Sitting of 25 June 1991

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

  LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (DAFEN ESTUARY) BILL [Lords]
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 4) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Teachers
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to raise the status and professionalism of teachers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government are committed to raising the status and professionalism of teachers. Our proposals to establish an independent review body for teachers' pay and conditions are intended to reinforce this. The end of collective bargaining and poor industrial relations in education will raise still further the esteem in which the teaching profession is held.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned. Friend agree that teachers need greater status and more public esteem? Is he aware that recently I met members of the National Union of Teachers from my constituency who told me that they had made various representations to him? Can he comment on those representations and on his reply?
    Mr. Clarke: I have repeatedly confirmed that it is necessary to build up the public esteem and the self-esteem of the profession. I have had discussions with NUT representatives and heard their ideas. I have mainly discussed the pay review body with them and have sought to persuade them that its establishment will enable them to build up a career structure for their members and enable their members to be rewarded in the light of the advice of
    844
    an independent body. It will also turn us away from the history of bad relations which has damaged the public reputation of the profession.
    The other five trade unions are quite satisfied—as I believe, are the majority of NUT members. The introduction of the pay review body will be a valuable step forward for the profession.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one way to raise the status and morale of teachers is to ensure that every curriculum committee set up by his Department has on it a majority of practising teachers, rather than advisers and organisers who live far away from the scene?
    Mr. Clarke: It is important that there should be active and practising teachers on all these bodies and, most important of all, that the bodies pay particular attention to all the advice that they receive from practising teachers, but it is going a bit far to say that practising teachers must be in the majority. Apart from anything else, there is always a danger in thinking that all teachers agree on these matters. My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that the more teachers one talks to, the more one realises that there is a wide range of opinion in the profession about the best methods of testing and assessing children.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the status and professionalism of teachers would be increased if the Government got off their backs, stopped attacking their pay claims and stopped interfering, while allowing the heads of privatised industries to make money hand over fist? One of them had a pay increase of 66 per cent.—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is miles wide of the question.
    Mr. Skinner: Let us have less of the double standards. If the Government can turn a blind eye to such pay increases for chairmen of privatised industries, they can get off the teachers' backs.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not approve of the scale of some of the pay rises in the private sector, but neither am I responsible for them. We have implemented the advice of the independent advisory committee which gives all teachers a 9·5 per cent. increase this year and head teachers and deputy head teachers 12·75 per cent. this year. That is far greater than the usual pay increase for the vast majority of people or for those in the public sector. It is right that teachers should have that increase because of the work that they are putting in at the moment and because of the regard in which we hold them.

    Speech Therapy
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to estimate how many statemented children require speech therapy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): The identification of the special educational needs of children is the responsibility of local education authorities. Centrally held statistics on children's statements of special educational needs do not break them down by type of learning difficulty.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend accept the appeal court judgment in the Lancashire case that schools now have a duty to provide speech therapy and rather than its being left to the discretion of the local authority?
    Mr. Fallon: Yes. I recently made it clear that if speech therapy is prescribed for educational reasons, local education authorities are under a duty to provide it; if health authorities which are asked to arrange it are unable to do so, the local education authorities must provide it.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister not concerned about the report issued yesterday by Mencap, which said that arrangements for children with learning difficulties leave a lot to be desired, including those for speech therapy and the problems of young people when they leave special schools after the age of 19? Does the Minister have any proposals to deal with the views of Mencap and others?
    Mr. Fallon: As the hon. Gentleman will know, local education authorities have a clear duty under the Education Act 1981 to ensure that the provision statemented for such children is made and that the necessary resources are provided. My Department is working with the Department of Health to secure better deployment of, among others, speech therapists.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that there is considerable concern in many constituencies—and certainly in mine—at the lack of information about the number of children who need to be statemented. Has he made any estimates of the number of speech therapists required to meet what many of us know to be a real need?
    Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend is right. The number of speech therapists has nearly doubled, from 1,510 in 1979 to 2,810 in 1989, but we are working with the Department of Health to secure better deployment of speech therapists, to make greater use of assistant speech therapists, and to promote more even professional practice among local education authorities.

    Pre-school Places
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that every three and four-year-old has the opportunity of a pre-school place.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of their provision for these children.
    Mr. Barnes: Why is it that the top 15 providers of nursery education for three to four-year-olds are all Labour authorities, which provide more than 70 per cent. of places, whereas of the 15 authorities providing the least nursery education for three to four-year-olds, one has no overall control and the other 14 are all Conservative controlled? How do the Government intend to ensure that Conservative local authorities live up to their obligations and make use of the available funds for nursery education?
    Mr. Eggar: One of the reasons why Labour authorities have provided nursery education is that the Government have made available considerable funds for them to do just that. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are now 150,000 more three and four-year-olds in school than there
    846
    were 10 years ago. This year alone, we have increased the amount that we make available to local authorities to spend on nursery education by £140 million. That is our record.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour party claims that universal nursery provision can be met by the abolition of the city technology college programme? Is he also aware that that would raise only £15 million, whereas the cost of universal nursery provision would be more than £1·5 billion? Is there not a strong case for giving the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) remedial maths tuition?
    Mr. Eggar: There are many other good reasons for giving the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) remedial mathematics tuition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A month ago, I asked the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) whether she was prepared to state from the Labour Front Bench that the Labour party was committed to introducing universal nursery education and, if so, whether she would get the endorsement of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). We have had nothing but silence from the hon. Lady on the issue. She owes the House and the country an explanation of what her spending plans are.
    Ms. Armstrong: May we have a commitment from the Government about their determination, or otherwise, to offer young children the chance of a nursery place, which is seen as a right in many other European countries? Do the Government support nursery education?
    Mr. Eggar: We have made our position clear. There are 150,000 more children in nursery education than there were when the Labour party was in power, and we have made an extra £140 million available for nursery education this year compared with last year. That is a record of which we are rightly proud.

    Primary Testing
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the testing of children at the age of seven years.
    Mr. Eggar: The first national tests for seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science are now complete and a full evaluation is under way.
    Mr. Viggers: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the tests are meant not to be competitive between pupils but on the contrary, to provide a most useful appraisal of their skills in reading, writing, arithmetic and basic science so that their future education can be planned in each case?
    Mr. Eggar: I can certainly confirm that. The tests are diagnostic and are intended to identify the strengths and weaknesses of seven-year-old pupils so that teachers, pupils and parents can work together to remedy weaknesses and further to strengthen the strengths.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear from this year's tests that the assessment system told teachers little new about the children in their charge, involved a great deal of teacher and student time, diverted attention from other children in the same class, and cost the taxpayer a great deal of money for Government experimentation? Against that background, would it not have been sensible for the Minister,

