that my noble friend has fully taken on board the implications of Amendment No. 6. I shall not go further than that at this stage except once again to thank him very much.
I also welcome Amendment No. 10. That too could be most helpful for mentally disordered offenders. I hope that it will come about as well. Well done the Government! They have actually done what they said they were going to do, and done it effectively.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think I detect a note of surprise in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Earl Ferrers: Not surprise, my Lords, only congratulations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord may have limited himself to congratulations but he was frank enough to express surprise.
On behalf of these Benches I wish to thank the Minister for making a concession with these amendments. I do not intend to repeat speeches admirably made on the need for the duty psychiatrist
570
schemes if we are to see anything practical as a result of the amendment now before us at the instance of the Government.
I wish to make a point on Amendment No. 6 which I realise will only be useful, if I am entitled to use that adjective, in another place when these amendments may be considered and where the Government still have an opportunity to make their own amendments. I am a little worried about the loose wording of the exemption in Amendment No. 6. The amendment refers to "the circumstances of the case" as providing an exemption from the need for the medical report. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 made provision in regard to the necessity for a social inquiry report where the courts were dealing with the sentencing of young offenders.
It is possible that the case law which we have in regard to that section may conceivably be applicable here when dealing with "the circumstances of the case". However, that is not set down and it may be that the Government will see fit to narrow the phraseology in order to give an element of certainty. One can imagine instances where the circumstances of the case will be taken into consideration. One such instance which immediately occurs to a practising lawyer is the situation where there happens to be in the possession of the defendant's lawyer a copy of a recent psychiatrist's report. In such a case it would be a nonsense to call upon this section to enforce the provision by the court of a further report.
That is one sort of instance concerning "the circumstances of the case". Another one is where the accused person, who has now been convicted, has already spent some time in custody on remand and it is intended that there should be a nominal sentence in order that he may be released immediately. How nonsensical in such a situation to demand that the court obtains a medical report! The Government may think that leaving the matter to the broad wording which we have in the amendment could produce a lack of certainty in the future. I merely throw in that suggestion and do so quite humbly.
Obviously, one welcomes the spirit behind Amendment No. 10. However, what is lacking in that amendment is that it does not enable the court to direct how the information will be provided. I should have thought that it would be a practical necessity to ensure that the court could demand the attendance of a representative of the authority. The other comment I should like to make is that it does not extend Section 39 of the 1983 Act to the use by the courts of their remand powers, as is the case under Sections 35 and 36, where it is accepted that hospitals—this is a point often and correctly made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—are often unwilling to make beds available. For that reason, the amendment as it stands may appear to be lacking in practical weapons for practical enforcement.
Having said that, I make these observations purely with the intention—that is, unless the Minister has some comments to make which show that what I have suggested is quite unnecessary; a procedure he uses very often but with the greatest courtesy—in order to try to strengthen amendments which are obviously

571
desirable in so far as they go some distance. The Minister has carefully considered what was said during previous stages of the Bill from these Benches, from the Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who expressed his gratitude in words which I shall always remember.
5 p.m
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have a very simple point to make about Amendment No. 6. It is not in contra diction to anything that has been said thus far. It is possible that the courts may have changed in character since I sat as a magistrate; indeed, I appreciate the fact that I may be out of date. However, as regards a medical report which had been submitted, I was always somewhat concerned that when the expert concerned was put in the witness box he could often, in my view, be bullied by the defendant's counsel if he did not like the report. In other words, the expert could be persuaded to say that the defendant was not quite as mentally disturbed as had been thought.
It seems to me that there is no protection in such a situation because subsection (5) of Amendment No. 6 says that the,
"'medical report' means a report as to an offender's mental condition made or submitted orally or in writing by a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved".
Does that mean that if it is in writing it will not be questioned, but that if it comes before the court it will be?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is in cracking form, if I may say so, this afternoon. He said that he only made observations in a stance of great humility and that if I thought that what he said was unnecessary then I had merely to tell him so. I should stress that whatever the noble Lord says it is never unnecessary; indeed, it is always of enormous interest and a great delight to hear. I can assure him that I entirely accept the fact that what he said this afternoon was said in an effort to be helpful.
That is usually the stance that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, adopts. However, I thought that he was a little unfair when he said that my noble friend Lord Mottistone had thanked me with an element of surprise in his voice. I hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would be present—indeed I see that he is now in his place—because I thought that he might have choked just a little when my noble friend thanked me for the concessions which we were able to make. The noble and learned Lord said that I sometimes made helpful remarks which were not reflected in the concessions in the amend vents. These amendments are all concessions to my noble friends and to other noble Lords who have spoken on the matter. Therefore, I think that it was not so much with surprise but with elation that my noble friend Lord Mottistone spoke.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned about the exemption in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 6. I shall certainly look again at the points he made. In my view we need a certain amount of flexibility; for example, where a report is already
572
available. I think that the present wording covers the noble Lord's concern. However, as I said, I shall certainly look at it again to see whether it should be improved—that is, if improvement on anything the Government do is possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred to the fact that there was no power to direct how the information would be provided in Amendment No. 10. I believe that it is agreed that the amendment is a useful advance. I am just a little wary of adding yet more prescriptions as to how things should be done, down to the last detail. However, those are my initial reactions and I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was concerned about expert witnesses being bullied by defence counsel. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is sitting in his seat. I am sure that he thinks that witnesses would never be bullied by defence counsel—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: —but I am not sure whether witnesses would share the same view. In any event, whatever view one holds, it is not a matter for the Bill. I have no doubt that those noble Lords who are members of the Bar will pass that point down to their colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to the duty psychiatrist schemes. Clearly these have been of enormous help. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the amendments would require a universal duty to provide duty psychiatrist schemes. I do not think that that is necessarily the implication of the amendments. We are talking about a situation where, in any case, a pre-sentence report on the offender will be prepared. That process is bound to take a few days and the offender will probably be remanded either on bail or in custody. The psychiatric report could be prepared in that interval. However, I accept the fact that the duty psychiatrist schemes have been most helpful. I am most grateful to noble Lords for having given these amendments such a welcome.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Additional requirements in the case of mentally disordered offenders
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in any case where section 3(1) above applies and the offender is or appears to be mentally disordered, the court shall obtain and consider a medical report before passing a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a medical report.
(3) Before passing a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law on an offender who is or appears to be mentally disordered, a court shall consider—

(a) any information before it which relates to his mental condition (whether given in a medical report, a pre-sentence report or otherwise); and

(b) the likely effect of such a sentence on that condition and on any treatment which may be available for it.

(4) No custodial sentence which is passed in a case to which subsection (1) above applies shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to comply with that subsection, but any court on an appeal against such a sentence—

(a) shall obtain a medical report if none was obtained by the court below; and

(b) shall consider any such report obtained by it or by that court.

(5) In this section—
"duly approved", in relation to a registered medical practitioner, means approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act") by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder;
"medical report" means a report as to an offender's mental condition made or submitted orally or in writing by a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the generality of section 3 above.").
Clause 16 [Increase of certain maxima]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 11, line 42, leave out ("or disobediences").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 42 and 42A. On Report I undertook to consider how we might best meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others about the effect of a statutory minimum unit value of £4 in the unit fine scheme for very low income offenders. Amendment No. 9 provides a helpful and sensible solution to the difficulties identified. It allows the courts sufficient flexibility to take account of the circumstances of such offenders where there is a need to do so.
As I said during our earlier debate on this matter, in my view the problem arises where the £4 minimum results in a fine which the offender could pay off only over an excessive period of time. Such circumstances might arise where the offender is given a very stiff fine of, say, 40 units. A £4 minimum unit value would result in a fine of £160. If the offender has no savings to pay the fine and can afford to pay only £2 a week out of his or her income, it would take the offender 80 weeks to discharge the fine. That is clearly undesirable. Such a large fine might also arise where the offender is fined for a number of different offences on the same occasion.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause therefore allows a court to remit the whole or part of a unit fine where the value of the unit has been set at the statutory minimum and the court considers that that results in a fine that could not be paid by the offender within 12 months without causing undue hardship. The court can remit the fine at any stage but must inquire into the offender's means—that is, his or her savings as well as income—before doing so. That provision avoids the unit fine scheme falling into disrepute because very low, derisory fines are set. However, it provides a safeguard to ensure that, where the offender is genuinely poor, unjust financial demands are not placed on him or her.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause clarifies and replaces the existing provision in Clause 17(9). This allows a court to remit all or part of a fine in
574
circumstances in which insufficient information was available to the court at the time of sentencing to make a precise determination of the value of the unit and, in the light of better information about the offender's disposable weekly income, the court judges that it would be unjust to enforce a fine based on the original determination.
Amendment No. 8 is consequential on the new clause. Amendments Nos. 7, 42 and 42A correct a difficulty that arises in the application of the unit fine provisions to financial penalties imposed for failure to comply with a court order under Section 63 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Special arrangements exist for the enforcement of such penalties which render the unit fine scheme inappropriate. Amendments Nos. 7 and 42 therefore remove those penalties from the scope of the scheme. Amendment No. 42A is merely consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I greet the amendment with elation and gratitude. Remarks have been made about the procedures of the House. I am not sure that they need amendment. In this case they have worked admirably. This matter was mentioned on Second Reading. It was resisted, I thought unreasonably, in Committee. On Report reason seemed to enter into the Government's mind and they proffered hope. The hope has been realised on Third Reading. That is a paradigm of the good workings of the procedures of the House. I congratulate and thank the Minister.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. When we first discussed this matter, as he said, a number of us were worried by the Government's attitude. All the more so because it flew in the face of the views of magistrates' courts' clerks in the experimental areas. A number of us found it difficult to understand why the Government did not accept their advice. Nevertheless, the matter has been discussed on the Floor of the House and we had some informal discussions with the Minister, which I welcomed. It is right to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on behalf of the whole House. Without his persistence, we should not have had the amendment today.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, how right is the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to extend those congratulations and to say that they come from the whole House. We are consistently indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. He talked about this matter being a victory for the procedures of the House. We are acquainted with the procedures of the House, which are invariably Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. The procedures are all right. What is wrong is that, despite all those stages, the Government still hold firmly to a view of which some of us disapprove. It is an occasion to say thank you also to the Minister for removing to a great degree the concern expressed at other stages of the Bill. I echo that gratitude from these Benches.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to your Lordships for the gratitude for the amendments which has been expressed and for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, approves of them. He said that 111; agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that this was a victory for the procedures of the House. Of course it is. I agree with him. That is because the procedures of the House have worked as they are supposed to. An amendment was tabled in Committee and resisted for good reasons. Your Lordships did not like that and so an amendment was tabled on Report. The Government considered it further. Your Lordships did not table an amendment on Third Reading. It was the Government who tabled the amendment on Third Reading. That is what Third Reading is for.
What I was complaining about earlier was that other noble Lords tabled amendments in Committee and on Report and then again on Third Reading. In other words they were having three bites of the cherry. That seems to me —did the noble Lord, Lord Harris, say "shame"?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I made what I intended to be a high quality joke. I was saying that there could not be much of the cherry left if three people had bitten into it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we did not hear the high quality joke because the noble Lord does not normally make them—in debate, at least. I am glad that it was of such a high quality that he was able to repeat it to us. That has now completely distracted me from what I was saying, which was to thank your Lordships for approving of the amendment.
Clause 17 [Fixing of certain fines by reference to units]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 17, leave out subsection (9).
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Remission of fines fixed under section 17
(".—(1) This section applies where, in the case of a fine the amount of which has been fixed by a magistrates' court under section 17 above, the determination of the offender's disposable weekly income—

(a) would have been of a lesser amount but for subsection (5) (a) of that section; or

(b) was made by virtue of subsection (8) of that section.

(2) In a case falling within subsection (1) (a) above, the court may, on inquiring into the offender's means or at a hearing under section 82(5) of the 1980 Act (issue of warrant of commitment for default), remit the whole or any part of the fine if the court considers that its payment by the offender within twelve months of the imposition of the fine would cause him undue hardship.
(3) In a case falling within subsection (1) (b) above, the court may, on inquiring into the offender's disposable weekly income or at such a hearing as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, remit the whole or any part of the fine if the court thinks It just to do so having regard—

(a) to the amount of that income as determined by the court under this subsection in accordance with rules made by the Lord Chancellor; and

(b) if applicable, to the provisions of subsection (2) above.

(4) Where the court remits the whole or part of fine under subsection (2) or (3) above after a term of imprisonment has been fixed under the said section 82(5), it shall also reduce the term by an amount which bears the same proportion to the whole term as the amount remitted bears to the whole fine or, as the case may be, shall remit the whole term.
(5) In calculating the reduction in a term of imprisonment required by subsection (4) above, any fraction of a day shall be left out of account.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
Treatment of offenders under 1983 Act
(".—(1) After section 39 of the 1983 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Information to facilitate guardianship orders.
39A. Where a court is minded to make a guardianship order in respect of any offender, it may request the local social services authority for the area in which the offender resides or last resided, or any other local social services authority that appears to the court to be appropriate—

(a) to inform the court whether it or any other person approved by it is willing to receive the offender into guardianship; and

(b) if so, to give such information as it reasonably can about how it or the other person could be expected to exercise in relation to the offender the powers conferred by section 40(2) below;
and that authority shall comply with any such request."

(2) After section 54 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Reduction of period for making hospital orders.
54A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order reduce the length of the periods mentioned in sections 37(4) and (5) and 38(4) above.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make such consequential amendments of sections 40(1) and 44(3) above as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient."
(3) In section 143(2) of that Act (general provisions as to regulations, orders and rules), after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or any order made under section 54A above".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved amendment No. 11:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1961 to facilitate the transfer of prisoners
. In section 26(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the words "his sentence shall be treated" there shall be substituted the words "his sentence may be treated".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I explained the background and intent of the amendment at earlier stages of the Bill. I do not intend to repeat myself now. On Report the Minister was kind enough to say:
"I accept that the current arrangements sometimes create difficulties for the families of prisoners who have to travel a long way to visit … We are considering further what can be done … We hope to conclude our consultations very shortly".—[Official Report, 20/5/91; col. 32.]
That was a positive statement, given that we are considering the hardship imposed on these families living 500 miles or sometimes more away from relatives imprisoned in England. Each visit thus requires a round journey of 1,000 miles or more, with many changes of transport and overnight stops. The

577
effort and cost involved in such visits over the period of a 15 or 20-year sentence almost defies the imagination.
My intention therefore in moving the amendment today was to draw from the Government their ideas on mitigation of this hardship and on the better maintaining of family relationships. As it happens, the noble Earl wrote to me in a letter dated 3rd June. Perhaps I may quote from it. He says:
"We have decided, therefore, in consultation with colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland, that the arrangements governing such movements should now be reviewed comprehensively. This will provide the opportunity to consider appropriate ways in which inmates might be afforded greater access to their families and to their home communities".
This review will be undertaken by officials from all three departments and will look at the statutory and other provisions which govern transfers.
"Your helpful suggestions about the possible increased use of temporary transfer powers will also be fully considered.
We expect the outcome of the review to be available by the autumn and I can assure you that its recommendations will be given early and careful consideration".
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to confirm that when he used the word "movements" he meant both the transfer of prisoners and visits by the families to people in England.
In practice, the effect of the letter means that we shall probably have to wait six months or a year for major improvements. I therefore wish to invite the Government to bring in minor and transitional improvements now, without further delay. For example, the practice could be avoided of moving prisoners in such a way that their relatives arrive at a prison only to find that the prisoner has gone, that he has been shifted elsewhere. I beg to move Amendment No. 11 standing in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is an example of the high quality joke of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, backfiring. The amendment was put down at Committee and Report stages and evidently there is plenty of the cherry left for the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to pick at on Third Reading. He has spoken and written to me and to my right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold. He knows our concern about the complexity of the problems involved, not least because they cut across historically different jurisdictions. As he said, I wrote to him to explain the position. The noble Lord knows that although the Government have sympathy for his intentions and we share his concern for the welfare of inmates and their families, we do not see the amendment as a suitable vehicle for bringing about change. In our view the amendment would introduce an unnatural and unworkable mix of the present distinct and separate statutory and discretionary powers exercised by Ministers in administering prisoners within their jurisdictions. This would only create confusion both for the administrators and for the inmates concerned.
I was able to advise the House when this matter was last considered that my right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold was considering further the scope for
578
alleviating the problems caused to inmates and their families by the operation of the 1961 Act. I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to learn that, in consultation with colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland, we have decided to instigate a comprehensive review of the present arrangements which will be able to take full account of the problems to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. I confirm that they will cover both problems about which he is concerned.
The review will be carried out by senior officials from the Home Office in consultation with their counterparts in the Scottish Office Home and Health Department and the Northern Office. It will consider the present statutory and discretionary arrangements for transfers and make recommendations to facilitate these, if necessary by considering the need for any legislative changes. Detailed arrangements for the conduct of the review will need to be considered in consultation with Scottish and Northern Ireland colleagues, but it is intended that the results of the review should be available by the autumn.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I regret a little that the noble Earl should find it necessary to say that I am picking at the cherry. After all, we are considering a major human problem, even if it does not affect a large number of people. What is more, the problem has been outstanding for 15 or more years. I believe I am entitled to ask the Government to press on with their consideration at the maximum possible speed and not to elaborate the matter by bringing in Scotland because there are so few transfers between Scotland and England. If the noble Earl wishes to intervene I shall give way.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the description "picking at the cherry" was not supposed to reflect the importance of the problem, but merely the conduct of the proceedings of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I accept that rather barbed reassurance and in doing so also beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Savings for mitigation and mentally disordered offenders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 20, line 5, leave out ("Mental Health Act 1983") and insert ("1983 Act").
Clause 28 [Effect of previous convictions]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 20, line 11, leave out ("or any response of his to previous sentences").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is the first and only possible bite at the cherry. The noble Earl knows why I could not put the proposal forward at Committee stage. He also knows how an assignation—temporary though it was—frustrated my attempt to put it forward at Report. This is my only opportunity and I hope that the raised stick will not be levelled at me. I also hope that in the process of