    847
    to avoid the embarrassment and criticism that he faced at the headteachers' conference, to take the advice given to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and to listen, for once, to the advice coming from teachers and to use the expertise of individual teachers, rather than simply going ahead with a scheme based on the Government's own misplaced and outdated ideology?
    Mr. Eggar: I was under the possible misapprehension that the Labour party was committed to raising standards in education and to external testing of children at age seven, 11, 14 and 16. If Labour Members have changed their tune, they had better say so publicly.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main purposes of the tests is to test the effectiveness and quality of the education provided by local authorities, by the teachers, and by the governing bodies which run our schools, whereas under the last Labour Government there was no effective monitoring of the quality of education in schools?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national curriculum makes it clear what we want children to be taught. Assessment and testing, which are integral to the national curriculum, are the only way available in which to assess whether pupils have learnt what has been taught.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received this year about the student loan scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I have received very few letters about loans this year. The scheme has been successfully set up and is running smoothly. More than 180,000 students have so far applied for loans.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that many students find it difficult to continue their studies due to poverty resulting from the introduction of the student loan scheme and the first ever freezing of student grants from this autumn, together with the Government's decision to stop students receiving housing benefit and their disqualification from receiving income support and hardship allowance during the summer vacation? Bearing in mind that the unit administration costs of the loan scheme are more than double the Government's original estimate, is it not about time the Government realised the error of their ways, scrapped the disastrous loan scheme and replaced it with a far fairer system of student grants?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the combined uprated grant and the new loan will increase student support by 25 per cent. this year. If students were facing the kind of hardship that the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would be very odd if student numbers continued to expand as quickly as they are expanding now. Applications through the Universities Central Council on Admissions and the Polytechnics central admissions system are up 8 per cent. this year. The loan to which each student is entitled, which this year is £420 outside London, is appreciably more than the average benefit claimed, which we estimate at £327. With
    848
    regard to the costs of running the system, it is absurd to suggest that the initial establishment costs, which are an investment for the whole life of the scheme, should be a measure of the costs per account of each individual student loan. Obviously, as the number of students taking out loans steadily increases, as is happening now, the unit cost per account will steadily decline.
    Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend confirm that in 1979 one in eight of our young people were in advanced education while today's figure is one in five? Can he also confirm that more than 1 million of our young people are in advanced education and that enrolments increased last year by 10 per cent? Does he agree that those figures vindicate the Government's position with respect to advanced education?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. He draws attention to an expansion of personal opportunity and a change in our society of the first order of importance, comparable in importance with the expansion of home ownership over which the Government are presiding.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister confirm that among the representations that he has received were representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals drawing his attention to the fact that, on the basis of an extensive survey, the unit cost to institutions of issuing the certificates under the student loans scheme is running at £7 per certificate, compared with the £3·50 that the institutions are reimbursed by the Student Loans Company? Will the Minister instruct the company to reimburse the institutions fairly for the administration costs, especially as the banks were to be paid a £12·50 handling charge before they pulled out of the scheme? Or is higher education to be short changed yet again, as it has been so disgracefully by the Government's refusal to compensate institutions for the increase in value added tax?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Representations have been made to us that the reimbursement of administrative costs provided by the Student Loans Company might be increased. We are, of course, considering those representations. There has been a wide diversity of administrative practice across the range of higher education institutions and a wide diversity of costs. We shall look to reimburse institutions on the basis of the most efficient practice.
    Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the student loans scheme has enabled more students to enter higher education this year, and as students do not have to repay the loan until the year after they have graduated and at a zero real rate of interest, that is a very good deal for students and can in no way be construed as depriving them of the opportunity to enter higher education?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend very fairly points out that the student loans scheme is a humane and practical scheme which offers students additional support well above the previous level of support and at a zero real rate of interest. Students only have to repay in real terms the money that they borrowed in the first place. That contrasts interestingly with the terms offered by the banks. It has been rather gratifying that the banks have responded to the stimulus of the competition provided by the Student Loans Company by offering relatively advantageous

    849
    borrowing terms to students while they are studying. However, the repayment terms compare very unfavourably with the repayment terms under our scheme.

    Schools (Repair and Maintenance)
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to deal with the backlog of repair and maintenance in schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fallon: Support for recurrent spending on education, including repairs and maintenance, totals £17·5 billion this year, an increase of 16 per cent. over the comparable total for last year. Annual capital guidelines for schools total £472 million, an increase of 15 per cent. on last year. It is for individual local education authorities and school governors to determine their expenditure priorities within their total resources.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the Northumberland education authority has accrued a repair bill of £10 billion during the lifetime of this Government? [Interruption.] I am sorry—£10 million. Is the Minister further aware that school teachers in the county of Northumberland have been given plastic buckets to catch rain coming in through school roofs?
    Mr. Fallon: I am aware of the problems of Northumberland education authority, including its difficulties with timber-framed structures. That is why we have increased Northumberland's capital guideline from £1·9 million last year to £3·5 million this year.
    Mr. Dover: Is the Minister aware that the best plan that he ever had to clear the backlog of repairs was to have local management of schools and to enable schools to look forward to the opting-out system? It is only when schools have control of their own funds that they can do the repairs that they badly need to have done.
    Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is quite right. Giving schools their own budgets is the fastest way of ensuring that money allocated for schools is actually spent on schools. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the average amount being held back per pupil this year is £230. That is the local education authority tax on every pupil, which is being spent on so-called central services when it could be spent in the classroom.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister knows that in allocating funds to local authorities for school building programmes there are real problems in areas such as my own, with aging Victorian schools, particularly primary schools, without school halls and without inside toilets. Year after year, those schools have not been getting funds because they are third in the order of priorities and therefore the problem has never been tackled. Again, last year, we had £6 million to spend and £100 million problem growing, so there was another year of decline. Will the Minister tackle that problem? When will he conclude his review of the minimum standards for school building, or is he planning to cut them and wait until after the general election to admit it?
    Mr. Fallon: I understand the problems of local education authorities in areas such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents. That is why we have ensured an overall increase of 15 per cent. in schools' capital and a
    850
    specific 50 per cent. increase in the capital category specially allocated for improvement and replacement work, which this year has gone up by 50 per cent. to £109 million.
    Mr. Devlin: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) that local management of schools is the best way to deal with the backlog of repairs. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that in Cleveland, the LEA has let three-year contracts to the direct labour organisation for all school maintenance and repairs? That has been done on a cost-neutral basis to frustrate the Government's policy of delegating budgets to schools. What does the Minister intend to do about that?
    Mr. Fallon: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are going to do something about that. The contracts were entered into before local management of schools began. As soon as each of those contracts expires, the amount concerned must be delegated down to the head and the governors, who we believe are able to arrange maintenance and repairs much more cost effectively than can be achieved by the local education authority through its direct labour organisation.
    Mr. Straw: In a recent magazine interview, the Secretary of State said:
    "I don't believe the figure of a £3 to £4 billion backlog of repairs",
    and described that figure as "campaigning nonsense". As that figure was based on his own Department's survey of school buildings, will the Minister say what the correct figure is, or does he not know?
    Mr. Fallon: In the four years since that survey was carried out, £2 billion has already been spent in clearing the backlog. The amount spent on repairs and maintenance per pupil has risen from £28 in 1979 to £64 in 1989—a real terms increase of about 20 per cent.

    Literacy and Numeracy
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of literacy and numeracy levels at 16 years of age (a) nationally and (b) in the south-west; and what were the comparable rates 30, 20 and 10 years ago.
    Mr. Eggar: Information is not available in the form or over the period requested. However, GCSE results in English and mathematics indicate a welcome improvement in pupil performance since the examination was introduced in 1988.
    Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that we do not have the figures to work on? What is he doing to improve standards of literacy and numeracy, which are perceived by the general public to be lower rather than higher as the years go by?
    Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is why we introduced the national curriculum and insist on rigorous external tests for those aged seven, 11, 14 and 16. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that he was looking into how the teaching of reading is taught to teachers on training courses. That, and a number of other measures are

    851
    designed to improve standards of numeracy and literacy, and the way reading, writing and arithmetic are taught in schools.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the statistics are not readily available at present, his recent decision to oblige schools to publish, in common form, their public examination results will produce that information, which will be widely welcomed by parents, many teachers and many schools?
    Mr. Eggar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his ten-minute Bill, which added a spur to our efforts to ensure that the measures I announced a few days ago would be introduced.

    Primary Schools, Staffordshire
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at primary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Mr. Fallon: Staffordshire spent £1,050 per nursery and primary pupil in 1988–89, the latest year for which information is available. On the same price basis, Staffordshire spent £815 per nursery and primary pupil in 1978–79. Therefore, Staffordshire's spending per nursery and primary pupil in 1988–89 was some 29 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures refute absolutely Opposition charges of underfunding primary school education in Staffordshire since the Government came to office?
    Mr. Fallon: Yes, absolutely. The Staffordshire figures clearly demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to funding the education service and the substantial increases that have taken place over a 10-year period.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of primary school funding in Staffordshire, if it is the Government's policy to cut taxes, how much will have to be cut from the Department of Education and Science budget? Perhaps the Minister can relate those cuts to his proposed expenditure in Staffordshire in future.
    Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed that, at the same time as increasing education spending, we have reduced the direct rate of taxation. That is in direct contrast to the Labour party policy which would tax teachers more heavily than they are taxed at present.

    Reading Standards
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be responding to the Education, Science and Arts Committee's third report of Session 1990–91 on standards of reading in primary schools.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Soon, Sir.
    Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that if we want children to learn to read quickly and efficiently, one of the key components is for teachers to listen to their pupils while they read. Has the Minister
    852
    considered the problem of organising lessons so that teachers can listen to 30 pupils reading in class, one after the other? Does he accept that many teachers have found it extremely difficult to fulfil that commitment during the past six or seven weeks while also carrying out the testing of seven-year-olds?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely accept that it is important that teachers listen to individual pupils reading. That is a key part of the tests for seven-year-olds that have just been carried out. I agree that we have had representations from teachers about the difficulties of managing that exercise and many schools have had to employ supply teachers while that is being done. We shall take all representations carefully into account when deciding on the form of next year's tests for seven-year-old but we cannot give up arrangements whereby each pupil reads to his or her teacher if we are to ensure that reading standards are of the required level in primary schools.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that primary school children's reading is greatly facilitated if they have an opportunity to attend a nursery school? Does he recall the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), when junior Education Minister, saying that nursery education was not a high priority and that the Labour Government would not increase funding to it?
    Mr. Clarke: For many years, successive Governments have not been able to insist on the provision of universal nursery education because the cost is very high. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the experience in Wandsworth, where the local education authority is funded on the same basis as other inner London boroughs but is able to provide nursery education for all three and four-year-olds who want it because of the sensible way in which it has organised the finances of the remainder of its education provision.

    Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that school children have a proper understanding of grammar, spelling and punctuation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are progressively implementing the national curriculum requirements for English. Spelling will be taken into account in the marking of GCSE examinations in 1991 in the usual way. I am awaiting advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council about what additional steps can be taken in public examinations in 1992 and in subsequent years. In my opinion, the teaching of grammar and the correction of spelling and grammatical errors will resume their proper place in the classroom if they are known to be relevant to the marking of public examinations.
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks are welcome. Is he aware that a survey conducted in Birmingham by City 2000 found that there was widespread concern among employers in the city at the poor basic quality of skills in grammar, spelling and punctuation, particularly among support staff? Does he agree that, with the apostrophe being subjected to the most intolerable abuse and split infinitives everywhere, the

    853
    biggest favour that we can do young people today is to give them a thorough knowledge of the form and structure of the wonderful English language?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's description of the experience of employers and others in the west midlands is borne out by the experience of many other people, who feel that standards of spelling and grammatical use of English in this country have been deteriorating in recent years. It is important that we restore those standards and express parts of the English national curriculum will enable us to do just that.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept from someone who has trained as a learning support teacher that, where children are diagnosed through the correct administration of diagnostic testing, the urgent need throughout the education system is to ensure that resourcing is made available and that every primary school has access to a learning support teacher to enable children to cope with the difficulties that they experience?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support of what she calls diagnostic testing and the need, after such testing, to help particular children, which is the basis of our current policy. It is also important that all schools are properly resourced, but all the evidence, including that from Her Majesty's inspectorate, shows that there is no direct correlation between the resourcing of a school and standards of performance in reading, spelling, grammar, and so on. Well-organised classes are required and they are achieved in well-resourced as well as less well-resourced schools. Organisation is the key to the whole subject.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although grammar, spelling and punctuation are extraordinarily important, they are also sometimes indicative of learning difficulties in a particular area? Does he accept that Devon, although not apparently an area of difficulty, has special problems and that some parts of Devon might be classified as areas of social deprivation? Will he bear that in mind when he considers the grant for next year?
    Mr. Clarke: In distributing grant to local education authorities we must take a variety of matters into account, including social deprivation. I have no doubt that we shall continue to do so when we make allocations to Devon and other counties this year. Again, success or otherwise in teaching children to read does not seem to be closely related to the children's social deprivation. There are some extremely successful schools in deprived areas and less successful schools in affluent areas. That is why it is so important to get the method of teaching, the curriculum and the testing system right, which is what the Government are doing.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Secretary of State accept that his words amount to no more than hot air? The reality is of attacks on teachers, attacks on school budgets as local management of schools bites, attacks on standards and the undermining of education standards. When he leaves office he will leave a legacy that amounts to nothing more than criminal neglect.
    Mr. Clarke: That rather curious outburst seems to have nothing to do with the question. I trust that the hon. Gentleman was at least capable of spelling it properly
    854
    when he committed it to paper. We have spent this question session describing the increased resources in schools and their increased achievements. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the spectacular improvement in the number of people going onto further and higher education. Only one in eight people could go on to higher education when we came into office, one in five now do, one in four will shortly and one in three will go on to higher education by the end of the century. That is all solidly based on real improvement in education standards in this country, forwarded by our education reforms.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to take any action to accelerate the trend towards grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The number of schools seeking and acquiring grant-maintained status is already increasing very rapidly. In the past sixth months alone, the number of schools voting in favour of seeking grant-maintained status has more than doubled. We shall continue to urge schools to consider the opportunities afforded by grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Butler: Is it not the case that the new GM schools have proved popular with parents, teachers and pupils? Can my right hon. Friend say whether standards have risen in such schools?
    Mr. Clarke: So far in the 88 GM schools that we have, my hon. Friend's assertion can be supported. As far as I can tell, all those running grant-maintained schools have found that the experience is popular with staff, parents and pupils. Obviously, in time we will be able to tell—from reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate and elsewhere—what effect they have on standards. However, it must be beneficial to raise staff morale in that way and to give complete control over policy in the school to headteachers and governors who are bound to be responsive to parents in the way that they carry out their duties.
    Mr. Straw: Since only 14 per cent. of schools in the pipeline for opting out are in Labour-controlled education authority areas, while 66 per cent. are in Conservative-controlled areas, does not the evidence clearly show that parents in Labour-controlled LEAs have great confidence in the ability of their LEAs to run their education service? How can the Secretary of State come out with such nonsense about the number of grant-maintained schools growing rapidly, as he has just done, when the total number opting out or in the pipeline—236—is less than 1 per cent. of the country's 24,000 maintained schools?
    Mr. Clarke: It is foolish for the hon. Gentleman to reduce every aspect of managing schools to a party-political argument about Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities. However, it is relevant that in the areas served by Labour-controlled authorities the most intense pressures are put on headteachers, governors and staff not to opt for grant-maintained status. That is because the Labour party is especially wedded to the defence of town hall bureaucracy in that as in many other areas. As regards the figures, the hon. Gentleman keeps making extraordinary claims that somehow the process is slowing up, when it is accelerating at a remarkable rate, as

    855
    he knows; 12 months ago there were only seven ballots pending and now there are more than 50. All the time that I have been in office, the rate at which grant-maintained applications are being received has steadily accelerated. When we return to office and people no longer fear pressure from Labour authorities, those applications will become a flood.