579
having the cherry in this manner I shall not choke, as the noble Earl thought I had done (although I had not) in regard to one of the previous amendments.
I seek to persuade your Lordships that there should not be removed from the sentencer, when considering whether or not a sentence merits custody, the response of the offender to his previous sentences. This is no judicial philosophy that I am airing for the first or last time. I seek to support what Parliament itself provided as recently as three years ago in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Section 123(3), (4A), dealing with young offenders, provides that an offender qualifies for a custodial sentence if—and I shall read only paragraph (a):
"he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them".
Parliament therefore thought that it was a relevant sentencing factor that needed to be spelt out in terms that a failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and an inability to do so justifies a custodial sentence.
Now we have a total reversal: the sentencer is not allowed to have regard to that. The reaction of the intelligent layman—if I am allowed so to describe him —was provided by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on 26th March this year on the first day in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill. He said:
"Those of us who work directly or indirectly with offenders are closely interested in how they react to sentences. It seems to me, at least, a bit like telling a doctor that he may consider that the patient has had a disease in the past but may not consider what response he has made to the treatment he was given for that disease".—[Official Report, 26/3/91; col. 995.]
The way in which the public will react to this measure, was commented on in an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, in the debate on 16th April on the second day of the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said:
"Here at last is a Bill which is going to stop that eternal practice and make it perfectly proper to impose community sentence, not prison sentences, over and over again".— [Official Report, 16/4/91; col. 1386.]
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, with his knowledge of the problems experienced on the magistrates' bench replied at col. 1387:
"The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to people going to prison over and over again. However, there are some villains who continue to do the same thing over and over again and are a danger to the public. I dread to think what the public w mild say if such offenders were just given more and more community service which they failed to carry out and could not go to prison".
That is one of the examples that I mentioned when we were debating Amendment No. 1A of the Government requiring the sentencer to sit in blinkers. This is one aspect of reality which Parliament is insisting upon, and will no doubt seek to justify, as it is a reversal of the policy laid down in a section of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to which I have already referred which makes it, to this extent, impossible to bring reality to bear. That is all I am seeking to do. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I hope the House will resist the amendment. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to permit the courts to regard the offence with which they are
580
dealing as a more serious offence because the offender has failed to respond to previous sentences which have been passed upon him; that is, the amendment seeks to make the offence before the court a more serious one. It is not a question of how the courts are dealing with the sentence before them at that moment. The amendment states that the offence can be looked upon as a more serious one, and that therefore a custodial sentence would be justified when the gravity of that offence would not justify such a sentence.
I suggest that the amendment simply seeks to undermine the whole philosophy of this Bill. It is trying to maintain the status quo. The noble and learned Lord is a frustrated biter of this cherry. I hope I may describe him in that way. He quoted a noble Lord who referred to accused persons as villains. I far prefer Amendment No. 14 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. That amendment seems to me to be quite unexceptional and to fill the purpose of the Bill. It is unexceptional because it refers back to the seriousness of the offence which is at the very root of the philosophy of the Bill. It refers back to Clause 3(3)—which has been ignored so often in the arguments used by those who wish to maintain the status quo—where all along aggravating factors have been permissible as being relevant to the matter of seriousness.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 14 states:
"Where any aggravating factors of an offence are disclosed by the circumstances of other offences committed by the offender, nothing in this Part shall prevent the court from taking those factors into account for the purpose of forming an opinion as to the seriousness of the offence".
That amendment seems to me to fill the purpose of the Bill. I believe Amendment No. 13 should be resisted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I fully understand and sympathise with the purpose of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but the problem is that it runs counter to Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 14 goes a long way to meet the objections which have been raised on this matter. Amendment No. 13 also runs counter to what I understand to be a central concept of this Bill. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, says the measure in the Bill makes a court sit in blinkers, I wonder whether it really does. I seek help on this matter from other noble Lords. Admittedly, the court may not have regard to the response in this context but surely—I seek the assistance of any noble Lord, in particular that of my noble friend the Minister on this matter—the proposed subsection (2) in Amendment No. 14 allows the court to have regard to previous convictions, as distinct from the response to those previous convictions, as an aggravating factor where appropriate. Therefore I do not believe that the court is totally blinkered.
The other point that I seek help on relates to factors to be taken into consideration. Can those factors to be taken into consideration be dealt with under the terms of the proposed subsection (2) of Amendment No. 14? Those do not relate strictly to previous sentences; they are previous offences for which the accused is asking to be sentenced. I am a little confused at the moment as to whether those factors may be taken into account

581
under the proposed subsection (2) of Amendment No. 14 in its construction setting in the Bill as a whole. I seek assurance from any noble Lord that that is the case. As regards factors to be taken into consideration, one does not take into account in sentencing those offences to which there is a plea of guilty which have no relationship to the offence with which the offender has been convicted or to which he has pleaded. However, what happens with offences that are of the same nature?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, we shall shortly reach Amendment No. 15A which stands in my name. That is an amendment to Clause 30 and it deals specifically with offences to be taken into consideration. It might be more helpful to wait until we reach that amendment as the matter is dealt with specifically under that amendment. No doubt we shall have to study Clause 30 in relation to that matter. The amendment relates to subsection (2) (b).
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am fully content to leave any matter over to a subsequent stage. If it is dealt with at this stage, assuming that TICs may be taken into account in one way or another where appropriate, I for my part would prefer Amendment No. 14. For that reason, and the other reasons, I would reject the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise to support the opposition to the amendment as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I hope that the Government will resist the amendment. It would allow courts to regard an offence as more serious because of the offender's response to previous sentences. That would mean that a court could pass a custodial sentence on grounds of seriousness for an offence whose gravity would not otherwise justify custody if the offender had failed to respond to previous non-custodial penalties.
However one looks at the noble and learned Lord's amendment, it would clearly seriously undermine the Bill's emphasis on matching sentences to the seriousness of the offence rather than to the offender's previous record. That runs counter to the whole thrust of the Bill and we could not support it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find myself in support of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. If one is considering what is an appropriate sentence to impose upon anybody it seems to me that the response of that person to previous sentences is relevant and should not be excluded as the Bill in its present form suggests. After all, if one is considering whether or not a custodial sentence is necessary it is surely relevant to observe whether other and lesser sentences on that particular individual have been effective. If they have not been effective that is surely a matter at least to be taken into consideration in deciding to impose a custodial sentence.
582
When an amendment of this sort is moved by someone with the vast experience of these matters of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my noble friend the Minister ought to take it seriously.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I take the amendment seriously, as I do all the amendments which the noble and learned Lord has put forward. However, because one takes them seriously one is not necessarily obliged to agree with them. The noble Lord made a very pertinent point. I could not help thinking that the noble and learned Lord had had quite an interesting experience with this Bill in one way or another. He was unable to be here at Committee stage, which he told me about. He referred to the prospect of sticks, cherries and choking. He has had an assignation and has unfortunately failed to say, "not content" to an amendment. Judges normally have a very wide experience of life. The higher up the judicial ladder one goes the greater one's experience becomes. It is interesting to see that the noble and learned Lord's experience of the procedures of the House has been widened during the course of the Bill.
At an earlier stage we discussed Amendment No. 1 in conjunction with the noble and learned Lord's Amendment No. 1A, at which stage I was able to refer to our Amendment No. 14. We discussed the principle of whether or not the courts should be able to take account of previous convictions in deciding the appropriate sentence for the offence before the court in the context of our consideration of Amendment No. 14. As I explained then, I do not believe that the mere fact of the offender having previous convictions should lead necessarily to a heavier sentence. The circumstances of previous offences may point to aggravating factors and Clause 28 now makes it quite clear how those are to be dealt with. However, in general, we would wish to avoid sentencing on record.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that he preferred my amendment. He was concerned about whether subsection (2) allows the courts to have regard to previous offences as aggravating factors. My noble friend was quite right. The circumstances of other offences can be taken into account as aggravating factors. I can confirm that that also applies to offences which the offender asks to be taken into consideration—which are the TICs.
The point to which the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, directed our attention is whether the offender's response to a previous sentence should affect the sentence which he receives for a new offence. The principle which is enunciated in the Bill is that as a general rule the sentence for each offence should be that which is commensurate with its seriousness. An important strand of the policy is that community penalties will be punishments in their own right. They will not be what used to be known as alternatives to custody, namely, a second chance to go straight, failing which the offender would receive a custodial sentence. Each community penalty includes restrictions on the offender's liberty. It is those restrictions which are the punishment for the offence. Once the offender has taken his medicine, whether it is

583
in the form of a custodial sentence or a community sentence, that ought to be the end of the matter so far as concerns that particular offence.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was concerned about what happens when people do not respond to previous community penalties. The idea of increasing the penalty for a new offence because the offender has somehow failed to respond to a previous community penalty is incompatible with the approach to sentencing. It is, I fear, another version of the practice which has been called sentencing on record to which I referred earlier.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out at Report that Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, as amended by Section 123 of the Criminal Justice: Act 1988, allows a young offender to receive a custodial sentence if:
"he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them".
We have not translated that provision into the Bill because, as I have explained, it should be the offence which the offender has committed rather than how he has responded to previous sentences which ought to determine the sentence which he is to receive.
It is interesting to see that in interpreting the provision the Court of Appeal has taken the view that failure to respond to non-custodial sentences in the past should not necessarily be taken as meaning that an offender will not respond to them if they are imposed again. Clause 28(1) tries to reflect the Court of Appeal view on the matter.
The noble and learned Lord is concerned that courts should have proper powers to deal with offenders who receive community sentences but who then either fail to carry them out properly or commit further offences. I agree, but I suggest that the right way to achieve that is not by increasing the penalty for the new offence. The new offence ought to be punished according to its seriousness. If there has been a breach of the requirements of an earlier community sentence that breach should be dealt with under the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Breaches of community sentences can be punished under Schedule 2 by means of a fine, a community service order or an attendance centre order. The order which has been breached can be revoked and the offender can be sentenced afresh in any manner in which he would originally have been sentenced. If the offender wilfully and persistently breaches the requirements of a community sentence, that can be treated as a refusal to consent to the order concerned, making the offender liable to receive a custodial sentence in accordance with Clause 1(3) of the Bill.
Therefore, the courts will not lack powers to deal with offenders who breach the terms of their orders. The commission of further offences during the currency of a community sentence is a different matter. A further offence will not in itself be a breach of the terms of the order, but the offender can receive a suitable penalty for that offence.
I hope that from what I have said the noble and learned Lord will see that the Bill already gives the courts ample powers to deal with offenders who fail to comply with the requirements of the community
584
sentences that they are given. I hope that he will therefore find that the Bill is suitable in its present form.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will confirm one point. I believe that he said that, if a community punishment was not carried out properly, an offender could be awarded a further community service punishment. Is there much likelihood that that would be carried out well either?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the community sentence is breached, action could be taken in respect of that breach. If the offender then commits another offence, the sentence which is given for that offence will be the one appropriate to that offence.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may reply with three distinct points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that if my amendment went through—I quote his words—it would undermine the whole philosophy of the Bill. That is an odd statement to make when one bears in mind that Parliament specifically provided for what I seek only three years ago in relation to young offenders in an Act which was designed essentially to try to keep them out of prison. It was not merely a matter of the judge having power if there was a failure to respond to previous sentences; Parliament provided that an offender qualified for custodial sentence. I venture to suggest that, if the amendment strikes at the whole philosophy of the Bill, there is something deeply suspect about that philosophy. I suggest that it aims to keep out of prison those whom the public would in many respects expect to be protected from as regards further offences.
Secondly, we have yet to debate Amendment No. 14. I have not touched on it because I like to keep some of my powder dry, but it does not in terms or by implication give any entitlement to have regard to a failure to respond to previous sentences. In fact, quite the contrary is true because subsection (2) limits aggravating factors to circumstances of other offences committed by the offender. The failure to respond to previous sentences is in no way mitigated or permitted under subsection (2), so the answer offered by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is no answer at all. The answer which was sought by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is that, as the Bill now stands, a failure to respond to previous sentences cannot in any way be used to reflect upon the seriousness of the offence or offences before the courts.
Finally, I ask your Lordships to consider what the public will make of this situation which applies to all those blinkers that we place upon the judiciary. In this case there stand side by side to be sentenced one man with no previous convictions, asking for no offences to be taken into consideration, and therefore the question of response to previous sentences is irrelevant; and another man with a string of previous convictions. You have also a man who has asked for a large number of offences to be taken into consideration and a man who has been treated over and over again unsuccessfully with non-custodial

585
sentences. Both their offences are to be treated as being of the like seriousness. I submit to your Lordships that that is a farce and it should not be permitted.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 28 and insert the following new clause:
Effect of previous convictions etc
(".—(1) An offence shall not be regarded as more serious for the purposes of any provision of this Part by reason of any previous convictions of the offender or any failure of his to respond to previous sentences.
(2) Where any aggravating factors of an offence are disclosed by the circumstances of other offences committed by the offender, nothing in this Part shall prevent the court from taking those factors into account for the purpose of forming an opinion as to the seriousness of the offence.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 14 when speaking to Amendment No. 1A moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I explained why in those circumstances we considered that Amendment No. 14 was to be preferred to his amendment. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by repeating all the arguments that I gave then. I merely say that the courts might have some difficulty in interpreting the expression
"a series of similar offences".
There seems to be scope there for appeals where an offender who was sentenced on that basis disputed whether the offences concerned were similar or not.
I merely remind noble Lords of the main points of the amendment. The first is to make Clause 28 clearer in relation to the exclusion of the practice of sentencing on record and the second is to make clear nevertheless that circumstances of other offences can be taken into account as aggravating factors. That goes quite a long way to meet the noble and learned Lord's concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with great respect I venture to submit that there is clearly on the face of it a contradiction between subsections (1) and (2). New subsection (1) states in terms —I leave out the response to previous sentences:
"An offence shall not be regarded as more serious for the purposes of any provision of this Part by reason of any previous convictions."
That is clear and unequivocal. We then go on to new subsection (2) and say that previous offences can be considered as aggravating factors. That is a conflict between new subsections (1) and (2). At least the existing clause began by saying
"Subject to subsection (2) below",
but this answer to everyone's prayer does not even contain that provision. There is therefore a clear conflict and the new clause cannot achieve what the noble Earl says it achieves.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hesitate to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord when it comes to interpretation of a statute in regard to which he has an enviable reputation, but is what he said a moment ago correct? As I read subsection (1) of the amendment, it was perfectly clear that the one thing to which you could not go back was the conviction. The other thing to which you could not go back was a failure to
586
respond to a previous sentence after conviction. I read subsection (2) of the amendment as dealing not with the conviction as such or the behaviour after sentence, but with particularly aggravating factors of an offence, not in regard to the sentence, the conviction or the response to previous sentences. Perhaps I may make a personal point. I wish that there was some definition of what might be deemed to be aggravating factors, but, having said that, new subsection (2) definitely relates to the factors of an offence and does not relate to the conviction, the sentence or the reaction to a sentence.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help me. Is he concluding from subsection (2) that one can have regard to the offender's previous record in deciding on the seriousness of the offence by reason of that clause?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my answer is that the way in which I read it is that one can look at the circumstances of other offences committed by the offender but only when there are aggravating factors of an offence which are disclosed by the circumstances of the other offences.
Perhaps I put forward a ridiculous example, but suppose that on the previous occasion of an offence, while a man was being sentenced he struck out and hit the learned judge who was sentencing him. That, I imagine, would be an aggravating factor which related to a previous offence, but it has nothing to do with the conviction as such or the reaction to the sentence, which is what the noble and learned Lord prayed in aid when he moved Amendment No. 13. I may be right or wrong but that is how I read the two subsections and did not therefore find them in conflict.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for explaining his view of the amendment. It is in fact the same as mine. I hesitate to take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on a subject on which he is such an expert and I do so in a humble way. However, he said that there was a conflict between subsections (1) and (2). I do not think that there is a conflict because Clause 14(1) states:
"An offence shall not be regarded as more serious for the purposes of any provision of this Part by reason of any previous convictions of the offender or any failure of his to respond to previous sentences."
Subsection (2) states:
"Where any aggravating factors of an offence are disclosed by the circumstances of other offences."
That does not refer to the convictions. Subsection (1) refers to the convictions; subsection (2) refers to other offences. I believe that that is the reason why it is perfectly possible, when sentencing, for the aggravating factors of other offences to be taken into account.
Clause 30 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("Mental Health Act 1983") and insert ("1983 Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 15A:
Page 21, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this was the amendment to which I referred when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was kind enough to allow me to intervene. Perhaps noble Lords would be kind enough to go back to Clause 1(2), which is the subsection that places the embargo on aggregation of more than one other offence:
"Subject to subsection (3) below, the court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion—

(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence."