    Primary School Testing
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of testing for seven year-old primary school children.
    Mr. Eggar: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
    Sir Anthony Durant: On the principle of testing, given that some teachers have expressed the view that the tests are complicated and occupy a great deal of classroom time, will my hon. Friend review that when he is looking at the future of testing seven-year-olds?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the need for testing. Like the tests for 11, 14 and 16-year-olds, the tests for seven-year-olds must be simple, rigorous and objective. It is very much with that in mind that we are currently evaluating all the evidence that we have received from individual schools and teachers. Four conferences are taking place around the country and we are gathering evidence through the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the National Foundation for Educational Research, and Her Majesty's inspectorate. When we have put all that together, we shall be able to conduct a proper analysis of this year's national pilot scheme and to introduce our proposals for the testing of seven-year-olds next year.
    Mr. Rees: If such testing reveals bad results from a particular child, is the Minister satisfied that schools have the necessary processes for finding out why, for example, because of dyslexia? Whose job is it to ensure that local authorities provide proper classes and special teachers for dyslexic children because, whether under Labour or Conservative authorities, the facilities in this country are not good enough?
    Mr. Eggar: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about dyslexia. For years the education establishment has refused to accept dyslexia as a problem. Recognition of it is long overdue. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has made clear our commitment to try to help dyslexic children.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 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. Davies: Now that it is clear that the privatisation of the gas, electricity and water industries has led to bigger salaries for the bosses and bigger bills for the consumers, with no improvement in the level of service, how can the Prime Minister continue to argue that the privatisation of those industries has been in the public interest?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that much of what 1 he hon. Gentleman says is incorrect. It is precisely because Whitehall has stopped interfering in the privatised companies that electricity prices have fallen in recent years, that gas prices have fallen and that British Telecom's prices have fallen.
    Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that British troops will not leave Iraq until suitable assurances have been given to the Kurdish population?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq. The United Nations has taken responsibility for the humanitarian relief operation in northern Iraq. It was never our intention to keep a permanent troop presence on the ground there, but before we or the other allies withdraw, we will need to have several things in place: first, an effective United Nations force on the ground; secondly, clear warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression will meet the severest response; thirdly, a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back up those warnings and fourthly, the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq. Without that, we will not leave.
    Mr. Hattersley: In the light of the Government's constant call for restraint, will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the salary increase of 58 per cent. that has been awarded to the chief executive of National Power?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hattersley: I am delighted by that not unexpected news—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is taking up a lot of time.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the Prime Minister is against the increase, is not he now required to explain why the Government did not use their 40 per cent. shareholding to prevent it, and what action he will take before the annual general meeting?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly. I am happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was made clear in the prospectus that the Government had no intention of using their shareholding to intervene in financial decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we did that for good reasons.
    Mr. Hattersley: In this as in so many other matters, the Prime Minister says one thing but is not prepared to act to back up his platitudes. If he had given me an honest answer to my original question, he would be prepared to take some action now. If he is not prepared to take the action which is within his power, no one will believe that his condemnation was anything other than feeble public relations.
    The Prime Minister: If people want to hear something that is feeble, they should listen to what the right hon.

    857
    Gentleman has just said. I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary some years ago that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right. That still remains my view. We explained perfectly clearly when we privatised those companies that it was in the interests of the users of them. It is for that reason that electricity prices have fallen over the past seven years in real terms, that privatised gas prices have fallen by 11 per cent., that British Telecom's prices have fallen by 20 per cent. and that 95 per cent. of British Telecom's call boxes now work. None of that happened when it was in public ownership.
    Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he thinks would happen to the British economy if the basic rate of income tax were increased to 40p in the pound?
    The Prime Minister: It would undoubtedly do very great damage to the economy. It would cut incentives, it would recreate the brain drain and recreate all the economic difficulties that we had during the 1970s when the Labour party pursued policies of precisely that kind.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the Prime Minister seems prepared to isolate Britain in Europe over the word federalism, perhaps he will tell us what he thinks federalism means.
    The Prime Minister: It would be interesting if the Europeans would tell us what they mean by federalism. In a treaty text we need to have language the meaning of which is clear. Federalism in the European Community means different things to different people. If it implies a central Government for the federation, that is not what people in this country want. If it means decentralisation, it sounds like subsidiarity, which many people in this country would find more acceptable. But in no way could we permit that word to appear in the treaty until or unless it is clear what it means and that it does not mean the centralisation of power.
    Sir Charles Morrison: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing a statutory minimum wage? Will he also say what effect a statutory minimum wage would have?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no doubt that as many trade union leaders have testified, a statutory minimum wage would dramatically increase unemployment in this country, as it has done in some other European countries.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir P. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister accept that if the hope, now I am happy to say, widely entertained, of a new way forward between Ireland and England is to be realised —[Interruption]—from the present talks over Northern Ireland, the best qualities that can be brought to those talks are first, the resolve that the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Haughey expressed following their meeting last Friday night and secondly, the staying power displayed throughout by the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I entirely agree with his
    858
    analysis. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose patience and skill ensured that the talks could begin. We all hope that they will be successful and that they will reach a conclusion that will enable a substantial transfer of power and responsibility to locally elected representatives. It would be a remarkable move forward for Northern Ireland if that were achievable. I hope and believe that it may be done.
    Dr. Blackburn: Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the nation today the philosophy that this Government will offer to the people only that which they can afford and will not indulge in wild, exaggerated, uncosted promises?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can also give him the assurance that if anyone else offers an uncosted agenda we shall cost it for them.
    Mr. Rooker: When the Prime Minister goes for his audience later today will he take the opportunity to have a word with the colonel of the Grenadier Guards who also lives at the same address? In a letter to my constituent, Mr. Fred Crowton, he expressed his support for Sean Povey and his two colleagues getting fair and decent compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Given that the Palace now supports that justified case, why are we waiting for a decision?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about that last Thursday and I have nothing to add.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee to the House today that his Government will continue to support and fund the Black Country urban development corporation, which has transformed areas of derelict land, created thousands of jobs and already attracted £195 million in private investment? Does he agree that, given the success of the 10 urban development corporations, it would be sheer folly to hand over their powers, as Labour suggests, to local councils? The Labour party suggests that they should be handed over to councils such as Birmingham and Liverpool which have a dreadful reputation and have done so much in the past to damage and hamper economic generation.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes her point with great force and vigour. I agree with what she said about the possible transfer of the powers of the UDCs to local Labour authorities. The Black Country urban development corporation has had a remarkable record in recent years and I hope and believe that it will continue to do so.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: For hundreds of thousands of British businesses the word recession has already acquired only one meaning—disaster. What does that word mean to the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of what the Confederation of British Industry, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the OECD—and the Government's own forecasts have had to say about the future. All of us expect the economy to turn up in the second half of this year.
    Mr. Conway: Does my right hon. Friend accept from one who was loath to support the Single European Act that his conduct during the European negotiations has been superb? As First Lord of the Treasury will he ensure that those who talk to the British people about the dream of a European super-state also understand fully the economic and taxation costs of that dream should it ever become a reality?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about an economic super-state in Europe. That is not what the majority of members in the Community wish to see and it is not what we wish to see. It will not be the outcome of the negotiations.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that 55-year-old Ernest Saunders, the former Guinness chairman, becomes eligible for parole this Friday, having served 10 months of a 30-month sentence in an open prison for the conviction of theft of more than £8 million? However, 71-year-old asthmatic Norman Laws is halfway through a 60-day sentence in the maximum security Durham gaol for non-payment of less than £300 poll tax. Does the Prime Minister think that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?
    The Prime Minister: I do know that the position of many people over the community charge may have been made far worse by the leadership that the hon. Gentleman gave in not paying the community charge. I know also that no one who sits in this House pretending to make the law has any right to break the law.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the great support of many people in this country in his discussions in Europe? Is he also aware that people are confident that in his future discussions he will not sell them or future generations down the river?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said and I assure her that that will be the case.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be trying hard not to think about retirement, but is he aware that this country's laws on retirement are in a complete mess, and that we are in danger of losing cases before the European Court on the ground that we discriminate against both men and women through our different retirement ages? There are many men who would like to be able to retire at 60 and many women who would like to go on working after the age of 60. When will we sort out the problem and have a flexible retirement age—one that suits people?
    The Prime Minister: That is a problem of some importance, as the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that for some years we have considered the principle of flexible retirement for both men and women. As he rightly added, I have no intention whatever of retiring for many years.
    Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the positive attitude taken by the Minister for Corporate Affairs towards the establishment of a digital European television standard? Will he contrast that attitude with the efforts of the European Commission to throw European taxpayers' money down the drain chasing antiquated technology? Is not the latter activity typical of much antiquated European thinking and is it not right that this country should once again be taking a lead, as in so many other European matters?
    The Prime Minister: I fear that my hon. Friend is right about the attitude taken in the Community, but he is also right to praise the activities of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions on statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Services) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Access to Personal Files and Medical Reports (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To find any kind of precedent—even an inexact one—for what occurred last night we must go back to 11 December 1974, and the colourful days of Bob Mellish. You, Mr. Speaker, were an Opposition Whip then, so you will remember those days well.
This is a matter for the Chair, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend no criticism of Mr. Deputy Speaker's decision to allow the closure of the business at half-past two in the morning. The point of order for you is this: do you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, have any right of objection on behalf of the House to refuse amendments that have been devised in the other place, as in this case on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, which might not have been accepted by the Table Office of the House of Commons because they alter the basic structure of the Bill, so that we have gone through Second Reading and the Committee stage of that Bill on the basis of a false prospectus? The House gave a Second Reading to a Bill very different from that amended by the House of Lords, which was before us last night.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, reflect for 24 hours on the issues involved, and, having done so, make a statement to the House tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need do that. Although I was not present at 2.30 this morning, I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, so I am well aware what went on. The only reason I can rule out of order Lords amendments coming back to the House is if they have financial implications for the House of Commons which have not previously been provided for. Indeed, I shall be doing that later today.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the next 24 hours, while you are reflecting on that matter, perhaps you would also reflect on what your position will be if, at the beginning of tomorrow's debate on the European Community, a very large number of Members on both sides of the House rise to speak—and I fully expect that to be the case, given the discussions that I have had with my colleagues of late. Would it be within your power, Mr. Speaker, to mention to the authorities of the House and the usual channels that
862
the debate is fundamental to the future of the House and to the conduct of the intergovernmental conferences, with a view, perhaps, to extending the debate over two days so that all those hon. Members who wish to speak—there may be 650 of them, for all I know—may have an opportunity to do so?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to his Chief Whip, he would probably get a better answer than I can give him. I am bound to say, however, that although I have not seen the full list of those who wish to participate in tomorrow's debate, I have seen a preliminary list and there are a great many names on it. It would certainly help the House greatly if we had more time.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I want to refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am not quite sure what it is that you will be doing later today. You said that you would be ruling amendments out of order. There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments accepted last night took the provisions of the Natural Heritage Bill (Scotland) outside the terms of the money resolution. There can be no ifs or buts about that. Is it those amendments that you will be ruling out of order today or if not, what will you be doing? I was not quite sure what you meant.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is on to the right point. The amendments that I shall rule out of order today are those that go beyond the terms of the money resolution. The amendments selected yesterday did not go beyond the terms of the relevant money resolution, or they would not have been selected.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), can you confirm that, in accordance with the convention of the House, if a former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—puts her name on the list of speakers in tomorrow's debate, she will have the privilege of being called early?
Mr. Speaker: In making my selection, I have many difficult problems to consider, but it is, indeed, a convention of the House that former Prime Ministers are given some precedence in debate.