One inquires: What does "one other offence associated with it" mean? Turning to page 21 of the Bill, at Clause 30(2) one reads:
"For the purposes of this Part, an offence is associated with another if—

(a) the offender is convicted of it in the proceedings in which he is convicted of the other offence"—

there is the multiple offender—
"or (although convicted of it in earlier proceedings) is sentenced for it at the same time as he is sentenced for that offence".
A typical example is where an offender pleads to three out of 10 charges and fights the other seven. Then comes paragraph (b); it is that paragraph which I invite our Lordships to excise:
"[or] the offender admits the commission of it"—
the word is in the singular—
"in the proceedings in which he is sentenced for the other offence and requests the court to take it into consideration in sentencing him for that offence".
So the position is quite simple. If one aggregates two offences, that is the end of the matter; one cannot take into consideration any outstanding offences for the purpose of considering the seriousness of the offence in order to consider whether a custodial sentence is appropriate. If there is no aggregation, one can take one of the assumed, hypothetical 50 or 60 outstanding offences and one only.
I invite the House to say that such a piece of blinkering—it is yet another example—is quite uncalled for. An accused person voluntarily going through the procedure of signing the appropriate document and having the matter explained to him wants a clean sheet and therefore says to the judge, "Here are outstanding offences which I admit. When you sentence me, which means when you decide how serious my offence is and what justice demands, I want you to take them into consideration". As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said in a much cited case in the sentencing encyclopaedia, this is a very desirable procedure for the purpose of the administration of justice; it clears up outstanding offences and enables the accused to start with a clean sheet.
When he makes the offer now, the judge has to say, "I cannot take into account 49 of your offences or even all 50 of them"—or even one of them—if he is going through the process of aggregating two offences. He has to say, "I cannot take them into account in considering the seriousness of your offence for the purpose of deciding upon whether or not you should have a custodial sentence".
I respectfully submit that that is wholly unjustified. What is one seeking to achieve'? Is the judge to say in terms: "Since the Criminal Justice Act of 1991 came into force, I am not prepared to take into account in considering the seriousness of your offence for the purpose of deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence more than one offence. You can offer me one but the rest will have to remain unresolved"? Or is he to say: "Since I am aggregating two offences, you yourself even cannot offer me one; so I cannot take them into account"? I venture to submit that there is not the slightest justification at all for that. There is no jurisprudence which indicates that the courts are in any way going wrong in adopting the current procedure. It has been expressed by no less a person than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as being a highly desirable process. What on earth are we trying to do? That is why I have raised the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may be surprised that I support the amendment. However, I support it on totally different grounds from those upon which he moved it.
The noble and learned Lord and the Minister will be aware that one of the arguments raised during the course of discussion on the Bill is that there is a difference not only in degree but in kind between a conviction and an offence which is being taken into consideration. Those of us who have taken part in debates on the Bill from the beginning will know of that argument raised by this side of the House. While one can aggregate a previous conviction if it is associated with the conviction for which somebody is being sentenced, one should not be able to aggregate an offence which is being taken into consideration with the offence for which the person is being sentenced.
The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord would have precisely that effect. I hope that it is not too much of a surprise to him that therefore we support his amendment although on totally different grounds from those on which he moved it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I always like to come to the assistance of the noble Earl. It is some indication of the complexity of the Bill that these different views are being put forward on one amendment.
I suggest that when the noble and learned Lord talks about "blinkering" he really means establishing a new approach to sentencing. That is the effect of all the clauses. There seems still a confusion between Clauses 1 and 2 in the noble and learned Lord's mind. With reference to Clause 1, his picture of an accused person putting forward—to use his phrase—offences that he wants taken into consideration in order that the court may justify giving him a custodial sentence seems completely to confuse the issue. Of course an accused person will not do that at that stage. The last thing that he will wish to do is to put forward a TIC in order to enable the court to justify sending him to prison.

589
Clause 2 is phrased differently. The accused person will put forward his TICs at the moment of sentence. Clause 2 states:
"The custodial sentence shall be for such term … as in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it."
That is different phraseology.
Surely the purpose of the Bill is to try to stop putting forward a series of TICs and to encourage the prosecuting authority to put the offences into the indictment. When the offences are put into the indictment, the appropriate wording is in Clause 30, "Interpretation of Part I":
"an offence is associated with another if the offender is convicted of it in the proceedings of which he is convicted of the other offence".
Therefore if it is properly put in the indictment it will be dealt with properly. One other TIC can be regarded by the court, and only one.
That is a new approach for sentencing. It does not seem to me to raise any great problem once one understands that the Government are trying to establish a completely different 4approach to sentencing. It is described by the noble and learned Lord repeatedly as "blinkered". I hope that the amendment will be resisted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, as best I can. If the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, were accepted, it would make it almost impossible to continue with the valuable system of enabling courts to take account of offences which they are asked to take into consideration. The noble and learned Lord seeks to remove subsection (2) (b) of Clause 30, which states:
"The offender admits the commission of it in the proceedings in which he is sentenced for the other offence and requests the court to take it into consideration in sentencing him for that offence."
Clause 30(2) states,
"For the purposes of this Part, an offence is associated with another if."
That describes an associated offence. I believe that the noble and learned Lord is wrong in saying that the use of the word "it" reduces the number of offences to only one. The word "it" explains the offence which is associated with another. If the noble and learned Lord considers Clause 2, it is quite right that in deciding whether to give a custodial sentence only one additional offence, including one which the offender asks to be taken into consideration, can be taken into account. That is only in deciding whether to give a custodial sentence. Once it has been decided that a custodial sentence is correct, when considering the length of sentence, under Clause 2 all the offences of which the offender has been convicted or which he asks to be taken into consideration can be considered. I do not believe that there is any conflict. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has considered that "it" refers only to one sentence when it refers to the description of an associated offence.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that a person is being invited to put forward his outstanding offences or seeks to do so in order that the court should put him inside is absurd. What the accused seeks, after the trial and a series of convictions, is to achieve a clean sheet.
I refer to a few words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in a case in 1973. I invite your Lordships to observe them. In R. v. Walsh the noble and learned Lord (then Lord Justice Scarman), in giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), referring to offences to be taken into consideration, said:
"The practice is beneficial to the administration of justice and beneficial to the accused man personally. It is beneficial to the administration of justice in that it enables a number of matters which might otherwise have to come to trial to be taken into consideration in a proper case when a man is being sentenced. In fact it removes a work load from the overburdened system of administration of criminal justice. It is of great benefit to the accused man, because it means as a matter of agreement that after the sentence he will be able to face life freed of the threat of punishment for the offences that have been taken into consideration at his request."
As I understand the way in which the issue is put forward, henceforth a person who is being wholly articulate can say to the judge, "I have signed a statement"—and this is the procedure—"admitting that I have committed 50 offences. Now, Judge, would you be kind enough to listen very carefully, and I say this with deep respect. I don't want you to have regard to these outstanding offences when you decide whether or not to send me to prison. Don't do that; you are not allowed to do that. But once you have decided to send me to prison you can decide for how long I should go to prison in the light of the outstanding offences".
Therefore one could reach a situation where, viewed without the benefit of the new legislation, the outstanding offences would have justified in themselves a sentence of three years. However, in the light of this legislation any custody would not be permitted because one cannot take into account more than one offence in deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence. Again, I venture to suggest that that is a farce. I do not see how it will be operated because it is a matter for agreement between the judge and the accused as to whether the judge will take into account outstanding offences.
If I were a judge faced with 50 outstanding offences of some substance—but not, when taken individually, of sufficient substance to warrant a custodial sentence —such as to justify the public being protected from this clearly habitual offender, I doubt whether in future I should agree to considering the offences at all. It is again in order to attempt to seek reality that I move the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 49 [Transfer by order of certain functions to Board]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 30, line 40, leave out ("in subsection (1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. These are technical

591
drafting amendments which are consequential on the amendments made at an earlier stage on the review of life sentences. They are needed in order to ensure that the Bill leaves your Lordships' House in a technically sound state. They make no changes of substance.
The amendments are of course without prejudice to the Government's position on murder and life imprisonment as was explained on Report by my noble friend the Leader of the House. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 30, line 42, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").
Clause 50 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3l, line 15, leave out ("35(4)") and insert ("32(11)").
Clause 53 [Video recordings of testimony from child witnesses]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 33, line 5, leave out ("and proceedings in youth courts").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23. This set of amendments closes a loophole which we have identified in the Bill's provisions concerning the arrangements for the giving of evidence by children in cases which are dealt with by a youth court.
As drafted, the Bill's provisions allow for video recordings to be given as the child's evidence-in-chief and for the use of television links in cases dealt with by a youth court. But there is a right of appeal to the Crown Court against the findings of the youth court and if that right is exercised the Crown Court re-tries the case. As it stands, the Bill would not allow video recorded evidence or live television links in such a case. This is inconsistent with what the Bill provides for appeals from the Crown Court and it would undermine the objective of the provisions in the Bill to save children from the trauma of giving evidence in open court.
The proposed amendments ensure that such an eventuality does not arise by ensuring that the arrangements in Clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill concerning the giving of evidence by children will extend to appeals to the Crown Court against the findings of a youth court.
I apologise to your Lordships for bringing forward this amendment at this stage in the Bill. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will agree that this loophole ought to be closed. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 33, line 7, leave out ("and").
Page 33, line 11, at end insert ("and
(c) proceedings in youth courts for any such offence and appeals to the Crown Court arising out of such proceedings.").
Clause 54 [Further amendments of enactments relating to children's evidence]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 35, line 15, leave out from ("links)") to ("for") in line 16 and insert:

(a) for the words from "on a trial" to "1968" there shall be substituted the words "in proceedings to which subsection (1A) below applies"; and

(b)") .

Page 35, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) After that subsection there shall he inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) This subsection applies—

(a) to trials on indictment, appeals to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal and hearings of references under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968; and

(b) to proceedings in youth courts and appeals to the Crown Court arising out of such proceedings.").

Clause 55 [Attendance at court of parent or guardian]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 36, line 49, at end insert:
("(3) For the purpose of facilitating the attendance in court of parents or guardians, the youth court in each area shall hold at least one sitting fortnightly outside the times at which the court normally sits if in the opinion of the court this is justified by the number of cases where to require a parent or guardian to attend court at the times at which the court normally sits would jeopardise the employment of the parent or guardian or would be undesirable for any other reason.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment requires youth courts to hold at least one sitting a fortnight in the evening or at the weekend when it is justified by the number of cases which would be more appropriately dealt with at such times. I bring forward the amendment yet again in particular because I wonder whether my noble friend saw a report published in the Guardian on 29th May. Mr. Jonathan Caplan, chairman of the public affairs committee of the Bar Council wrote an article in which he stated that the Bar Council was setting up a committee to investigate the possibility of late night sittings. Therefore, not only Members of your Lordships' House have put forward the suggestion; members of the Bar have set up a committee.
The Magistrates' Association has agreed that such a course would be reasonable not only from the point of view of young people appearing before the court but because many magistrates would prefer an evening or Saturday morning court sitting.
Amendment No. 26 deals with fining and binding over. In my experience young people appearing before the court do not have either parent present or sometimes only the mother is present. Perhaps I may deal with the situation of a young person appearing before the court in the absence of either parent and on the assumption that Amendment No. 26 becomes part of the Bill. In such circumstances what is the magistrate to say to the child? Is he to say, "Will you please tell your mother or father that we shall not bind you over because…?" The child will not understand a word of what is being said. If the parents consider that they must attend, which would be most laudable, they will often lose their wages for that week and might even lose their jobs. Often the mother appears at court but in these changing times many more women go out

593
to work. They do so for two reasons; first, because they are needed and, secondly, because the financial situation in their homes means that they must work to pay for the mortgage, the rent and so forth. Therefore both the mother and the father will lose money and might even lose their jobs. The presence of the mother alone, the father alone and certainly the child alone does not underline the importance of the family. Such an appearance in court is a family affair and should be dealt with by the whole family.
On 21st May the Minister said that it may be difficult for his department to deal with listing. He said that listing is a judicial function. He said:
"In the light of what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, I shall look at the matter again to see whether it is possible, but my advice is that listing is a judicial function. I shall look at the point further".—[Official Report, 21/5/91; col. 154.]
If it is not possible to put this onto the face of the Bill, surely it should be possible to issue guidance on listing practice. I believe it is untenable for the Minister to suggest that the Government cannot issue guidance on listing practice. For example, in 1984 a joint circular entitled Reducing Delay in Magistrates' Courts was issued to the courts by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
This amendment is very important and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. She puts her case extremely persuasively as she did on the last occasion when we debated this matter. The Minister will probably complain and make the rather repetitive statement about the cherry, but he did undertake to look again at this matter. In the light of that situation it was obviously absolutely right for the noble Baroness to give the noble Earl an opportunity to correct the record because, as she pointed out, on the last occasion we were advised by the noble Earl:
"I was asked whether it was possible to issue guidance. There are difficulties in issuing guidance on what is listing practice". [Official Report, 21/5/91; col. 154]
We now learn that there is nothing in that argument whatever. The present Government issued a circular in 1984 dealing with questions involving listing practice. Therefore, at least the noble Earl will have an opportunity to deal with that in his reply.
I regret to say that I have said this on two previous occasions but that will not prevent me from saying it again now: this procedure is followed in Scotland without any difficulty whatever. Juvenile panels in Scotland want the attendance of both parents and so should we. In its previous form this amendment was rejected by the noble Earl on the grounds that courts would be required to meet out of hours in circumstances where there may be no business to be conducted. The noble Baroness's amendment deals with that issue by saying that the procedure should be followed only when there is such business to be conducted.
I have dealt with this matter on two previous occasions but I do not believe that we have had the advantage of a clear reply from the noble Earl. How
594
can it be right to create a situation in Scotland where both parents attend as a result of these panels meeting out of hours and yet to resist the same approach for England and Wales? Surely we wish to create a situation in which, if there are pressures upon a family and the breadwinner or winners do not wish to put their jobs at risk by attending once or sometimes more than once at the court, they should have an opportunity to attend in the evening rather than in the morning or afternoon. That seems so manifestly sensible that I find it difficult to understand why the Government have resisted it. On this occasion I hope that the noble Earl will be persuaded—particularly in the light of the undertaking which he gave to reflect on the situation—to accept this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the fact that a plea is being made from various parts of your Lordships' House will influence the Minister into giving a positive reply to this important amendment. It never does to repeat points which have been made by other speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rose with his usual alacrity and made the points which I was going to make. I do not intend to repeat those.
As regards Scotland, very often Ministers have replied that the law is different in Scotland and therefore there are reasons for Scottish law not being copied by the law which is operative south of the Tweed. This is not a question of Scottish law; it is a question of practice—a practice which is exercised in Scotland in order to see that justice is done without undue hardship being suffered by innocent parties, such as parents very often are when they attend court to speak for a child or youngster who happens to be before the court. Indeed their attendance may be required to answer questions which the court requires to be answered in order to deal properly with the youngster concerned.
This has all been said on previous occasions and I shall quote only one sentence from the Magistrates' Association which stated:
"There are occasions when parents or more realistically a single parent experiences great difficulty in attending court. The parents may have to attend on several occasions."
The Justices' Clerks' Society stated:
"We are aware from our daily experience that the repeated attendance of parents at court may jeopardise their employment."
Those words were uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and, as she knows, they are echoed by those two worthy associations which are most intimately involved. The magistrates are saying that this procedure should be followed and the justices clerks, who must make the administrative arrangements, are saying that they are prepared to make those arrangements.
If the Minister cannot accept that this amendment should be put on the face of the statute, I ask him, as he has been asked before, to give an undertaking to the House that he will see to it that a guidance circular will be issued which covers the points raised in this amendment.
It has been said on two occasions now that the argument that it would be wrong for the Home Office to issue guidance as to listing does not appear to be correct because of previous experience. That was read

595
out to the House by previous speakers. I have most of the circular which was issued in 1984 and I shall quote only one paragraph from it. It was a joint circular by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department which was entitled:
Reducing Delay in Magistrates' Courts.
It began by stating:
"Court sitting cases have often been determined in the past by local traditions. Ministers recommend that each Bench should examine its sitting hours with a view to determining whether those hours make the most effective use of the court space available for hearings."
Obviously a circular could be issued in very similar language, whether by the Home Office on its own or in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department, stating that Ministers would recommend that this procedure be adopted.
On a previous occasion the Minister made the point that if this amendment were passed in its original form in Committee and on Report, courts may be forced to sit when there is no business and that that would be quite foolish. The amendment now before the House makes it clear that this procedure would be carried out only when the courts think it proper because they have cases to decide.
As I said, something must be done along those lines. An opportunity is now before us and it may not occur again for a very long time. In the interests of the youngsters of this country who have the misfortune to appear before our juvenile courts and the parents who must plead for them or answer questions by the court, I hope that the Minister will not allow this opportunity to pass.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. I am very much seized of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the whole tenor of the amendment has changed. It has not made the provision compulsory but dependent upon a decision of the court. The sitting times given are not too onerous—the amendment says "fortnightly". Magistrates' courts in my part of the world frequently sit at odd times for other reasons. I say "frequently"; that is not correct. But the courts must meet at different times for many other types of situation.
The amendment is entirely reasonable. I hope that in some way the sense of it can be incorporated into the Bill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I support the amendment and would like to refer to the question of listing. The noble Earl said that there are problems in putting into a statute matters affecting listing because listing is a judicial function. I remind him that sentencing is a judicial function, but at long last Parliament has taken hold of that issue and has made it clear that sentencing is too important to leave to sentencers.
I am sure that all those who practise in the courts agree that listing is of crucial importance. It is high time that Parliament took a hand in the matter. So often listing decides the question of delay in the courts and listing should be the point at which public consideration is given priority. Because it is a judicial function, the trouble with listing in the courts at the moment is that the convenience of the tribunal comes
596
first. It is the convenience of the magistrates, the judge or, I accept, the lawyers which comes before the convenience of the public.
It is high time that Parliament took a hand in the crucial matter of listing. It is another example of the division of responsibility between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. Because of that division nothing is done and the buck is passed from one to the other. I implore the Minister to take notice of the feeling of the House in regard to the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords. I broadly support the amendment. The problem is that, although listing was a judicial function for many years, it has been taken over by a form of civil servant. It is no longer strictly within the immediate control and remit of the judge or the Recorder as it was in the old days of the Assizes and Quarter Sessions.
Listing is of such great importance that this amendment should receive the consideration of the Government. The division of responsibility between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department not only affects this issue but is of far more general application. It is a matter upon which the Government, by Act of Parliament, should provide means by which directions may be given to the administration which is now responsible. With respect to noble Lords, it perhaps should still be a judicial function; it has not been so for a long time.
Baroness David: My Lords, there has been such competition to support the amendment that I hesitate to join the debate. However, as my name is added to it I shall do so.
All the relevant points have been made, but I should like to emphasise two. The first is that it is important for two parents to be present. That is more likely to happen in the evening than in the morning or afternoon. The second point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Campbell, in regard to listing being a judicial function. Certainly when I was acting as a magistrate, even before I was chairing the Bench, I was never consulted about when we were sitting. One was expected to be there and the sitting could be cancelled an hour or so before it was due to take place.
It is right for there to be an opportunity to have a sitting at a different time. I am sure that magistrates would be willing to oblige; in many cases it might be more convenient for them. I hope that with this all-round and strong support the Minister will be willing to accept the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am conscious of the considerable support for the amendment throughout the House. We are debating the amendment for the third time. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that he expected me to make the rather repetitive remark regarding the cherry. I thought he said that in a slightly derogatory fashion. I am entirely happy to answer any amendments tabled by your Lordships as frequently as they are tabled. My only concern in mentioning this factor in the first place

597
was because of the procedure of the House. Noble Lords sometimes believe that the procedure of the House is a very good thing until it comes to their own amendment. They are then quite happy to waive the procedures in a generous fashion for the advantage of stating their views yet again.
On this occasion my noble friend Lady Faithfull changed the wording of the amendment in response to points made on previous occasions. The earlier amendment would have required the youth court to sit outside normal court hours on a regular basis whether or not there was any business to transact. Amendment No. 24 qualifies the duty to sit outside normal hours by giving the courts some discretion in the matter. If the court believes that there are sufficient cases to make an evening or weekend sitting desirable, then it must sit in the evening or at the weekend.
The amendment merely exchanges one set of problems for another. The court staff would have to inquire into each parent's circumstances in order to establish whether that parent would find it more convenient to attend outside normal hours. The court would have to make a judgment on whether there was a sufficient number of cases of difficulty to justify a special sitting, and it is not easy to determine how many cases necessarily justify that. What is more, if every parent found it difficult to attend during normal working hours, all the relevant cases would have to be heard in the evenings or at weekends. That would not be a good use of court resources.
We should not forget that attending court is inconvenient for many people. Making it easier for parents to attend may involve making it harder for witnesses and in some cases victims. They deserve as much consideration as the parents of the defendants, to say nothing of the inconvenience which may be caused to magistrates, who also give their service voluntarily.
For all those reasons it would not be wise to incorporate my noble friend's amendment into the Bill. It would be more sensible to leave the frequency and timing of youth court sittings to local discretion. Courts may sit when they like. Court staff can already take into account the needs of the various parties in deciding when a case should be heard.
Having said that, I sympathise with the aims which underlie the amendment and I have noted the feeling of the House this evening. I shall certainly be happy to draw the points made in this and in our earlier debates to the attention of the Magistrates' Association and the Justices Clerks' Society so that they may be aware of the importance your Lordships attach to flexibility in the scheduling of hearings and the need to avoid jeopardising a parent's employment by requiring his or her attendance at the wrong time.
In view of the expressions of opinion which your Lordships have given I shall certainly be prepared to consider how guidance can best be issued on the subject. If it is issued it would no doubt have to cover advice on how courts can arrange sittings to help parents to attend at times which will not jeopardise their employment and so forth. I shall certainly consider how that can be done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, are those who advise on these matters aware of the criticism which, amidst praise, sometimes goes to civil servants; namely, that they manage to find problems for every solution? The noble Earl read out a series of problems which he thought would be created and which, in his more serious moments, I am sure that he would not have uttered. They were so facile that they do not do justice to the way in which the noble Earl always manages his affairs before the House. This is an important point. He concluded by saying that possibly a solution might be to write to the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society about the matter. I read out what the Magistrates' Association has already said. It knows about the provision and it is prepared to help. The Justices' Clerks' Society is also prepared to help. Before we leave Third Reading and this amendment, will the noble Earl give very active consideration to sending a note by way of guidance to the magistrates' courts throughout the land in order to make them aware of the desirability, on the Minister's recommendation, of listing in the way that is set out in the amendment? If the noble Earl can go that far it will he something. I hope that he can go even further than that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is normally very courteous. He said that the remarks that I made this evening were facile. I thought that was going a little beyond his normal range of' courtesy. My noble friend Lady Faithfull tabled an amendment which she wishes put into law. I addressed that amendment. I said that if that amendment were included in the Bill it would cause the kinds of problems that I had enunciated. I did not think that it was facile to say that, I thought it very right to do so. The amendment might be tabled to have a certain effect. It is only right for a Government Minister to point out the other kinds of effects which it would also have.
I have listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said. I am completely aware of the concern which has been expressed. I give the undertaking for which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asks. We shall be issuing guidance generally on the implementation of the whole Act. The point can be reflected in the general guidance. However, that does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wants. He said that he wants me to give active consideration to whether guidance can be given. I shall do that. I draw back slightly from giving a wholehearted commitment that guidance will be issued because I want to take further advice on the matter. I could not refuse the invitation from the noble Lord nor the views which have been expressed throughout the House. If guidance can be given and it is proper to do so, then I am sure it will be done.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. The Minister has said that he will consider whether some guidance can be given. Earlier on he cited a long list of terrible difficulties that there will be. At one stage he said that if the magistrates wanted to implement the provision they could do so. They have not done so and they feel that they have not been

599
allowed to do so. I am encouraged by the fact that the Bar Council has set up a working party. It thinks in exactly the same way as we do. The press release put out by the Bar Council states:
"The Bar Council is to set up a Working Party to look into the establishment of night courts. As part of a wider scheme by the Bar to review how courts can be made more user friendly and consumer orientated, the Working Party will examine whether certain courts should open in the evenings".
That takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that the courts should consider the consumers. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who said that the problem lay with the civil servants. If they have put forward the terrible difficulties which are going to ensue, then with all the wonderful promises that my noble friend has made about looking at guidance, will the scheme be possible?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can help my noble friend because I want to be helpful. She referred to a list of complaints (which is not the correct description) about what would happen if the amendment were put in the Bill. I am aware of the Bar Council's study. We look forward to seeing its results. Even if it is suggested that there would be real advantages in arranging youth court sittings in the evenings, that can be done without any change in the primary legislation. My noble friend wants youth courts to sit in the evenings. That can be done within the primary legislation and therefore her amendment is unsuitable.
The next point is how we achieve what my noble friend wants within the context of the legislation as it is. I said that there will be guidance given about the whole Act. It is 80 per cent. certain that it will be possible—I do not wish to go to 100 per cent.—to give guidance on this specific issue. I do not think I can go a great deal further than that. If my noble friend wants her amendment included in the Bill to achieve her ends, that can be done without this amendment. We have to see how the ends can be achieved within the legislation as it is. I have said that I shall consider guidance.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am in very real difficulty here. My noble friend the Minister has been most generous and forthcoming in saying that he will see whether guidance can be given. However, having worked in juvenile courts for over 20 years, I feel that this is a most important amendment and that I must take the opinion of the House.
6.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24 ) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 75.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kirkhill, L

Adrian, L.

Kissin, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Ampthill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brain, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Chester, Bp.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs,B.

Richardson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston. L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stokes, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunter of Newington, L

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jacques, L.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Astor, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Auckland, L.

Allerton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Alport, L.

Benson, L.

Arran, E.

Bessborough, E.

561

Birdwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Manton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marsh, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mersey, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Middleton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norfolk, D.

Chalfont, L.

Norrie, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Onslow, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Oxfuired, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Deedes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plumb, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Erne, E

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Flather, B.

Roskill, L.

Foley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selborne, E.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B

Sharples, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Smith, L.

Goold, L.

Somerset, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strange, B.

Haddington, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Haig, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Terrington, L.

Hood, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waddington, L.

Ironside, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wolfson, L.

Killearn, L.

Wynford, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B.

600

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moyne, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Palmer, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glenamara, L.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Hayter, L.

Richard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hughes, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Serota, B.

Hylton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharples, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Somerset, D.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Longford, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Windlesham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mishcon, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I bring up a procedural matter that is of some importance? In the Division Lobby during this Division the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester entered the Lobby to vote. The right reverend Prelate was told, when he approached the desk, that he was not permitted to vote on the grounds that he was not robed.
This fact was not known to me, and those other colleagues of all parties in the Lobby were not aware of this rule. We took the view nevertheless that it was an absurdity that the right reverend Prelate was not able to cast his vote. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who I am glad to see is in his place, if he will consider this and look into it as a matter of some urgency.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I make a few remarks? I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me quite absurd that a Member of this House would be denied the opportunity to vote in circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I hope that this matter will be clarified as quickly as possible because it seems to be a true absurdity.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as a new boy in this House a number of things happen that surprise me, and this surprises me more than most. Obviously the point raised by the noble Lords opposite is an important one, and of course it will be looked into at once.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, could the noble Lord bear in mind that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can vote without his gown? It is nonsense that a bishop cannot vote without his gown.
Clause 56 [Responsibility of parent or guardian for financial penalties]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 37, line 41, at end insert:
("(c) an order shall not be made against a local authority unless the court has first considered a report in writing from the Chief Inspector of Social Services, drawing attention to the particular needs of the child or young person for whom a local authority has parental responsibility, and to any other matters to which the Chief Inspector may wish to draw attention, and unless the Court considers that in all the circumstances including those specified in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, to make an order would be better for the child than making no order at all.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am bringing forward an amendment which is not the same as the amendment that I brought forward at the Committee and Report stages. I have attempted to meet the criticisms of the amendment which I then brought forward.
The amendment does not ask for the deletion of subsections (2) and (4) but proposes to give guidance to the courts when they have to decide about this difficult matter of whether a local authority should be responsible for the fine of a child in its care. The essence of the proposed amendment is that, before making an order for payment of a fine by a local authority, the court shall consider a written report
602
from the chief inspector of social services and shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case before it, including the circumstances set out in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
The amendment proposes that the court must take account of the interests of the child or young person and must positively consider that it would be better for the child to make an order against the local authority than not to do so. This brings the provision of Clause 56, equating a local authority with a parent or guardian for the purposes of considering financial penalties, entirely into line with the philosophy and principles set out in the Children Act 1989. In brief, the objection to Clause 56 as it now stands is that it is contrary to the principles of child care particularly set out in that Act. There is a clear potential for conflict between the interests of the local authority having regard, on the one hand, to the welfare of a child in its care, and having regard, on the other hand, to the need to avoid taking action or being afraid of taking action which might make it liable to have imposed on it the fine of the court.
In Committee the noble Earl said that if the function of exercising parental responsibility falls to the local authority then the local authority should be liable to pay a fine. The amendment I now propose to Clause 56 does not deny the ability of the court to impose a fine on a local authority which is exercising parental responsibility but it sets out requirements and criteria which should be considered before an order is made requiring a local authority to pay a fine. In the light of the previous discussions in Committee and on Report we have proposed an amendment which establishes a better balance between the interests of society to impose a fine on a statutory authority acting as a parent or guardian on the one hand, and to encourage a statutory authority, on the other hand, to act in the very best interests of the welfare of a child in its care.
The requirement for a report in writing from the chief inspector ensures that there is an impartial look at all the circumstances surrounding the decisions made by a local authority in respect of a child or young person in its care. The court would then be able to consider whether the local authority acted as a parent or guardian reasonably or whether there are grounds which would justify the imposition of a fine.
The requirement to have regard to the circumstances contained in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 enables the court to have proper regard to the philosophy and principles set out in that Act. Section 1 of the Act states that when a court is determining any question in respect of a child's upbringing, that child's welfare is to be the paramount consideration. The proposed amendment will bring Clause 56 fully into line with that philosophy and will require a court to be satisfied that it is in the paramount interests of the welfare of the child to impose a fine against a local authority acting in its capacity as a parent or guardian. In particular, a court would have to have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, to its physical, emotional and educational needs, and its age, sex, background and any relevant characteristics. Furthermore, before

603
making a decision to impose a fine on a local authority acting in the statutory capacity of parent or guardian, the court t will need to be certain in the terms of Section 1 of the 1989 Act that it would be better to make an order imposing a fine than not to do so in the interests of the child in question.
I hope that the compromise we have tried to make will appeal to the noble Earl and that he will feel able to accept this modest and moderate amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall be very brief because the amendment has been moved so well by the noble Baroness. I rise simply to support it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. It is a genuine attempt on the part of those interested in the matter on both sides of the House to produce an amendment which is a half-way position between the position which we took up previously and that which the Government seemed to hold. It is a genuine attempt at a compromise. I hope the House will think that it is a sensible attempt at a compromise. In those circumstances, I rise only to support the amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness made an impressive appeal on behalf of the amendment. I listened to her with interest because I wanted to be clear about its exact purpose. I understand the noble Baroness's concern about the provision for local authorities to be required to pay the financial penalties imposed on children in their care for whom they have parental responsibility. She feels that that is inappropriate. She made her concern clear at earlier stages and I did my best to put the Government's position. We believe that it is right that, where parental responsibility lies with the local authority, it should assume the duty that would otherwise fall on the natural parent to pay any financial penalties imposed on the children. It is worth remembering that this means compensation to the victim, as well as fines; compensation that might not otherwise be paid.
Unlike the amendments moved at earlier stages, this amendment would not entirely remove courts' power to order local authorities to pay. The noble Baroness has moved some way towards the Government's position, and, to that extent, I am most grateful to her. But I am bound to say that the amendment would make it so difficult for the courts to exercise their power as to make it inoperable in practice. Under the amendment, in every case in which the court considered ordering a local authority to pay, it would have to obtain a written report from the chief inspector of social services about the child's needs. The chief inspector has nothing to do with this; nor could his view of the position of the child have any relevance to the problem in hand.
In our view it is wholly unnecessary to produce a report at all, especially one which focuses on the child's needs, when what the Bill seeks to deal with is an order against the local authority. I do not see the connection between the two. A similar point arises
604
later in the amendment. It provides that the court must take the view that making an order against the local authority would be better for the child than making no order at all. I find it difficult to see that connection.
There are other difficulties with the amendment, but I do not wish to take the time of the House unnecessarily by rehearsing them. The long and the short of the problem is that the Government believe the provision in the Bill to be necessary and that the amendment would hinder rather than help. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand our position even if she cannot agree with it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not think that I understand the position very well. In my view, the Government have not moved a millimetre from their earlier position. I take the point about the chief inspector; indeed, I thought that it might be raised. I understand that the term "chief inspector" is used as a general term and that a local inspector would probably be required to produce the report. However, that would not happen on every occasion.
I must say that I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's response. It shows that there is still no real understanding of what goes on in the social services world and what some of these children may be like. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said on Report, a child may commit an offence after having been in the care of a local authority for only a day or two. It seems most unfair to put this burden on a social services department which, of course, may be very short of money. It seems to me to be a bad use of resources.
As I said, I am most disappointed with the response. I do not believe that there is a proper understanding on the part of the Government. However, I do not feel that I can pursue the matter to a Division. I shall watch with interest what happens as a result of this provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Binding over of parent or guardian]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 38, line 4, leave out from ("offences") to end of line 7.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would remove from the Bill the requirement for courts to give reasons if they do not bind over the parents of juvenile offenders. In its original form, the Bill provided that, when a juvenile was 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 considered that this would be "unreasonable".
On Report, the Government removed that statutory presumption in favour of binding over parents. That is a welcome modification of a measure which was likely to increase rather than reduce juvenile crime by placing an additional burden on many families which are already under severe