Vagrancy (Amendment)
3.37 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.
The history of the Vagrancy Act is a lengthy one. The mischief at which the Act was aimed was not begging per se but vagrancy as a way of life—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining in the Chamber for this matter please leave quietly?
Mr. Hargreaves: Vagrancy as a way of life was considered to be a threat to the economic stability of society.
The black death of 1348 resulted in a shortage of agricultural labour. In order to ensure that those capable of work did not remain idle, a law was passed shortly afterwards stating that giving alms to those deemed capable of work was an offence. An Act passed in 1530 made begging an offence but only if the defendant was fit and able to work. The emphasis was again on prosecuting vagrancy as a way of life.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 was introduced as a measure to deal with specific problems in Britain following the Napoleonic wars. The large numbers of soldiers who arrived, and who were discharged on to the streets with no job and no accommodation, were joined by a massive influx of economic migrants from Ireland and Scotland who travelled to England, and especially London, in search of work. The ancient pass laws were of no use in dealing with the increased numbers of homeless and penniless urban poor. The Vagrancy Act was therefore introduced as a method of dealing with a specific early 19th-century problem.
The Act makes it an offence to sleep on the streets or to beg. In essence, therefore, it is a crime in England and Wales to be homeless or to cadge subsistence money. When the Act was passed, criticism of it centred on the fact that it created a catch-all offence. To sleep on the streets or to beg subsistence became a crime, whatever reason an individual might have had for being in such a predicament. That provision still pertains today.
Until recently it was believed that the Vagrancy Act 1924 had largely withered away through lack of use. In recent years, however, as the number of homeless people sleeping out has risen, the use of the Act has increased dramatically, especially in the Metropolitan police district.
In 1988, in England and Wales, some 573 people were prosecuted and convicted under the Vagrancy Act. In May 1990, the National Association of Probation Officers carried out a survey of the prosecutions under the Act. That survey revealed that 1,250 prosecutions had been dealt with in 14 central London magistrates courts in that year, which represented an enormous leap in the number of prosecutions under the Act, especially in London.
The number of people sleeping out has indeed risen dramatically in recent years—again, especially in London. Homelessness is a great social problem, which only far-reaching policy initiatives can address. The abolition of the Vagrancy Act will not of itself solve the problem. Sleeping out and begging are the result of homelessness; they are social, not criminal, evils, and it is not and should not be the role of criminal law to punish those who have
864
already been marginalised by their predicament. That applies particularly to the most vulnerable groups— the young and the mentally ill—who have been reduced to life on the streets.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 serves not to alleviate but to compound the problems of those who are forced to sleep out, and to beg to survive. Those who are convicted under the Act are frequently fined; to pay the fine, they have to beg. Other sentences include short periods in prison, probation orders and conditional discharges.
The aquisition of a criminal record further disadvantages the homeless person in the employment and housing markets. In 1980, the Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that the offence of begging should not be regarded as a means of dealing with the problem of homelessness, but declined to recommend its repeal: it was felt that, if it were repealed, the police would be powerless to act in response to a complaint, or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance.
In 1986, however, Parliament passed the Public Order Act. The Act gives the police powers
"to act in response to a complaint or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance".
The very words used by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1980 as a reason for not recommending 1he repeal of the Vagrancy Act were used in the 1986 Act that gave the police new powers.
On 11 December 1990, it was said in another place that the Act also provided for action against unlicensed pedlars, indecent behaviour on the part of common prostitutes and dishonest fortune tellers; but schedule 1 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989 repealed the legislation that had created those offences. Surely, whatever arguments there once were for retaining the Vagrancy Act have long since been made redundant.
Let there be no misunderstanding. My Bill does not seek to protect those who use violence or intimidation to obtain money; that offence is covered by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. It does not seek to protect the professional beggars whom we see on the streets of London; that offence is covered by section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Nor does it seek to protect those who cause, permit or encourage a child to beg; that offence is covered by section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It does, however, seek to decriminalise vagrancy, and in so doing it has the support of the Law Society, the National Childrens Home, the National Association of Probation Officers and many other groups.
If, as we have been told in the past, the basic purpose of the vagrancy laws is to preserve public order and decency and to protect individuals from offence or injury, it seems clear that we are now adequately served—not least by the laws that I have cited. We have been told by the police that they arrest people only when there is an element of threatening or intimidating behaviour. Nowhere in sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act are the words "threatening" and "intimidating" used; the offence specified is begging itself.
If threatening or intimidating behaviour is used, the police should prosecute, but that should be done under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986—which properly deals with such circumstances—and not under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act.
In 1989, a total of 1,256 people were prosecuted and brought to London magistrates courts for the simple offence of begging. That can mean only that in those cases