605
pressure. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for having taken note of the concerns which were expressed.
I cannot quite understand the point of requiring the courts to give reasons for not binding over. I should have thought that it was much more important to give reasons why they do bind over. Looking at the situation from a parent's and a consumer's point of view, if the courts are not going to bind over or fine, the minute the parents are informed of the decision that will be the end of the matter for them; in other words, they will not take note of the reasons. Therefore, I wonder whether it would be better to reverse the provision and to stipulate that the courts, if they must bind over or fine, should give reasons in the opposite direction as to why they are doing so. This is a rather complicated business; but, then, it is a complicated affair. I shall be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister can tell me why it is that parents are to be told why they are not being bound over. What is the purpose of the provision? I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the main points of Clause 57 is that a court will always have to consider whether or not to bind over the parent or guardian of a young offender aged under 16. Either it exercises its power to bind over, or it gives reasons for not doing so. My noble friend's amendment would remove the second half of this provision. We would effectively be returning to the law as it stands at present.
At present courts have the right to bind over but they do not frequently do so. The Government believe that magistrates' existing discretion to bind over parents or guardians is not being used as often as it might be. If my noble friend's amendment were accepted, there would be no additional obligation on the magistrates even to consider whether they should exercise their powers to bind over. In other words, the powers would be there but they need not bother to exercise their discretion over them.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked why reasons had to be given for not binding over. The answer is that it will enable the magistrates to address their minds as to whether the parents should be bound over. If they decide not to bind them over—which is perfectly within their powers—then they simply have to state the reasons behind their decision.
We believe that the powers to bind over the parents of juvenile offenders can be used more effectively by the courts to help prevent further offending. That is why we want to strengthen the law so that the courts always consider using their powers, even if they do not always exercise them. We are not putting pressure on magistrates to bind over parents in inappropriate cases. Whether the magistrates exercise such powers will depend upon the circumstances of the case. We wish to ensure that they do consider whether they should use those powers and that they are obliged at least to consider that aspect. Of course, whether they decide to bind them over is entirely a matter for the magistrates. Alternatively, they will have to state why they have decided not to do so.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall certainly not divide the House on the matter. However, in view of the fact that it is already possible for magistrates to bind over and fine and they have not done so, it seems to me that this is something of a carrot to wave in front of them and to say, "Don't forget you can bind over and fine". The magistrates are well aware of that fact. They have not found that binding over and fining is a good thing in such cases. It very often causes dissension in the family and does not help the child, the parent or the relationship in the family.
I am sorry that my noble friend cannot accept the amendment. However, as I said, I shall not press the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Remands and committals to local authority accommodation]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 42, line 32, at end insert:
("(3) In the case of a child or young person who has been remanded or committed to local authority accommodation by a youth court or a magistrates' court other than a youth court, any application under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (use of accommodation for restricting liberty) shall, notwithstanding anything in section 92(2) of that Act or section 65 of the 1980 Act, be made to that court.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Report stage I gave notice of my intention to bring forward an amendment on Third Reading to rectify a difficulty which arises in the provisions of the Children Act 1989. It concerns juveniles who are remanded to local authority accommodation and who are held in secure conditions.
The Children Act separates criminal proceedings involving young people from civil proceedings in which they are also involved. The criminal proceedings will normally be dealt with by a juvenile or a youth court and the civil proceedings by a family proceedings court. The drafting of the Children Act produced the unintended effect of requiring two courts —that is, a youth court and a family proceedings court —to be involved when juveniles remanded to local authority accommodation are being held in secure conditions otherwise than under a security requirement. That is obviously undesirable. The amendment proposed deals with that difficulty and ensures that only one court, usually a youth court, need be involved in such procedures. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 61 [Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 43, line 7, after ("appoint") insert ("which day shall be no later than the end of the period of four years beginning with the day this Act is passed").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment stipulates that the remanding of juveniles in custody should be ended within four years. As it stands, the Bill sets out new and stricter criteria for the remanding of juveniles in custody in the short term and provides for the ending of such remands in the

607
long term. The most important short-term change is that such remands will be restricted to cases where they are needed,
"to protect the public from serious harm"
from the defendant.
That is a welcome and substantial step in the right direction. However, the real need is to end completely the remanding of juveniles to adult prisons and remand centres. Where it is necessary to remand a juvenile to secure conditions, this should be a secure place in a community home staffed by those specialised in work with children and not a prison department establishment.
I have received several communications from various members of the Association of Directors of Social Services. The directors tell me that, to a man, they want to offer support, and to do all they can to prevent juveniles from being remanded in custody in prison. They are very worried about the fact that, if children are to be remanded to local authority establishments, they do not know which ones they will be sent to.
Long ago, in time past, there were remand homes run by what were then the children's departments. Long stay homes were for children who were permanently in care. It is important that children on remand do not go to ordinary community homes. If they go to prison they learn from the prisoners things that they did not know before, and, by the same token, if children on remand who are alleged to have committed offences go to an ordinary children's home, they may teach the children there who are in care for civil reasons what is going on in the world of crime. It is important that places should be specified for remand cases but not in ordinary community homes.
We come, then, to the issue of resources. Local authorities are worried because, even if there are not many cases, they do not see how they will provide secure remand accommodation within the social services department without a specific amount of money being made available to provide and to run the homes.
I have worked in a remand home. It is possible to run a juvenile remand home along welfare, social work lines rather than criminal lines. That is what the directors of social services would like to do. They are in difficulty because of the resources needed. They realise that the amendment provides a period of four years. I believe that it would be possible to arrange matters within one or two years. Some directors of social services have suggested that a feasibility study should be undertaken to discover how to make the necessary arrangements as quickly as possible. We want to identify a date towards which we must work, and we hope that it will be an earlier one. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have to confess that of all the issues that we have discussed during the course of the Bill I find the Government's attitude on this amendment the least understandable. I say that for two reasons. The first relates to the scope of the problem and the second to what the Government have said about their present attitude. What is the scope of the problem? As at 30th April 1990—a day picked at
608
random, I understand—there were 65 untried and 19 convicted but *unsentenced boys under 17 in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales. That is the scope of the problem. At any one time we may be dealing with 80–100 at the outside, I suppose—individuals. With such numbers it is surely possible to plan a timetable strategy to end such remands.
The second reason why I do not understand the Government's position is that in their consultation paper they estimated that the necessary secure accommodation should be ready within four years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, four years is an inordinate length of time to take the decision necessary, to provide the resources—which, Heaven knows, are relatively small—needed to fulfil that task and to iron out any institutional difficulties that there may be, provided that decisions are taken now and people then get on with implementing those decisions.
It is important that the Government should make a firm commitment to end custodial remands of juveniles within four years. If the Government say that they should be able to do that anyway and if the scope of the problem is as small as it is, then, with great respect to the Government, for them not to accept the firm commitment for which we are asking, makes their position incomprehensible and is disappointing.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the Government's position on this matter. In the overwhelming majority of issues that we have debated in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading we have understood why the Government have taken the position that they have. We may not have accepted it, but we have understood it. I do not understand their view on this matter.
I return to the issue of Wandsworth. If Wandsworth had not shut its 25 secure places, we should have nearly solved the problem on the basis of the Government's own figures, because they have talked of 30 to 35 places. It was a grave misfortune that those Wandsworth places were shut. Severe criticism should be directed at those responsible for a decision which means that young children go to prison.
On the last occasion the Minister told us that secure accommodation was a specialist and sophisticated resource which took a considerable time to plan as it did to build new secure units and so forth (Hansard, col. 178). When the Government want to take action they can, as they did with slopping out, do so with dramatic speed. They went further than the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf. Why cannot a similar attitude apply to these children who are in prison? I have seen such children in prison. It is a distressing experience. It causes deep disquiet to many prison officers, who hate having to deal with children of such an age in custody. The overwhelming view of the prison service is that those children should not be in Prison Department accommodation.
As the noble Baroness said—and I apologise for not being in the Chamber for her first few remarks —the amendment provides the generous timetable of four years. No one can possibly suggest that four years is an unreasonably short period. We must consider

609
what will happen if the Bill leaves the House without some form of timetable. We stand a high possibility of having another case similar to that of Philip Knight, the 15-year-old child who killed himself in Swansea Prison. None of us can contemplate another episode of that character.
For those reasons I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. He may well have been advised not to accept it, but such a generous timetable would not pose a serious problem for the Government. For that reason, and the others to which I have referred, I hope that the House will, if necessary, insist upon the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we discussed this issue on Report. As I said then, the Government are firmly committed to ending prison remands for juvenile boys. In her amendment, my noble friend wants to put a date to that. I understand people wanting a date to galvanise the mind. However, it is difficult to produce the required number of places by a specified date. A careful study has to be made to determine how many places will be needed and where they should be. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the case of Knight and said how distressing it was. I agree, but cases were reported in the media only last week which show how careful we must be to ensure that the provision of accommodation for juveniles is properly supervised, managed and resourced. We are committed to taking the necessary measures to that end without any unnecessary delay.
I explained on Report the measures which are already in hand to bring about a position in which it is possible to end juvenile remands to prison sooner rather than later. But it would be wrong to set a deadline of the kind proposed in the amendment. If we were to end prison remands at an arbitrary date before the proper local authority facilities were available, we should only make matters worse. They would be worse, not only for the public who have to be protected from those juveniles who are dangerous, but also for the juveniles themselves. I believe it is much more sensible to end prison remands when we can get it right rather than to attempt now to prescribe a specific date. I know that that will be a disappointment to my noble friend Lady Faithfull and others who are concerned to have a fixed date. However, I assure your Lordships that it is important not only to get the buildings right but also to get the management, resources and provisions right. The Government are seized of the urgency of the task and will not allow prison remands to continue for a day longer than absolutely necessary.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall not divide the House on this amendment because I have faith in the Association of Directors of Social Services; they will see that something is done within less than four years. I do not believe that it is impossible to do something in under four years. For example, I know that a voluntary home will shortly close which could be used almost overnight as a remand home for young juveniles. For children to go to prison is counterproductive. The financial consequences are serious
610
because they simply become future prisoners. Therefore, we are building up extra costs for ourselves in the community, quite apart from the fact that from a moral point of view it is wrong.
I shall not divide the House on the amendment but I ask my noble friend the Minister to help the Association of Directors of Social Services to deal with the problem, particularly where resources are involved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 43, line 22, at end insert:
("(4A) A court shall not declare a person who is not legally represented in the court to be a person to whom subsection (5) below applies unless—

(a) he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance; or

(b) having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29 and it may be convenient for the House to consider Amendment No. 30 at the same time in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich.
My amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave during the Report stage of the Bill to bring forward an amendment to ensure that any remanded juvenile is offered legal representation before he can be placed in prison custody.
As I said during our consideration of the issue at Report stage, I understand that this is already existing practice. However, I see the value of reflecting the practice in legislation and that is what Amendment No. 29 achieves. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for drawing my attention to the matter.
Amendment No. 29 achieves exactly the same end as Amendment No. 30 which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Richard, and Lord Harris of Greenwich. I hope that they will feel content to withdraw their amendment in order to allow the Government's amendment to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said and for moving the amendment which fulfils an undertaking that he gave at an earlier stage of the Bill. On behalf of these Benches I express our gratitude to him for having accepted the point and incorporating it in the legislation. The noble Earl is quite right that if this amendment is accepted, then Amendment No. 30 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, becomes superfluous. I therefore do not propose to move it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Clause 83 [Contracting out of certain prisons]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 55, line 15, leave out from ("above") to end of line 20 and insert:

("(a) the word "(a)";

611

(b) the word "and" immediately following paragraph (a); and

(c) paragraph (b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this amendment down to see whether or not the Government have had any change of mind since the last occasion on which we examined it. We put it down in a particular form in the hope that we could match the precision and incomprehensibility of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that in order to divine the fact that the Government are taking to themselves powers to extend private management to existing prisons by means of a statutory instrument, one would have to look at the Bill not merely with a magnifying glass and a fine toothcomb but also in the most incredible detail. One would have to consider the most insignificant minutiae in order to arrive at that conclusion.
The amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I propose would restrict the private management of prisons to new prisons by deleting the provisions of subsection (3) which allow the Home Secretary to extend private management to existing prisons by means of a statutory instrument. I do not propose to repeat the arguments we had at earlier stages of the Bill. They are well known to the House and do not need repetition. I merely urge the Government once more to consider whether or not they need this provision. It would be a radical change in present attitudes towards prisons.
Do the Government really need the provision to be able to extend the privatisation of prisons by means of a statutory instrument? The Government say, "We have no intention of doing it anyway". The answer is obvious. If they have no intention of doing it, what on earth do they want the provision for? They may then say, "We might want it at some stage in the future". If so, then they could introduce positive legislation so that not only the House but interested parties outside the House could consider it before it happened. This is the wrong way of going about achieving a questionable aim. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I quote what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said at col. 211 of Hansard for 23rd May 1991:
"I muse emphasise once again that my right honourable friend has no plans to contract out the management of existing prisons. There is no hidden agenda of wholesale contracting out of existing prisons".
That is clear; except that the Government take powers in this Bi11 to do just that, as I explained on the last occasion and as is common ground between us. They do so by means of a procedure which limits debate in the House of Commons to about one and a half hours and in a situation where this House does not use its powers to vote against delegated legislation of this character. This House would disqualify itself from having any decision-making role in a such a matter.
Who would believe that a Government would give themselves power to transfer the ownership of every prison in England and Wales into private ownership without primary legislation? I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who said on the last occasion—and in my view he was absolutely right—that were this to be done, there would be appalling
612
consequences for our prisons. It would be or would be seen to be a threat to the jobs of every prison officer in the country.
I sometimes wonder about the Government's common sense. At a time when the noble Earl has to come here and tell us how saddened he is at the appalling industrial relations situation in our prisons —as he did in answer to a Question I put to him a few weeks ago—the Government come forward with legislation of this kind. Do they want peace and tranquillity in our prisons or are they so involved in ideological obsessions that they are prepared to contemplate such a provision? It seems to me a sad, dispiriting piece of legislation.
Many years ago, an old friend of mine, Randolph Churchill, used a phrase which I thought was appropriate when he was discussing a government proposal. He said, "This is the work of silly billies". I believe that phrase was used later by Denis Healey. If ever there was a provision that has been brought forward to satisfy some of the silly billies in the House of Commons, it is this one. In my view this provision will do nothing but further damage industrial relations in our prisons. It has no serious effect other than that. It seems to me an appalling pity that we are being obliged even to discuss this matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the only reason we are obliged to discuss this matter is because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has tabled an amendment on it. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, complained on a previous occasion about the difficulty of understanding the wording of the Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Even I admitted that there was a certain difficulty in understanding the wording without giving it a lot of thought. However, that incomprehension was nothing compared with the incomprehension of the noble Lord's amendment. I salute the noble Lord on having thought of such an ingenious and complicated form of words which is even more complicated than that of parliamentary draftsmen.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said he tabled the amendment to discover whether the Government had had a change of heart on the matter. The noble Lord used the clever lawyer's argument when he said that if the Government have no intention of privatising prisons what is the point of including this provision in the Bill, but as the provision has been included, the Government clearly wish to privatise prisons.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, went slightly over the top when he said this measure was a threat to every prison and that we would let ourselves in for great industrial relations problems. The noble Lord must not let his imagination run away with him. The position is perfectly clear and I can only repeat it once again. We intend, subject to the receipt of satisfactory tenders, to contract out the operation of the new remand prison at Wolds in Humberside. Clause 83(3) enables the Home Secretary to make an order, subject to affirmative resolution, to allow the contracting out of other prisons, whether existing or new prisons, if it seems desirable to do so in the light of the experience at Wolds.

613
The first thing that must happen is the privatisation of Wolds. We must monitor that privatisation. The system at Wolds is a highly innovative one. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on that point. The noble Lord does not know whether that privatisation will work, and the Government do not know exactly how it will work. However, we think it is the right thing to do. If the privatisation of Wolds proves to be satisfactory and the Government believe that other prisons could benefit from such privatisation, my right honourable friend would then consider making an order. He would only do so at that point in time. It is not a question of privatising all prisons, including Wandsworth prison. Of course such a step would create enormous problems, such as problems of scale, finance, contractors and industrial relations.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, or anyone else should feel that this measure represents the wholesale privatisation of all prisons. We have merely included in the Bill a provision of which my right honourable friend can avail himself if he feels that it is the right thing to do. The provision enables him to come before Parliament with an order to proceed with such action.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pooh-poohs the affirmative resolution procedure. He should not do so, as it is a well known fact that any such order has to pass through both Houses of Parliament. If there is a great deal of antagonism against a measure, even though in theory the House of Lords cannot reject a measure which another place has accepted, governments withdraw orders which have proved to be unacceptable. I have seen evidence of that.
We want to see how contracting out works at Wolds before we take any decisions on whether to extend the scope of privatisation. I can only repeat that the Government have no plans at the moment to privatise any other prisons. However, we wish to include a provision in the Bill to allow the Government to take such a step subject to parliamentary approval, should the experience at Wolds show that such a step is a worthwhile thing to do.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Earl used the phrase "a clever lawyer's argument" in relation to my comments. If the adjective "clever" was meant to refer to "lawyer" I thank the noble Earl for that compliment. However, if the adjective was meant to refer to my argument, it has a pejorative flavour for which I do not thank the noble Earl. But, however the noble Earl characterises the argument, it is rather a good one. If the Government do not need this power, why are they including it in the Bill? It is all very well for the noble Earl to huff and puff and say that the Government would not dream of taking such a power unless such and such a thing were to happen. The Government are taking residual powers to privatise any prison in this country by means of a statutory instrument. That is the reality of the situation, and it is a staggering proposition.
If, a few years ago, anyone had advanced that proposition, it would not have been given any
614
credibility at all. I am sorry that my amendment did not find favour with the draftsmen as it appears it was a little complex even for them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not wish the noble Lord to ascribe any mental difficulty to the parliamentary draftsmen. It was I who found difficulty with the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl did not find any difficulty with the amendment. The draftsmen would have considered the amendment and explained it to the noble Earl on paper. The noble Earl is fortunate to receive such pieces of paper. I can only say that the amendment was deliberately drafted in the form in which it has appeared to illustrate yet again the way in which the Government have slipped this measure into a piece of legislation at the last moment. To use the Common Market phrase, it was hardly a transparent thing that the Government have done.
I am disappointed that my attempt to initiate a change of mind, or at least a change of heart on the part of the Government, has failed. However, at this stage I do not propose to divide the House. I am bound to inform the Government, however, that by taking these powers in this way they are treading a difficult path. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
("Medical services in contracted out prisons
. Medical services in contracted out prisons shall be provided as part of the National Health Service.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as my noble friend has just said, it is too late to begin dividing the House at this stage. However, the matter I am about to discuss is of great importance. As I said on a previous occasion, I view with detestation the idea of any privatisation. Therefore we are discussing a matter that I hope will never come to pass. As regards the National Health Service, I hope very much that before long the prison medical service will be integrated into the National Health Service and will become part of it. In those circumstances there is not a lot that can honestly be said about this proposed new clause. It is bad enough to face the prospect of the privatisation of this service, but it is even more revolting to think of it being bought up by some predator. In the circumstances it seems best not to move this amendment and to repeat at a later stage how strongly I feel about these disgraceful proposals. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Cash limits for probation services]:
8 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 62, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl will be pleased to know that I believe this issue has not been raised at any stage in the passage of the Bill up until now. The difficult issue that we have to deal with here is why the Government are pursuing this matter while they are at the same time introducing cash limits

615
which in themselves will serve to control both probation committee expenditure and the number of probation officers the committee will be able to appoint.
At Report stage in another place the Minister, Mr. Patten, put it thus:
"The intention … 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".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/91; col. 738.]
I have to point out to the Government that there is a de jure precept on the local authority and has been for many years. The Minister's explanation is very difficult to understand. In the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 the expenses of probation and after-care committees are to be borne by local authorities. The Act uses the phrase:
"shall be defrayed, in accordance with rules so made, by the local authority in whose area the probation and after-care area is situated".
The Government's present clause is an improvement on the original. It at least acknowledges that the probation committee in the first instance is responsible for determining probation officer numbers. However, the clause still introduces the notion of requiring the agreement of yet another party, namely the local authority, in addition to any prescription and approval by the Secretary of State to a matter which should remain within the competence of the probation committee itself. That should be particularly so since the probation committee is to be held ultimately accountable for the management and performance of the local service under the default powers being introduced by the Government.
Let us be clear about this. Probation committees are bodies, corporate. They are statutorily responsible for the probation services in their areas. They are not local authority services. In each of the 56 services in England and Wales the probation committee has a statutory responsibility to act as governor and employer and as such to set a budget for its own service. Both in the shire counties and the metropolitan areas probation committees are required to send to each relevant local authority each year an estimate of the expenses which the committees expect to incur in the subsequent financial year. In general probation committees are funded both by central government and local authorities. Some 80 per cent. of their expenditure on probation is reimbursed to the local authorities by means of a specific grant from the Home Office.
The ability of the probation committees to be free to determine their own staff requirements has been eroded in recent years. The present clause advances that process. Despite that curtailment of probation committees' powers in relation to the appointment of some staff, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allowed the power of committees to appoint probation officers to continue. The clause in the present Bill seeks to modify that power, curtailing even further the freedom of probation committees to determine their own staff and resources, albeit within tightly prescribed limits.
The clause contains seeds for possible confusion and needless argument in the future between public bodies, namely, the probation committees and the local authorities. Local authorities will not be in a position to know what is a sufficient number of such officers yet their agreement will be required. It is conceivable that they will apply local authority policies and standards towards the staffing of the probation service, which may not be appropriate.
The relative independence of what is essentially a judicial, court-based service is critical. This clause fundamentally alters the constitutional relationship between the probation committee and the local authorities in discharging their respective duties regarding the probation service. That is an undesirable innovation. To introduce further control by local authorities is unnecessary and excessive. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would prevent local authorities from being able to object to expenditure proposed by probation committees on probation officers within their cash limits. I believe that it is based upon the concern that probation committees should be free to decide how many probation officers their areas need and that if local authorities are involved in that decision it would create unresolvable tensions between the parties.
We have received a number of representations on this issue. We are still of the opinion that local authorities must be able to object to expenditure on probation officers proposed by the committees, and thereafter to seek a determination from the Secretary of State on this significant part of the committees' budgets. But the amendment to subsection (2) which I tabled, and which was accepted in Committee, made it clear that it is not necessary for the probation committees and their paying authorities to reach agreement as a matter of routine on the number of probation officers.
Our intention 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 probation officers and to allow either the committee or the local authority, if they cannot reach agreement, to seek a determination from the Secretary of State. If subsection (2) were omitted the local authorities would continue, under a system in which cash limits were set by national government, to be obliged to meet 20 per cent. of whatever probation committees proposed to spend, within their cash limit, without any right to object or appeal. The subsection is therefore necessary in order to prevent a significant amount of the cash limit from effectively becoming a precept on the local authorities. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would not want that.
I find it difficult to accept that local authorities should be able to object and to seek a determination on probation officers only on grounds of inefficiency, as has been suggested in some representations made to us, because there may be other perfectly legitimate reasons for a local authority to object which the Secretary of State would wish to take into account in making a determination.

617
Clearly a probation committee is best placed to assess local needs, in the light of the amount of cash-limited grant allocated to it. However, the local authority needs to be able to object. In the last resort the decision would be for the Secretary of State in making a determination, taking the advice of his professional advisers and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation as necessary.
I believe that it is necessary for the local authority to have the right to object and to have the matter referred to the Secretary of State. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will agree that that is correct.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will agree upon reflection that the present position is right. However, at this stage, on this particular Bill, having aired the issue and heard what the Minister has to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Information for financial and other purposes]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 63, line 30, leave out ("against any persons").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in proposing a similar amendment on 22nd May during the Report stage within a half column of Hansard I enunciated six propositions. They were referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as "bullets", which was not the intention. I doubt whether I can make them any shorter, but I shall try.
The first is that Clause 94 relates to persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice. That includes judges. Secondly, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, percipiently pointed out in the debate on Tuesday, 23rd April, the judicial oath requires the deponent:
"to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will".
Thirdly, in Clause 94 discrimination against—and that is the word that I emphasise—is retained and carries with it the implication that discrimination in favour is acceptable. I submit that that is contrary to the judicial oath. Fourthly, the Government's White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, does not use that offending preposition. It expresses itself quite simply in this way:
"There must be no discrimination because of a defendant's race, nationality, standing in the community or any other reason".
Fifthly, on 23rd April the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in moving her amendment stated clearly and precisely the principle that:
"no one engaged in the administration of criminal justice should discriminate".—[Official Report, 23/4/91; col. 241.]
Again, there is no offending preposition.
On this occasion I have dealt with the problem that the noble Earl said that he experienced when I, by way of amendment, added the words "discrimination in relation to" instead of "against". He said that he had some difficulty in understanding quite what the effect of using the words "discrimination in relation to" a person would be. It is therefore to satisfy him that
618
there was no hidden complication that I have changed the amendment so that it merely cuts out the offending words "against any persons". Clause 94(1) (b) reads:
"facilitating the performance by such persons of their duty to avoid discriminating against any persons".
I propose to cut out the words "against any persons" so that it simply reads:
"avoid discriminating on the ground of".
That dealt with the problem.
I also had regard to the noble Earl's reference to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 as being the foundation for including the preposition discriminating "against". With deepest respect, it seems to me that that makes my point. Those two Acts were concerned with making unlawful something which previously had been lawful. They therefore concentrated on discriminating against, leaving one, if one was so minded, to discriminate in favour without committing any offence—and why not? However, we are not concerned with whether or not discrimination against should be an offence. We are concerned here with declaring the undesirability of discrimination. If you make declarations which are unusual in a piece of legislation which is directed to a large extent at persons occupying judicial capacities, whether they be temporary or permanent, but all of whom have taken the oath, you have the peculiar problem of making sure that your declaration does not offend against the oath. It offends against the oath for a person to discriminate in favour because that is a failure to do justice in accordance with that oath.
I am supported in the amendment—or at least I was supported, unless they have changed their minds—by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and, on the last occasion, by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who is not here tonight. I should have thought that those two sources of support indicate clearly how wholly uncontroversial the amendment is. It can do no harm to the philosophy. On the other hand, it might prevent some degree of embarrassment in passing legislation which comes into conflict with the judicial oath. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It seems to me that by the simple process of leaving out those three words we should be enabled to reconcile the drafting of the Bill with the judicial oath without altering its meaning. Those words are superfluous. Perhaps it would also be better to alter the word "discriminating" into "discrimination". That change cannot be made at this stage in this House because we cannot accept a manuscript amendment on Third Reading, but it could be done as a consequential amendment in another place if that is acceptable to the House, as I hope it will be.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that there is no reason why the amendment should not be accepted. It does not affect the Bill. On the other hand, why should it be accepted? If you discriminate against one person, it is apparent that in all probability you discriminate against others. I have listened with great

619
attention to what has been said. It seems to me a highly esoteric form of legalistic reasoning which is no doubt right, but one wonders what it all adds up to. In any event, we are concerned with what the Secretary of State will publish each year. Frankly, I should have thought that we could leave it to the good sense of the Secretary of State not to make nonsense of this affair. I wonder what all this is about. As always, I am open to persuasion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that I am steadfast in my support. I supported his amendment last time and I support it today. I can see that on a certain reading of the clause, when one is spreading out a duty, as one is in this subsection, there may be a confusion between the words which express the duty in a subsection and the terms of the judicial oath. If that can be resolved by a relatively small amendment of the kind proposed by the noble and learned Lord, I see no reason why the amendment should not be made, and I support it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I remind the House that the noble Baroness who moved the amendment which the Government eventually accepted was against this amendment. That point should be remembered. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that this is an awful lot of fuss about nothing. However, what would be the position if a judge, in sentencing an ethnic minority offender, was to say to him or her, "I think that you've been brought up in particularly difficult circumstances. Because of your origins you have had extreme difficulty in getting a job and I'm going to pass a lenient sentence on you because of those special circumstances"? If the amendment is accepted, people will say that that is discrimination. We should leave the matter as it is.
Lord Monson: My Lords, until I heard my noble and learned friend explain the amendment, I had not understood its full purpose, but now that he has explained it so well, I am in full agreement with it, as are most other noble Lords. It would certainly be a great improvement.
However, there is one other matter that I should like to raise in relation to this point which I do not think has been touched on. I have not spoken previously on the discrimination aspect of the Bill. I have not been around when the subject came up, but it is worth pointing out that the inclusion of Clause 94 would produce certain consequences not all of which are necessarily intended.
I am being in no way flippant about this matter. Anyone who has glanced at court cases reported in the newspapers over the past 40 years or so will be well aware that, whenever a criminal gang consisting of men and women in equal numbers is convicted of robbery, causing an affray or any similar offence, the aggregate sentences imposed upon the men in the gang are almost invariably longer than the aggregate sentences imposed on the women. There may be a few exceptions but that is the general rule.
The subconscious assumption which I do not think has changed much since the 1940s or 1950s, is that
620
men are the natural leaders and that strong willed men in the gang have exercised a malign influence upon their impressionable female companions. One would have thought that logically over the years militant feminists would have been outraged at that state of affairs and demanded sentences of equal length for women. Strangely they have remained unusually silent on this matter.
In consequence of Clause 94 shortly becoming law, it now seems that we are to have sentences of broadly equal length. I wonder whether people have fully taken that on board. I believe that it is worth putting on record.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, explained the intention of his amendment. Put simply, it is properly to acknowledge the principle which is reflected in the judicial oath; namely, that sentencers should act fairly toward all those who come before them and that that means avoiding discrimination in favour of someone because of his or her race or sex as well as discrimination against someone. That principle is absolutely right and on the substance of the matter I do not think that there is anything between us.
As the noble and learned Lord reminded the House, the drafting of this part of the Bill was discussed at Report stage in the context of a similar amendment which he moved at that time. I said then that I would undertake to look again at the drafting of Clause 94 in the light of the views that he expressed in order to make quite certain that what we had in the Bill was correct. I have done so. I quite understand the noble and learned Lord's reasons for wishing to satisfy himself on the matter, but I can assure him that, according to all the advice that I have been given, Clause 94(1) (b) already properly reflects the principle of fairness which is enshrined in the judicial oath.
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. As I said during the Report stage of the Bill, although no express reference is made to the need not to discriminate in favour of anyone, that is obviously implicit in the provision as it stands. If someone discriminates in favour of people of one race or sex, that indicates that he is discriminating, or at least is prepared to discriminate, against people of another race or sex. The question of discrimination does not make sense unless it is seen in comparison with the treatment of someone else.
More importantly, I believe that the proposed amendment is undesirable. It would mean adopting an approach in the Criminal Justice Bill which is different from the approach that is already well established in legislation concerning the need to avoid discrimination. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to both the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. They both use the same wording that we use in Clause 94 of the Bill; that is, discrimination against a person.
Perhaps I may disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It is quite clear from both Acts that that includes discrimination in favour of another person of a different race or sex. For instance, there could be no question of a firm operating a "whites

621
only" policy and claiming that that was discrimination in favour of whites, but not discrimination against black people and therefore was not unlawful.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked what was the difference. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, put the question more graphically when he asked what on earth all the fuss was about. It seems to me that if we adopt a different approach in the Criminal Justice Bill it will be confusing and seem to suggest quite wrongly that we intend something different from what is reflected in the 1975 and 1976 Acts.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the fact that the provision will have the unintended result of preventing women from continuing to receive more lenient sentences. I do not believe that. It is in any case not true that they receive more lenient sentences. There is some evidence that they miss out on community penalties compared with men. In principle, if a man and a woman have committed equal offences, they should receive equal punishments. If that were the effect of Clause 94, I do not think it would be a worry. But as my noble friend Lord Campbell reminded us, in the end all that Clause 4 does is provide for the provision of information.
I hope that on hearing that explanation the noble and learned Lord will agree that the wording of the Bill is correct and that to leave out the words that he wishes to delete with his amendment would confuse the situation more rather than clarify it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I must say with the deepest respect that if this had been not a debate but an action one would have said that it was an undefended claim because there have been no arguments provided to resist the amendment. When the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, with his great powers of advocacy, produces not an argument from the noble Baroness, Lady Flather (who spoke on 22nd May) but merely her name as the ground for resisting the amendment, one can see immediately that there were no solid grounds to resist it.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, again referred to two Acts designed to make criminal offences and outlaw a particular activity, leaving discrimination in favour as perfectly permissible. It is significant that it was not I —I was not present—who reminded the House of the judicial oath. It was the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who did so on Tuesday 23rd April in the context of cautioning Members of the House that if one puts in what the Government think is unnecessary, one must be very careful because of the existence of the judicial oath. The noble Earl himself quoted that oath and set it out in extenso.
In that situation it is clear that the Government propose to resist this amendment—I say it with the deepest respect —merely because they are not in favour of it and without having any reasons that appear to carry the slightest justification. In those circumstances at this time of night and in view of the small element of the amendment on which perhaps wiser counsel will prevail in another place, I do not propose to take the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 [General interpretation]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 64, line 26, at end insert:
(" "the 1983 Act" means "the Mental Health Act 1983;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Clause 101 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 65, line 20, after ("22") insert (", 24, 25").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. On the last occasion, at Committee stage, it was in substance kindly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. There is no political element in this matter. At col. 259 of the Official Report the noble Lord explained precisely what the objective was. It was the unanimous recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee that the law on both sides of the Border should be the same; it should be implemented in the same way in context with the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder, which your Lordships have already abolished in Clause 24 of the Bill for England, and with implementing procedures in Clause 25 of the Bill for England. The sole objective of the amendment is to achieve parity between England and Scotland. At col. 259 the Minister accepted that that should be the situation. On that basis the noble Lord, Lord Richard —he is my noble friend in another context—withdrew the amendment.
I have drawn the omission to the attention of the Minister. It is accepted that the amendment rectifies the omission and brings the law in Scotland and England into the same mould. I understand of course the position of the Government, who I support, although not on this point. They reserve their position about the abolition of the mandatory life sentence referred to in Clauses 24 and 25. I understand that. Nonetheless it must surely be common ground that having Clauses 24 and 25 in the Bill for England, the amendment must provide an even playing field for Scotland. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Government have reservations about Clauses 24 and 25 and we shall be inviting the other place to consider alternative proposals concerning the matters covered by those clauses. However, as I indicated in response to a similar amendment in Committee on 23rd April, the Government accept that, whatever the outcome of these matters, the effects for Scotland should be the same as for England and Wales. I am therefore content to accept this amendment on the understanding that this is without prejudice to the position which the Government will take on the whole matter when the Bill returns to the other place.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful attitude.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of 1973 Act]:
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 72, line 12, leave out ("dependent on drugs or alcohol ") and insert ("a drug or alcohol misuser").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 and new Amendment No. 41. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to a misprint in Amendment No. 38, which refers to "a drug or alcohol misuse". It should refer to "drug or alcohol misuse". I believe that it is only a misprint.
I fear that I join the group to which my noble friend referred as the cherry nibblers in that we have seen these amendments twice previously. At Report stage they were in almost identical form except that we did not have Amendment No. 41. If your Lordships accept Amendments Nos. 35 to 40, then subparagraph (9) is no longer needed. Sub-paragraph (9) explains the Government's definition of dependency on drugs or alcohol. If your Lordships are kind enough to accept my amendment, such definition will not need explanation; my amendment makes the matter much clearer.
Noble Lords may remember that my amendment contains the terminology that has been recommended by the parliamentary all-party group on misuse. Such terminology has been recommended by the standing conference and by Alcohol Concern. The Advisory Council on the Criminal Justice Working Party recommended it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in very much stronger terms.
Perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memories. The reason that we should like to see this new definition, of "drug or alcohol misuse" as opposed to "dependency" is that those who will be called upon by the courts to give evidence do not use the term "dependency". To them it is a misleading term. Indeed, the advisory council pointed out that it is a vague term. It is not the precise term that my noble friend and his advisers said that it was. It is vague because so few people will tell one what dependency means.
Those are the background arguments to the group of amendments. At the end of the day the amendment is about a meaning in the Bill. Words are the important part of a Bill. They give it its meaning. Without clear meaning a Bill is not of much use.
We therefore come back to the matter of words. At present with the words "dependency" or "dependent" in the Bill we need sub-paragraph (9) to describe what is meant. However, the definition of dependency in that sub-paragraph is a definition of misuse. Therefore if a social worker, doctor or probation officer is asked by a court, "Is this chap dependent on drugs or alcohol?", the answer will be, "I don't know what you mean by dependency". The court will then quote the definition given in sub-paragraph (9), which states that dependency on drugs or alcohol,
"includes a reference to his having a propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol",
to which the answer will be, "Do you mean does he misuse drugs or alcohol? Why didn't you ask me that in the first place?". Therefore we have this unclear definition at present.
When replying at Report stage, my noble friend accepted my argument in all but one area. He told the House that the definition in the Bill at present was more exact, more legally acceptable, easier for lawyers to use and clearer. He said that Bills were designed not so much for use by lay people but for lawyers who would have to argue them in court. That may be so but "misuse of drugs" was good enough in the Misuse of Drugs Act. It was good enough in the National Health Service and Community Care Act. It has been good enough in countless other pieces of legislation over the past 15 years. Why has it suddenly become not good enough?
The phrase is already enshrined in legislation. It is already on the statute book. There is a clear definition of what misuse of drugs means. After all, this part of the Bill is designed to help misusers of drugs, not just those who are dependent on drugs—if anyone can say who is dependent.
I put forward the amendment again today because I did not divide the House at Report stage since I wanted to give the Government another chance to consider the matter again. I wish to give them every opportunity. I do not seek to divide the House against a government whom I support who are undertaking legislation which intrinsically I support too. I therefore gave them another chance. I put this group of amendments forward again in the hope that I shall receive the answer that I wish or another satisfactory answer. I hope that it will not be unsatisfactory. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made an overwhelmingly powerful case for the amendment on the last occasion that we debated the issue. He has done the same today. I very much hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the totality of the argument seems overwhelmingly in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I cannot see why the Government should be resisting the amendments with the vigour that they have done until now. There is a circularity about the Bill at present. We talk about dependency, and in order to discover what dependency is one refers to sub-paragraph (9), which states that it means,
"a propensity towards the misuse of".
In that case why can one not use the word "misuse" in the first place? It would tidy up the drafting of the Bill and, as the Minister knows, we are all keen to tidy up the drafting of Bills. If that were possible the amendment is thoroughly desirable. I look forward with interest to hearing the Government's views.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too support my noble friend's argument which appears to be conclusive. I shall not add to what has been said by noble Lords opposite. I hope that in respect of this small but important point the Government will be able to bend their rigid approach to the wording.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I too support my noble friend. I do not wish to add to the fundamental argument but merely say that this is a proper drafting amendment to table on the Third Reading. If the