865
there was no element of threatening or intimidating behaviour, because, had there been, the police would have been obliged to prosecute under section 5 of the Public Order Act.
In a letter to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) dated 22 February 1990, a Home Office Minister said:
"There is no specific power of arrest attached to the 1824 Act, and sleeping rough and begging are not arrestable offences under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but there is a general power of arrest in section 25 of the Act if the suspect's name and address are not known or the address given is doubtful, in which case it would be impossible to serve a summons; or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that arrest is necessary to prevent the suspect from causing unlawful damage to property, committing an offence against public decency or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway."
As it is not possible to serve a summons on homeless people, they are always dealt with by way of arrest.
The Government correctly point out that the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act are not imprisonable—offenders are generally fined—but there is an additional sentence of imprisonment in default of payment. Homeless and penniless people therefore have two likely courses of action—to beg to raise money for the fine or to spend time in custody. Therefore, they are likely to be imprisoned for offences that in 1982 the Government felt were not sufficiently serious to merit such punishment.
The people about whom we are talking who appear in court on vagrancy charges will be cold and hungry, they neither ask for nor receive legal aid, they will not understand the court proceedings, and they will probably plead guilty. In practice, those who appear before the courts are summarily convicted. They are fined money that they do not have, and may then serve a 24-hour sentence in lieu of payment of fine. They then go back on the streets whence they came. How does that help them? How does it help society? Homelessness is a social problem, not a crime.
In recent years and months, the Government have sought to tackle the problem of homelessness by the provision of more accommodation. That, and help and advice, is a better way of dealing with these unfortunate people. The Bill would help to ensure that we treat them as human beings and not as criminals.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Sir Charles Irving, Mr. Frank Field and Mr. Simon Hughes.

Vagrancy (Amendment)
  VAGRANCY (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 194.]
Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Resolved,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 44, 45, 1 to 43 and 46 to 175.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
  Lords amendment: No. 44, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause:
  (" . No court shall be required to sentence a person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life.")
  3.48 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments: No. 60 in clause 30, in page 21, line 44, after ("life prisoner") insert
  ("who has been convicted of murder")
  Government motion to disagree.
  No. 162, in schedule 12, page 95, line 15, at end insert—
  ("1965 c. 71. The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. In section 1 in subsection (1), the words from "and" to the end of the subsection; subsection (2); in subsection (4), the words from "in each of the said sections 70" to the end of the subsection; in subsection (5), the words from "but in lieu thereof" to the end of the subsection.")
  Government motion to disagree.
  Mr. Baker: With this amendment and those grouped with it, we return to the penalty for murder; that is the principal question before the House today. The debate also covers the procedures governing the administration of life sentences.
  The first question is the penalty for murder—the mandatory life sentence. The Government are inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendment which would abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder. We shall debate later the procedures for administering life sentences, where the Government are proposing substitute amendments to those made in the Lords in so far as they affect discretionary life sentences. That will be the second major debate of the day.
  This is the third time during the proceedings on the Bill that the full House has discussed what the penalty should be for the crime of murder. The matter was also discussed in Standing Committee A on 7 February this year.
  As I am sure the House will recall, just before Christmas, on 17 December, we debated whether capital punishment should be restored as the penalty for some or all categories of murder. The House rejected capital punishment by substantial majorities. I do not personally support the restoration of the death penalty, but I respect the sincerely held views on this subject of that substantial minority of our colleagues who support it.

  867
  The clear assumption underlying the debate on 17 December was that, if the death penalty were not restored, a life sentence would remain the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder. That was the assumption underlying all debates on capital punishment since 1964.
  The Government made their position clear on the mandatory life sentence for murder in the White Paper which was published in February 1990. In paragraph 6·15, we said that we believed
  "that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of murder should remain, to mark the heinous nature of this crime."
  When the death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965, the Government of the day made it clear that murder would carry a fixed statutory sentence, which was life, and that the Home Secretary, in the exercise of his primary duty to protect the public, would retain complete discretion to release a murderer after a short or long period or, in some cases, not at all. The Home Secretary of the day, Sir Frank Soskice, took considerable pains to explain to Parliament how he would exercise that discretion to ensure that society was properly protected. During the debate on 17 December, I made absolutely clear my intention to continue my predecessor's policy of requiring those responsible for the worst categories of murder to serve at least 20 years in prison.
  On Report, an amendment to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It was debated but not voted on. The Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) —made it clear then that the Government continued to regard the retention of the mandatory sentence as essential to mark the uniquely heinous nature of the crime of murder.
  The other place, however, has approached the issue in a different way. Its Select Committee on murder arid life imprisonment, which reported in July 1989, recommended that the life sentence should no longer be the mandatory penalty for murder. The other place has sought to give effect to that recommendation by Lords amendment No. 44, and Lords amendments Nos. 60 and 162, which are consequential.
  The Government do not dismiss lightly the sincerely held views of the majority in the other place who support the abolition of the mandatory sentence. Like capital punishment, this is essentially a matter of judgment in which there is, properly, room for differing views to be held. Having reflected carefully on the views expressed in the other place, however, I have concluded that I must advise the House to disagree with their Lordships in these amendments in so far as they seek to abolish the mandatory life sentence in England, Wales and Scotland.
  Those who want the mandatory sentence to disappear have argued that murder is not, in fact, a uniquely heinous crime. They say that certain kinds of murder are less heinous than some others. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West argued this in the debate on 20 February. I do not think that I do a disservice to his arguments by saying that, but I disagree with those arguments.
  At the core of the crime of murder is the intentional taking of another person's life—killing someone, with an intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. It is all very well to talk about mercy killings or so-called domestic murders, but the fact remains that in each case another
  868
  person's life has been intentionally taken away. It is a crime where there can never be any possibility of the victim recovering or receiving redress or compensation. It is a crime of dreadful finality.
  I believe that the public perceive, rightly, a distinction between the seriousness of murder and that of other crimes. This justifies a unique penalty for those who commit it. The public have a right to expect that Parliament and the criminal justice system will take effective steps to punish those who commit this crime and to protect the public from offenders who have shown themselves capable of intentionally taking another person's life.
  Of course murders and murderers vary, and the variations are reflected in the amount of time that the murderer actually spends behind bars. Where there are powerful extenuating circumstances and where there is no continuing danger to the public—such as, for example, it could be argued, in some mercy killings—the person might be released after a short period. On the other hand, someone who had committed a particularly brutal and sadistic murder could expect to spend a very long time behind bars.
  In either case, however, the murderer's liberty would be at the disposal of the state for the rest of his days—and that, I believe, is as it should be. A murderer released for a life sentence can be recalled at any time. That is not the position for a person serving a determinate sentence—that is, a sentence of a set number of years. The mandatory sentence marks publicly and unequivocally the special nature of the crime that has been committed, while allowing wide flexibility to administer the sentence in the way that best suits the circumstances of the individual case.
  I believe that the system proposed in the Lords amendment would undermine the public's confidence in the willingness and ability of the criminal justice system to deal with this particular crime. We should be clear that amendment No. 44 would allow any penalty, from an absolute discharge upwards, to be given for the crime of murder. One can imagine the outcry if, say, a probation order were given for murder.
  Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend has just put his finger on the most crucial part of this debate. Surely, what the people outside need to feel is that there is a penalty for murder which will deter killers from murdering. If any penalty could be given, there would be no deterrent.
  Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend is right, and I prefaced this part of my comments by talking about the confidence of the public. I believe that the public, whose views on capital punishment are clearly known, would feel very let down if there were a weakening in the mandatory sentence for murder, for the reasons that I have advanced.
  It has been suggested that the definition of murder should be changed to exclude mercy killing. The law in this area was fully reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1980. The committee unanimously recommended against proposing a special offence of mercy killing or any special discretion when trying such cases. The argument was that relaxing the law could cause rather than prevent suffering, as the weak, the handicapped and