625
drafting of the related Acts of Parliament is wrong and if he does not accept the amendment, do the Government intend to amend the current legislation referred to by my noble friend?
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend said that he has tabled the amendment to enable the Government to think again and indeed we have done so. The anxiety which lies behind his proposed amendments is not that the policy is wrong in this part of the Bill but that the drafting does not reflect the policy. It may be found to be confusing by those who must apply the provisions. My noble friend said that it was a question of words. My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that he hoped the Government would bend their rigid approach. That was a funny thing to say before I had even spoken, but I accept his sentiments.
I have looked carefully at the drafting of this part of the Bill and I have considered whether it might be improved by my noble friend's amendments. The issue has been raised with parliamentary counsel. His clear advice was that the present draft of the Bill's provisions better meets the desired policy objectives with which my noble friend agrees than his proposed amendments or any alternative formulation that we have been able to devise. I must advise your Lordships that despite the apparent awkwardness of the existing drafting it is, I believe, an accurate and appropriate reflection of the policy. Moreover, I must tell my noble friend that his amendments would not reflect the policy as accurately.
Perhaps I might help my noble friend and other noble Lords to understand the position. We are all agreed that the requirement to undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependency or misuse as part of a probation order should be available both for those who are clinically dependent and those who may not be dependent but whose behaviour shows a pattern of misuse. In either case the dependency or misuse should have caused or contributed to the offending, and the dependency or misuse should be capable of treatment.
This policy means that such a requirement would not be appropriate for someone who, perhaps as a result of peer group pressure, had misused drugs or alcohol only once even if on that occasion an offence had been committed as a result of the drug or alcohol misuse. My noble friend's amendments, by referring simply to the fact of drug or alcohol misuse, would however allow a requirement of treatment to be imposed in just these circumstances. That is why I say that it would not reflect the desired policy as accurately as the existing text.
Paragraph 6(9) on the other hand makes it quite clear that the provision is available both for those who are dependent on drugs or alcohol and for those who have a tendency or propensity to misuse drugs; that is those who misuse drugs or alcohol on more than one occasion.
It has been argued that the drafting of paragraph 6 is confusing because it uses the word "dependency" in the main text of the paragraph and brings in "misuse"
626
only in an explanatory provision at the end of the paragraph. I understand why that may be thought to be confusing. But without this approach we should, in order to reflect the desired policy effectively, need to refer both to dependency and a propensity to misuse —and not just misuse as the proposed amendment suggests—at several points throughout the text of paragraph 6. This would, I suggest, lead to a great deal of repetition and complexity in the drafting. The solution adopted in the existing drafting is simpler and follows what is in fact quite common practice in legislation when this kind of drafting problem arises.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft has also criticised this part of the Bill for being inconsistent with other legislative provision; in particular, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I do not however believe that the difference in terminology that he has identified in this case is inconsistency; it simply reflects a different purpose and context. The Misuse of Drugs Act is concerned with the criminal law concerning drugs. Section 37 of that Act defines misuse as the unlawful taking of a controlled drug—anyone who unlawfully takes a controlled drug once has therefore misused it. The provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill are not aimed at people who misuse drugs only once. And they are concerned not necessarily with misuse itself but also with criminal behaviour that results from misuse. We should also remember that the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill also concern misuse of alcohol as well as misuse of drugs. The fact that the expression "misuse of drugs" works in the Misuse of Drugs Act does not necessarily mean that the same expression will work well in the context of the Criminal Justice Bill provisions.
Legislative drafting must be clear, unambiguous and appropriate to the particular policy that it seeks to reflect. That is not immediately obvious to the layman. It also means that concepts have to be expressed somewhat differently from the way in which one would otherwise more naturally express them. I accept that the drafting of paragraph 6 adopts a different approach from the approach that one might use outside legislation. I am however satisfied that the present drafting of this paragraph does give us—that is, the Government and all noble Lords involved—what we want, and that in the context of the Bill it is both precise and accurate. I am sure that the practitioners who must apply the Bill's provisions will soon become used to its wording.
The differences between us are not about policy; they are simply about drafting. As eminent as are the authorities whom my noble friend has consulted on this question, I suggest that they are not experts on legislative drafting. I have consulted those who are expert in this area and their view is that the present draft of the Bill is the right one. I hope that my noble friend will agree.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that legislation should be clear and appropriate in its wording. However, I believe that this area of legislation in unclear and inappropriate. The argument that he has put forward today is slightly different from that which he put forward on a previous

627
occasion. In fact, it goes back to the first argument that was discounted on Report. We have now come full circle.
There appears to be a basic difference of opinion between almost every professional in the field, seemly most Members of your Lordships' House, social workers, probation officers, previous Government draftsmen of earlier Acts and the draftsmen of this Bill. When the draftsmen have finished tonight they will be able to put the Act on the shelf to gather cobwebs. However, the probation officers, social workers, doctors, psychiatrists and so forth who must implement the Bill when it becomes an Act will not be able to put it on the shelf; they must use it. Based on my noble friend's figures, they must work it about 3,500 times per year—10 times every day. Every day people must get used to new terminology because the old terminology is no longer good enough according to the draftsman whose copy will be gathering cobwebs.
Therefore, I am sorry to say that I do not believe that I am alone in not agreeing with my noble friend. On this occasion I must test the opinion of the House to see whether your Lordships agree with me or with my noble friend's advisers.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 49.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B.

600

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moyne, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Palmer, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glenamara, L.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Hayter, L.

Richard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hughes, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Serota, B.

Hylton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharples, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Somerset, D.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Longford, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Windlesham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mishcon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Bauer, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bellwin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blake, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, L.

Margadale, L.

Blyth, L.

Morris, L.

Boardman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Borthwick, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Nelson, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Norfolk, D.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Pender, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Reay, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Renwick, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Flather, B.

Teviot, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Gisborough, L.

Ullswater, V.

Haddington, E.

Vinson, L.

Haig, E.

Waddington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Halsbury, E.

Wynford, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

David, B.

Moyne, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Palmer, L.

Faithfull, B.

Parry, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Hayter, L.

Sharples, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Walpole, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Winstantley, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Haig, E.

Bauer, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

628

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Waddington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Windlesham, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

Ullswater, V.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.58 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 41 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Increase of Certain Maxima]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 42A:
Page 92, line 43, leave out paragraph 2.
Page 93, line 1, leave out ("that") and insert ("the 1980").
Schedule 12 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 111, line 44, leave out ("features") and insert ("factors").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects a drafting error in the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
We have reached the end of a fairly long journey. It is customary to make a long speech on such occasions but it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I restrict myself a little more than one might otherwise do.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in these debates. They have been fairly lengthy but seldom have they been acrimonious. Once or twice there was a little flutter here and there. We had the pleasure of seeing the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, sparring with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which encouraged all who were spectators, as long as we were not participants.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Mishcon, both of whom led from the Benches opposite, sought to amend the Bill in a most helpful, constructive and indeed an understanding manner. The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Hutchinson, contributed—usually harmoniously but sometimes in contradistinction to each other—on many parts of the Bill.
This has been an interesting exercise. The Divisions which took place were an exciting experience. We often found ourselves in rare company in the Division lobbies and possibly in the company of noble Lords one does not expect to see together in those lobbies; one expects to see them in happier circumstances outside.
I am grateful for all the contributions which have been made. There is no doubt that the Bill has emerged a better Bill than when it started. In some respects it perhaps went a little over the top from the Government's point of view, but in all respects there was a great concentration of effort, experience and thought. A great deal of time was spent on it by your Lordships and that all helped to improve the Bill which, after all, is making a major contribution to the criminal justice system. For that I express the approval and the thanks of the Government.

629
Debates were enriched by your Lordships' considerable experience in many areas. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave us the benefit of his long experience as a sentencer. My noble friend Lord Elton knows a great deal about the remand and detention of juvenile offenders. My noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lady Faithfull contributed their experience—not always, I might say, in a helpful fashion from the Government's point of view. The experience of having someone like my noble friend Lady Faithfull sitting behind is unnerving. It is lucky that she does not possess arrows because one would not know quite where they were to end up.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke powerfully about murder and life imprisonment, drawing on the weight of his knowledge as chairman of the Select Committee which reported on those issues. Of course we had the powerful support of my noble friend Lord Windlesham and the unique interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and others.
I like to think, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that whatever amendments have been made have all been made after considerable thought and concern. The one concern that was pre-eminent throughout all your Lordships' speeches was the effort to make the Bill as good as possible. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the time spent has been worthwhile. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind words in regard to our contribution. He was kind enough to say that we had moved our amendments in a helpful and constructive way. I can only say that in that case I wish more of them had been accepted by the Government.
In drawing up a balance sheet as to where the Bill now stands compared with where it was when we started, I drew up a fairly short page of issues on which I thought the Bill had been improved and a very long page of issues where I thought the Bill had not been improved. The Government agreed to extend the criteria for the use and length of custodial sentences to offences triable only on indictment, and for that we are extremely grateful. They agreed to require courts to consider a medical report before a custodial sentence was passed on a mentally disordered offender; for that we are grateful. We voted on the mandatory life sentence issue and we are grateful for the votes of the House on that. The Government made it clear that they will look at the matter again when it goes back to another place.
I could not help reflecting that the argument being used to justify the retention of the mandatory life sentence for murder was that it was part of an understanding which was arrived at when capital punishment for murder was abolished. I cannot forbear from pointing out to the Government that capital punishment for murder was abolished on a free vote. Perhaps the Government—or the party managers responsible for affairs in another place when
630
the Bill goes back—will now consider that the issue of life sentences for murder should also be subject to a free vote with the Whips off when it is reconsidered.
We welcome the amendments introduced by the Government phasing out the remand of juveniles in custody. I do not resile from anything we said in regard to the four-year period and I am sure the noble Earl and other noble Lords who spoke in the debate would not wish me to. I welcome also the Government move on binding over parents. Again, what they said in regard to race we found acceptable.
On the other side, on the longer page—I shall not read it all out—we are still plagued with electronic tagging. We could not persuade the Government to accept a four-day limit for holding people in police cells. We regret that the Government gave no ground whatever on the privatisation of prisons. We regret that the Government rejected our attempts to introduce a sentencing council and the attempts to require the Home Secretary to establish a duty psychiatrist scheme.
All Bills, when they pass through one of the two Houses of Parliament, go through a metamorphosis. At the end of the day one can only draw up a balance sheet of the pros and cons. On any objective examination the Bill is improved. It is being sent back to the other place as a complete Bill in which this House has done its best to produce a more sensible result than the Bill with which we were first presented.
Perhaps I may express my personal gratitude to the noble Earl and all those who took part in the debates. I could not help reflecting that, in a sense, it was a little like a long trial. In a long trial one tends to reflect that that is really rather like a cruise. We are all in the same place unable, for the most part, to get out of it. One sees the same faces day in and day out. One hears the same voices day in and day out—I almost said one hears the same speeches day in and day out, but perhaps that would be a little unfair. The only difference is that at the end of the day here we do not have a jury to whom we can eventually turn. For all the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, fortunately perhaps we do not have a sentencer of experience. It has been an instructive experience. I am grateful to those on all sides of the House who have made the discussions not only instructive but as pleasant as they could be.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on behalf of my noble friends and myself. This has been a long journey, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us. I believe that this is the ninth parliamentary day on which we have devoted our attention to the Bill. We do so in a very different way to that followed in the House of Commons where a Bill is sent to a relatively small standing committee. When one goes to a standing committee of the House of Commons one sees a significant amount of work being done by people who are signing letters. The fact is that in this House the matter is taken on the Floor and a very substantial amount of expertise is mobilised from all parts of the House.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked for our sympathy because he had the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, sitting behind him. We would not share his

631
view of that matter. It is our view that the noble Baroness has excellent judgment in virtually all the matters which we have discussed. It is a great advantage to the House to have some degree of Back- Bench consensus on some of the issues. As the noble Baroness and some of her colleagues are aware, many of the amendments tabled for the Bill were put down on behalf of the all-party penal affairs group. When I refer to it on behalf of all Members of the group sitting wherever they do, I must say how much we are in the debt of the clerk of that committee, Mr. Paul Cavadino. He is a one-man Civil Service. In terms of my experience of a government department and the Civil Service, he is an official of exceptionally high quality. Some of the changes to the Bill owe a great deal to the tremendous amount of work he has carried out on our behalf.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I do not propose to go through the winners and the losers. On a number of important matters the Bill has been substantially improved in this House. They fall into two categories. The first is where we have persuaded the Government, I hope on the basis of argument, and the second on the basis of the decisions taken in the Division Lobby. There were two such occasions. The vote on mandatory life sentences was of very high significance. The vote was one of the most decisive that I can recall on any issue involving criminal justice policy since I have been a Member of this House. I hope that the Government take account of that vote. I understand their political problems. I hope that the Government take account of the fact that not only was there overwhelming support for the abolition of mandatory life sentences from virtually every quarter of the House, but also strong views were expressed by a virtually unanimous judiciary. The Government would be well advised to take serious account of that fact.
In one respect this House is the last great debating Chamber. When I was sitting in the seat now occupied by the noble Earl I recall that on one or two occasions I would certainly have lost if there had been a straightforward party vote. But there was not. For the period in which I have been a Member of this House there has always been a view that matters of the kind covered by this Bill should be dealt with on a relatively non-partisan basis. I believe that has been done on this occasion. Votes can be swayed by argument in the House of Lords whereas it is almost impossible to do the same in the House of Commons. That was the explanation for the size of the majority on mandatory life sentences.
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has reminded us, there have been a number of issues on which we have not made any progress. They include the absurdities of the privatisation of prisons. I do not include the experiment. As I have indicated, these Benches take the view that there is something to be said for it. But on the present provisions in the Bill relating to privatisation we made no progress whatever. Neither did we make any progress on electronic tagging. I do not believe that there is any cause for despair. When we discussed the last Criminal Justice Bill the Government were inflexibly opposed to lowering the
632
maximum sentence of imprisonment for theft and burglary. The House will be aware that in this Bill there is a reduction in the maximum sentences for both theft and burglary. Unfortunately there has been a delay of several years, but nevertheless the view of the House on the last occasion has now been adopted by the Government, and we welcome that.
In winding up from these Benches all I would say is that we are grateful to the noble Earl for the efforts he has made to wring concessions out of his department. The fact of the matter is that he is not responsible for the Criminal Justice Department of the Home Office, and therefore inevitably he must have experienced some difficulties on a number of the issues to which we directed a great deal of attention. But he has been good tempered, on the overwhelming majority of occasions at least, and, after the first two rather difficult days when it appeared that there were going to be no concessions whatever from the Government, I found the noble Earl's attitude entirely reasonable.
On some occasions he had to resist, because that was the position of the Government, but I much appreciated the help he gave to us, particularly at some of the informal meetings we had with him on some of the issues that were debated on the Floor of the House. Having said that, and having thanked all who have participated in the debates on this Bill from whatever quarter of the House, I would wish this Bill well on its way. Although we have some substantial doubts about some of its provisions, it will, I hope, have the effect of reducing the size of the prison population.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, we are in the middle of a long and difficult case in the Appellate Division of your Lordships' House, but I did not wish to miss the opportunity of expressing my great appreciation of the courtesy, good humour, tolerance, and pleasantness which has characterised the various debates on the different aspects of this Bill, largely due to the personality of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Under the Courts and Legal Services Act one does not have to be a member of either the Bar or the solicitors' profession to have a right of audience. In future one will not even have to be a member of the Bar or the solicitors' branch to be a judge from the House of Lords downwards. Having listened to the advocacy of the noble Earl, I think he is well suited to unlimited rights of audience, and I hope that he will join us in the Appellate Division of the House of Lords as soon as this advisory committee has done its job.
I was 25 years at the Bar, and I have known what it is to have a difficult, bad brief. I have for 21 years as a judge listened from time to time to advocates who have been landed with the disadvantage of a bad, inadequate, difficult brief. In listening to the noble Earl I have occasionally been brought back to those occasions, and I thought how admirably he handled the difficulties with which he had to deal.
I attended this debate in really three separate capacities. One has already been referred to as a one-time sentencer—that is, as a Recorder, as a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, and as a member of the

633
Court of Appeal dealing on appeal with sentences. As a judge in charge of what has become known as the judicial OCTU, the Judicial Study Centre for five years, and running sentencing seminars in Cambridge twice a year for some 10 years, I have learned what a difficult job it is to provide the appropriate sentence, and I have been concerned at how much this Bill will add to the difficulties and problems of the sentencer in future. That is largely due—and I am sorry I have failed to mitigate it in any significant way—to the Act insulating the sentencer from reality. Nothing is harder to carry out than when you are inhibited from focusing on really relevant factors. That was the first category in which I appeared here.
I was forensically seduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, into concerning myself with the Pigot Committee Report, which I had not read in detail before she asked me to do so. I did not bring to bear or purport to bring to bear any great personal knowledge. That is why I read the report carefully. When I addressed your Lordships' House, I did it by reference to the report, I did it by reference to the memorandum which the circuit judges put forward and I did it, lastly, by seeking the views of the practising Bar through the Criminal Bar Association. It is sad that those concerted views failed. But time will show, and no doubt a careful view as to what is going on may well bring about the full recommendations permitting a child's evidence to be given before trial both in chief, cross-examination and in reexamination.
My last capacity related to the mandatory life sentence. Such input as I was able to achieve was largely the product of having been a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on that subject. What is quite clear is that the Government appear, from what they say they propose to do in the Commons, to overlook two vital factors: first, that the life sentence to the public has become grossly devalued; and, secondly, that the Select Committee made it doubly clear that what it was proposing was not a soft option at all. On the contrary, the life sentence would in some cases, where it was justified, be a sentence for the rest of the person's natural life, and on average would be a great deal greater than it is now.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his tolerance. It was not he but the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who on one occasion, when I used the well known phrase uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in a well known dissenting judgment describing his brothers as "timorous souls", said that I had gone over the top. The noble Earl will be the first to realise that one does not win battles by remaining in the trenches, so occasionally one has to show one's head. I repeat my thanks and appreciation and hope that we shall debate again on another matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish also to pay tribute to my noble friend Earl Ferrers. I realise that I am not in his good books. I realise that he is disappointed with me today but I hope that he will forgive me. Perhaps at this time next week—I shall not
634
say that he will have forgotten what has happened, but at any rate he will not approach me with a gun or a stick in the dark hours of the night.
I should like to make one comment of which notice has been given. The statutory social services and the voluntary child care organisations are deeply concerned that the Criminal Justice Bill as it now stands does not allow for pre-trial hearings in informal surroundings, as the Pigot Report proposed. Instead, cross-examination will take place, usually via TV link, possibly as long as 18 months after disclosure of the offence. At this stage I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wishes to speak. He and I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for the great interest he took in the recommendations of the Pigot Report.
The Government resisted amendments to introduce pre-trial hearings by arguing that cases should be brought to full trial as soon as possible. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, at col. 140 of the Official Report of 21st May 1991, that,
"if delays are still endemic in the system, then it may be right to consider this major innovation"—
that is, pre-trial hearings. The important question which everyone who works in child care is asking is: how will the Lord Chancellor know whether delays continue to be endemic?
I am grateful to the National Children's Bureau, which has undertaken research and investigations for me. It has informed me that Joyce Plotnikoff from the Institute of Judicial Administration at the University of Birmingham has drawn attention to the deficiencies of the available data in an article which appeared at page 645 of the Criminal Law Review 1990. An extract from it reads:
"The Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department do not collect statistics on case disposition times by offence"—
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is not present this evening. He has always been worried about the lack of statistics—
"It is therefore not possible to obtain information about categories of offences in which the victims are, by definition, children. Nor is information about disposition times obtainable from special data collection exercises relating to child abuse".
The Institute for Judicial Administration has submitted a research proposal to find out the length of delays but the Home Office is not supporting this research. In the interests of children and of justice, it is vital that there should be research in this area. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell me whether—and, if so, how—this will be carried out.
A further argument against the need for pre-trial hearings in informal surroundings put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was that,
"there is scope for informality even in a court room as court hearings are developing". [Official Report, 21/5/91; co1.139.]
The Family Courts Consortium has strongly recommended that procedure. Therefore, I must ask what mechanism will be developed to look into the question which I put to my noble friend the Minister.
Having said that, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for what he said, despite the fact that he opposed the Pigot Report amendments. I

635
should also like to thank Members on the opposite side of the House, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for the help which has been given to me.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I join all noble Lords in paying a heartfelt tribute to the noble Earl. In my long experience, I cannot remember any Minister who has conducted the proceedings on such a long and difficult Bill with quite so much good humour and buoyancy. In my view, he has made what could have been a painful experience almost a joy.
I am proud to have served under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Richard. I have been happy to find that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, speaks as trenchantly as a member of his present party as he did when he was one of our most distinguished Labour Ministers. However, I am afraid that he takes a more optimistic view than I of the results likely to accrue from the Bill. One has to ask oneself whether these debates will be read in the prisons. If they are, one supposes that they will be read by the more intelligent prisoners, but will they ask themselves: "Are we going to have a better time in the future? Will not so many of us be here? Will we be treated more humanely?" I believe that they are open questions.
The restrictions placed on the judiciary may prove effective. They may curb the ardour of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who would like to see some people spending all their lives in prison. However, that has not happened in this country this century. If it were left to the noble and learned Lord, people would indeed spend longer in prison. However, I do not think that that is the prevailing mood of the House.
Therefore, one has to ask whether there will be more people in prison. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, thinks that there will be fewer. I am not so sure. It is true dui in the 1980s the restrictions imposed on the judges, if I may put it that way, led to fewer young people being sent to prison. It is to be hoped that that operate; in this case. But, on the other hand, the parole changes which were acknowledged in the Carlisle Report will lead to an increase in the number of people in prison unless the judges change their tune.
Among all judges, there is no one whom I respect more than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. However, there is no sign of him having changed his tune, except in what I would regard as the wrong direction. If that is to be the attitude of the judges, the whole system will work in the opposite direction to that for which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, hopes.
I am told that there are plans to impose heavier sentences on people convicted of specified offences. I have told the House previously that not long ago I went to court to give evidence as a character witness. I was told that the defendant would receive a sentence of 10 or 15 years' imprisonment but in fact he received 25 plus five because he could not pay an impossible fine. Last Friday I visited a prisoner who had been convicted of two offences of rape. He said that he was innocent, but let us assume that he was guilty. He was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. I daresay that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, hopes that he will spend the whole of his life in prison for rape.
636
That is one view. It is not mine. It is something I view with revulsion, but it is a free country and a free House.
We do not know how the Bill will work. I hope it will be for the best. If there is a change of government, things may improve. I retain an open mind. However nothing can quell my admiration of the way the Bill was handled by the Minister.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like briefly, as I believe is the custom for Back Benchers, to thank my noble friend the Minister for accommodating me so well on the various amendments relating to the mentally ill, to the magistrates and to children. I thank other noble Lords who supported the various points that I put forward, with the possible exception of one rare occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, took the Liberals in the wrong direction over the Pigot Report. That was sad. It was an important issue. I hope that it will not be long before we progress what Pigot recommended and reintroduce the proposal in other legislation.
The Bill is good. It is better than it was when it came here. It has shown, as all such debates have shown, that there is a great deal more to be done. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long before we do more. I again thank my noble friend the Minister for the skilful way in which he accommodated all that he could whenever he could.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, especially with regard to the amendment based on the Pigot Report. I was sad when that was lost. It was lost, partly because of the defection—if I may put it that way—of the Liberal Democrats and partly because of the golden advocacy of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Those two aspects of the debate proved to be disastrous from our point of view. I am sure we shall return to that matter. I wish to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the need to gather statistics until we have an opportunity to return to that issue. There is no doubt that our case needs to be buttressed by statistics so as to be so overwhelming that the Government accept it.
I express my gratitude to the Minister for adopting a more conciliatory approach towards the end of our endeavours. I thank him for giving way—something which must be difficult when one has previously resisted the arguments so adamantly. For that I am grateful. I made one effort rather late in the day, though I had adumbrated it on Second Reading, to reinforce efforts to keep people out of the criminal justice system. It is known as diversion. It is designed to divert young people from the criminal justice system. I believe with some confidence that, if that is done early enough, we can keep them out of the criminal justice system for the rest of their lives and thus reduce the prison population.
I do not believe that there is enough to buttress the efforts at diversion in this otherwise excellent Criminal Justice Bill. One way of promoting diversion is to put the police caution on a statutory basis. That caution is

637
an important event in the life of a young offender and of his parents. If it is properly used throughout the country, then I believe that through all the systems for keeping people out of prison and the alternatives to custody which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is keen on promoting, there will be a dramatic and lasting reduction in the young who are the future customers of the prison system.
Admirable though it is, the police caution is non-statutory. Whether or not it is used varies according to the opinion of the local chief constable. In one area up to 60 or 70 per cent. of young offenders may be cautioned who would otherwise go to a magistrates' court. In the neighbouring area it may be 40 or 50 per cent. That is not right. I would very much like to see the present non-statutory system, which is governed by Home Office circular, beefed up so that all chief constables are aware of the importance of the supreme effort to keep young people out of prison by means of the caution.
It is not merely the disparity between one area and another that concerns me and other people, it is also the disparity in age groups. One finds that chief constables are perfectly happy to use the police caution for 10 to 16 year-old offenders but when they reach the age of 17 it is not used at all. The crimes committed by 16 year-olds are not all that different from those committed by 17 year-olds. Why cannot the police caution be used more frequently for that age group? I should like to see it used much more widely.
I refrained from reintroducing an amendment on Third Reading because I thought it might conform to the noble Earl's views on the repetition of amendments moved on previous occasions and I wished to say a brief word on Bill do now pass. Could the noble Earl encourage the Home Office to beef up its circular? If it would do that, could it also ask the police to consider applying the Home Office circular as much to those young people over the age of 16 as those under that age? Then I would be happy. I regret that the amendment was not agreed to, even though I did not push it to a Division. Much more uniformity could be achieved through a Home Office circular throughout the country without statutory backing.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I hope I may add a few words before the Minister replies to this debate. I view the departure of the Bill from this House with mixed feelings. I believe that the objectives in Part I of the Bill—the restrictions on custodial sentences—are potentially of enormous importance. However, I am sceptical as to whether they will achieve the intended result, at any rate in the short term. I still have great problems with the Bill, particularly as regards the ambivalence that still exists towards the treatment of previous convictions and towards offences being taken into consideration. I also believe that the definition of seriousness and serious harm will cause difficulties for the courts. It would be overoptimistic to expect any sudden or dramatic fall in the size of the prison population.
The House is to be commended on the decisions that were taken on the all important amendments dealing with the life sentence for murder. The move
638
away from the mandatory life sentence towards returning discretion to the courts for the most serious criminal offence that is known—that is, murder—must be a move in the right direction. I wish to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said from the Opposition Front Bench at the start of the debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. The Government may be concerned with the popular reaction to the change that has been made by the House of Lords—which will now go to the Commons —and at the argument that the issue of the abolition of capital punishment is being replaced by the issue of the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. These are issues that have always been handled in another place by a free vote.
There was a vote in the House of Commons on this very Bill on the matter of capital punishment. That vote was taken during the Committee stage in the House of Commons. That amendment only was discussed on the Floor of the House. It was a free vote. The noble Earl and the Home Secretary will play an important part in deciding how the Government should advise another place on the reception of the Lords' amendment dealing with the life sentence for murder. I hope that they will bear the considerations I have referred to in mind.
Finally, I wish to repeat what has been said by every speaker in this short concluding debate in expressing thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the way in which he has handled the Bill with such skill and patience. We all appreciate that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted —I say this with deference to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—to have a second bite at the cherry. I can assure your Lordships that it will be a brief bite as I have only three points to make. First, my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked me specifically about the project which has been proposed by Joyce Plotnikoff. Your Lordships may remember that on Report I gave a firm commitment that the Home Office would evaluate the new provisions concerning the evidence given by children. We propose to commission independent research for that purpose. I can assure my noble friend Lady Faithfull that the research will consider the effectiveness of the new measures in reducing delays.
Although the Home Office is not funding the specific project proposed by Joyce Plotnikoff, I understand that her research into delays in the prosecution of child abusers is now being funded by the Nuffield Foundation. Both the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department are in touch with Miss Plotnikoff and are assisting her with the provision of official data. We shall certainly be interested in the results of that research.
Secondly, I made a vow to refer to the procedures of the House as regards speaking to the same amendments in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. I thought that we were going to have another speech, if not on an amendment at least about a proposed amendment by so distinguished a person as a former Clerk of the Parliaments on the Question, That the Bill do now pass. The noble Lord said that he had not pressed his amendment at Report stage and

639
had not put it down at Third Reading, and then proceeded to ask me a question about it on the Question, That the Bill do now pass. All I would say to him about beefing up the circular on cautioning, about which he was concerned, is that we put out a new circular only last year. It set national standards. We are monitoring its effects and we need to see the effect of the national standards before we consider the possibility of another circular.
The third and last thing that I should like to do is to thank your Lordships again for the part which noble Lords have played on this Bill and for the very kind remarks which your Lordships have been good enough to express.
One always watches the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with care because they tend to swing around like a boomerang. One thinks that they are going out in one direction and they swing back and hit one where one is not expecting it. The noble and learned Lord said that some of my remarks reminded him of the days when he was a young barrister and had a bad brief. I was happy to be thought to be in the position of the first part of that description, but I am not aware of ever having had a bad brief on this Bill. If that was the impression that
640
I gave the noble and learned Lord, I can only assure him that it was due to my own bad exposition of a good brief.
When the noble and learned Lord said that, my mind was taken back to the passing of the Manchester Corporation Bill. I remember well that the late Lord Birkett was in charge of that Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who used to sit on the other side of the House, got up and made a speech. In his reply Lord Birkett said that Lord Peddie had used some pretty specious arguments. That so infuriated Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who was the Leader of the Opposition, that he got up to defend his noble friend Lord Peddie and said that he had heard Lord Birkett use some pretty specious arguments. Lord Birkett rose and said that that was perfectly true, and having used them himself he could recognise them when they were used by others.
As this Bill moves on we now pass this package of measures to another place. We shall see what they do with it and with our amendments. I am grateful to your Lordships for having participated so forcefully.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

  SOUTH AFRICA: RELEASE OF POLITICAL DETAINEES
  SOUTH AFRICA: RELEASE OF POLITICAL DETAINEES
  ARMS SALES: REGISTER PROPOSAL
  ARMS SALES: REGISTER PROPOSAL
  THAILAND: BURMESE REFUGEES
  THAILAND: BURMESE REFUGEES
  BURMA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  BURMA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  LEGAL AID FUNDING: CONSULTATION PAPER
  LEGAL AID FUNDING: CONSULTATION PAPER
  SUB-POST OFFICES AND THE UNIFORM BUSINESS RATE
  SUB-POST OFFICES AND THE UNIFORM BUSINESS RATE
  EDUCATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
  EDUCATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE: IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE: IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
  READING ABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS
  READING ABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS
  PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER TRAINING METHODS
  PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER TRAINING METHODS
  EXAMINATIONS AND SPELLING: ADVICE TO DES
  EXAMINATIONS AND SPELLING: ADVICE TO DES
  STATEMENTS OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
  STATEMENTS OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
  GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS FOR SCHOOLS
  GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS FOR SCHOOLS
  RADON MEASUREMENT SCHEME
  RADON MEASUREMENT SCHEME