  869
  the elderly, who might be the victims of so-called mercy killings, would receive less protection from the criminal law. The Government agree with that view.
  At the other end of the scale, if there were not a mandatory life sentence in very bad cases, judges might find themselves under pressure to pass determinate sentences longer than anything that would be regarded as appropriate in this country. We should recall that, under the early release provisions in part II of the Bill, a 60-year determinate sentence would need to be passed to ensure that the prisoner served at least 30 years. I doubt whether judges would really be happy passing sentences of that length. Nor is it realistic to expect them, at the point of sentencing, to look so far into the future to try to predict when society will have judged that the crime had been expiated, that the prisoner should be released and that it was safe to do so.
  No, I submit that the best and fairest system is the one we have now, where the life sentence is fixed by law, and responsibility then passes to the Home Secretary of the day to decide how the sentence should be spent. That responsibility is part of the Home Secretary's general responsibility for the protection of the public, the preservation of the Queen's peace, and the maintenance of public confidence in the criminal justice system.
  For those reasons, I invite the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 44 now, and with amendments Nos. 60 and 162 when they are reached.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The principal objection to the mandatory life sentence can be simply stated. It is an objection in principle on which the Home Secretary did not find it necessary even to touch. Sentencing should be the responsibility of the courts, not of the Executive, not of Ministers and not of civil servants. Yet in practice, in the sentencing of men and women convicted of murder and receiving the mandatory sentence, the custodial period of the sentence is determined by Ministers—members of the Executive.
  In the House of Lords on 18 April, Lord Waddington illustrated the present state of affairs with alarming clarity. The Home Secretary made the same point—more subtly as one would expect, but equally wrongly. Lord Waddington said:
  "the House of Commons has repeatedly voted against capital punishment for murder on the understanding that murderers would stay in prison for as long as Ministers thought necessary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 1991; Vol. 1501, c. 1603.]
  The determination of the length of a prison sentence should not be a matter for members of the Executive. Both the Home Secretary and Lord Waddington in the other place three months ago misjudged the real intention of the House.
  4 pm
  All of us wanted men and women convicted of murder to serve an appropriate sentence, but the idea that Ministers should, in effect, determine the length of the prison sentence is incompatible with the rules that should govern a free society in which the judiciary and the Executive are properly separated. That Ministers determine the length of the prison sentence is undoubtedly the case in practice.
  870
  I remind the House of what really happens, because the Home Secretary talks as if the mandatory sentence were basically what it sounds like—something imposed by the courts and then served out without ministerial adjudication or interference. A mandatory sentence being passed, the judge stipulates privately—or, as the noble Lords described it, "secretly"—to the Home Secretary what he believes the minimum sentence should be. It is mandatory life in theory and what the judge stipulates the minimum should be in practice. Again in theory, the Home Secretary—although to everyone's surprise it was revealed in the House of Lords that in practice, a junior Minister often decides the issue—decides whether the Home Office and the Government are prepared to endorse the judge's private recommendation on the length of sentence.
  We were told in the House of Lords debate that in 1988, the last year for which figures are available, 106 recommendations on mandatory sentences were made by judges. In 60 cases, the Home Secretary or a junior Minister extended the sentence. In nine cases, the Home Secretary or a junior Minister reduced them. In 34 cases, they remained the same. Secretly—generally without the public knowing—the Home Secretary—or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary—is acting like a court of appeal, altering the recommended sentence which the judge has conveyed privately. They do that without hearing witnesses, without seeing the accused and without hearing the case for the prosecution or the defence. Ministers sit in their offices or take red boxes home at night and determine the length of the sentence. One has only to describe that state of affairs to realise that it is incompatible with a constitution that says that the judiciary and the Executive are wholly separate.
  The final decision that is in Ministers' hands is whether, when they have secretly and privately decided the length of sentence, the man or women should be allowed out on licence before the secret period is up. The fact that Ministers, in effect, determine the length of sentences is in itself enough to justify support for the Lords amendment, but there are other reasons why the mandatory sentence is wrong in principle as well as in practice.
  I have already made my point in describing the process, but I need to emphasise it in explaining our belief that the mandatory sentence amounts to a custodial award being made in secret. The prisoner leaves the court not knowing how long he or she is to serve. Again, that is a basic denial of a civil right. That is only the first denial of justice. The second is that there is no appeal against the sentence. The man may have gone to prison and the judge may have recommended that he serve 20 years. A woman may have gone to prison and the judge may have recommended that she serves five years. A convicted prisoner does not know and has no way in which to appeal against what the judge has proposed and what the Home Secretary has decided.
  A sentence imposed by Ministers in secret and allowing no appeal is a clear denial of justice. It is therefore in no way surprising that the Lord Chief Justice sponsored the Lords amendment which the Home Secretary hopes to negate, and that he was supported by so many distinguished Law Lords and laywers of every kind. They proposed that a man or women convicted of murder should receive a stipulated sentence in open court, that the sentence should be subject to appeal and that a judicial tribunal with appropriate judicial rules should determine other questions of release. They believe that those three requirements are essential to the rule of law as it is

  871
  understood in this country in other courts and practices. I fear that this afternoon the Home Secretary has not begun to refute the argument that those changes are essential to the proper working of an independent judicial system which is not overruled or overrulable by Ministers acting arbitrarily and in secret.
  Nor has the Home Secretary dealt adequately with the practical and adverse consequences of the present system. In the Lords a succession of lawyers, judges, barristers and solicitors returned time after time to the central theme, which is the vast variation in the real categories of murder. It is no good for the Home Secretary to say simplistically that all murders are murders. Of course they are. However, different murders have different consequences and different causes. Different murders have different degrees of moral guilt and varying mitigating circumstances, and the culpability of each murder inevitably varies according to the character, conduct, personality and the psychology of the accused which, as I shall demonstrate in a moment, courts take into account with great detriment to the legal system and its reputation.
  Their Lordships, describing the definition of murder and the variations and the width of those variations, gave many examples from their own experiences as judges, barristers and instructing solicitors. Those included two teenage girls who killed a brutal father who, in the past, had assaulted them regularly. They did not kill him in self-defence when they were being assaulted because that might have been quite a different matter. They killed him when he was alone: they simply felt that they could stand his assaults no longer and they took the opportunity to kill him. Their Lordships put that at one extreme. The other extreme they cited as the terrorist who had callously gunned down a group of innocent civilians rather than risk arrest and conviction.
  Their Lordships asked a rhetorical question to which I believe there can be only one answer. They asked whether any rational person believes that those are two comparable crimes which in court should be awarded the same sentence. As the law now stands, the two girls and the terrorist, when convicted of murder, would recceive the mandatory life sentence. It seemed to their Lordships and it seems to me that sentences should be related to the nature of the crime and should publicly be seen to be related to the nature of the crime.
  At the moment, it may well be that, after the Home Secretary's intervention, the sentence is related to the variations in murder which, to an extent, the Home Secretary has denied this afternoon. However, while those variations may eventually be related after the Home Secretary has imposed his will on the judge's recommendation, the public perception, about which the Home Secretary seems to be pleased, is that, at the time of sentencing, all murderers receive the same penalty.
  I believe that to act as if all murders are the same, as if the guilt is the same and as if the moral culpability is the same, is not so much to bring the law into disrepute, as to bring it into contempt. The young girls I described went off to prison uncertain whether they would be there for five years or for 20 years. That seems to be denial of civil liberties. However, there is the other side of the coin: the effect on those who commit the most horrendous murders of the amorphous mandatory sentence and the idea that all murders are the same. In the words of the House of Lords Select Committee, the fact that life imprisonment is mandatory
  872
  "dilutes what should be the awe-inspiring nature of the life sentence."
  It is what happens to all murderers, and some actually serve their sentence. I certainly believe that the mandatory nature, far from acting as a deterrent, dilutes the feeling that the most wicked of murders will receive the most severe penalties.
  Again, the home Secretary did not feel it necessary to draw the attention of the House to what the Lord Chief Justice thought right to tell the House of Lords. There is no doubt that the mandatory sentence, as now applied, distorts the whole criminal process in a way that is deeply damaging to the system. The House of Lords was given examples of convictions that had been diluted. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is disagreeing.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am listening.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am relieved, pleased, flattered and optimistic that, on this occasion, there may be the remotest chance that, having listened, the Home Secretary will actually reply to the points that I have raised with him. I raise this point which, again, he did not think it necessary to draw to the attention of the House.
  The Lord Chief Justice of England thought it right to make an explanation to the other place. Examples were given, not only by him but by other Law Lords, of occasions when convictions had been intentionally diluted from murder to manslaughter on the claim of diminished responsibility. They made the suggestion—it was openly made; there was no question about their judgment on this matter—that psychiatrists were called in, that juries were swayed and that judges were influenced by the fact that, although a person was technically guilty of murder, in their view a mandatory sentence was inappropriate, and therefore, instead of bringing in the verdict that a technical application of law required, they intentionally diluted it from murder to manslaughter. That cannot be right for the system.
  The concluding quotation on the subject was given in the judgment of Lord Kilbrandon in Hyam v. the Director of Public Prosecutions, in which he said:
  "It is no longer true, if it ever were true, that murder as we now define it is necessarily the most heinous example of homicide."
  It is a bad day for the criminal justice system when juries and judges sometimes say, "The law is so unreasonable that we are going to apply the law not according to statute but according to our judgment of what is proper."
  Capital punishment in this country is constantly being removed from various crimes because juries refused to convict because they thought that it was an inappropriate sentence. According to the Law Lords, juries are now refusing to convict for murder and are convicting for manslaughter simply because they believe that the mandatory sentence is inappropriate and should not be applied.
  Why, really, do the Government wish to pursue their irrational and deeply damaging course? My suspicion, which is fuelled by Lord Waddington's speech which everyone who heard it will know left their Lordships absolutely aghast, is that the Government resist change because of what they believe to be—[Interruption.] I thought that the passage that said that the readers of tabloid newspapers would not support any change in the law was a particularly moving and intellectual passage in a speech which was notable for its academic content. I

  873
  want to try to analyse the true reasons behind the Lords opposition and the Government's opposition to the improvement, which has everything to commend it in terms of rational reform.
  I suspect that the Government resist change because of what they believe to be public opinion and because they fear a reputation for being soft on murder and murderers. In that suspicion and in that fear, they are not only mistaken but categorically mistaken. The system proposed by the House of Lords would clearly focus attention on the properly severe—by that I mean suitably long—sentence for those who are found guilty of the horrendous murder. It would focus attention on those men and women who, having committed murder, should, in the general opinion of the House, go to prison for 20 years or more. It would ensure that they do so and are sentenced to that long period in prison by the public court and against a background of headlines and reporting.
  4.15 pm
  The improvement would also calm public opinion in another sense. There is a widespread notion that the life sentence lasts, on average, from 10 to 12 years. I have no doubt that there is much resentment at the idea that a man or woman may commit a horrendous murder and be in prison for barely a decade. However, when the public complain about such a 10-year sentence, they do not complain about girls who kill their brutal fathers, but about terrorists who slaughter innocent bystanders. By lumping those different crimes together and producing a crude average of 10 or 12 years, we undermine people's confidence in the undoubted fact that the worst murderers should serve an appropriately long period in prison.
  On the grounds of rational argument and sensible examination, there is everything to be gained in terms of liberty, deterrence and assuring public opinion, in focusing attention on the real sentences received by real murderers for truly wicked crimes. To perpetuate present policy is to blur the distinction and allow the British public to believe that we are soft on murder in general. We should demonstrate how hard we are on murderers who generally deserve a substantial period in prison.
  There are other sectors where change is needed, but to make the proposed change would be one more attempt to bring British penal policy into line with that of other civilised countries. In this matter, as in other particulars. we are hideously out of line. In 1990, there were 3,503 life sentence prisoners in United Kingdom gaols—3,054 in Great Britain and the rest in Northern Ireland. There were more life sentence prisoners in British gaols than in all the rest of western Europe added together, where the total of life sentence prisoners was 2,688. That is partly as a result of our failure to distinguish between those convicted of murder who should receive the longest conceivable sentences and those who should not.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I am listening with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. Will he comment on the Home Secretary's point that it would be necessary for a court to pass a sentence of 60 years in the case of a terrible murder for the defendant to spend half that period in prison? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the courts of this country would,
  874
  in those cases, be willing to pass sentences of that length? That is a matter which causes concern to many of us who are listening with great interest to the debate.
  Mr. Hattersley: There are two answers to that question. If the Home Secretary wants to ensure that long prison sentences for the worst murders, as I have described them, are served, he should come to the House not with a proposal to abandon the Lords amendment, but to make adjustments to give it the practical reality that he says it lacks. I wonder whether even that would be necessary.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) asked whether judges would be prepared to impose sentences of the sort now necessary. It is clear that they would, as they said so in the House of Lords, where Law Lord after Law Lord rose to propose the system. We must assume that the Law Lords understand the ramifications of the law at least as well as the Home Secretary. They knew the technique that was necessary to achieve the proposed aim and were perfectly willing to apply it—indeed, they were as passionately anxious that it should be incorporated in the law.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the Lords amendment to preclude a judge from passing a life sentence in the appropriate case?
  Mr. Hattersley: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows and I have tried to explain, the effect of the amendment would be quite the opposite. Its purpose, which is why we support it, is to ensure that life sentences would be passed where appropriate, with all the advantages in terms of deterrence and public opinion—Interruption.] I shall not give way again, because I know that the House wants to make progress. I think that I have already spoken for slightly longer than the Home Secretary. I have two minutes' worth of other comments to make, and hon. Members can then attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if they want to make their own contributions.
  The Lords proposal is a rational, sensible and practical way forward. It is not surprising that the Butler committee on abnormal offences in 1975, the Advisory Council on Penal Systems in 1978, the Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment in 1980 all supported this reform. Indeed, in 1980—over 10 years ago—members of the Criminal Law Revision Committee were equally divided on whether the reform should be made. According to the Lords debate, I cannot comment on whether that was a correct judgment. Were they to consider the matter now, they would undoubtedly support the Lords view.
  The simple argument is that murder varies enormously in viciousness, moral culpability and mitigating circumstances. To suggest that a mercy killer should receive the same sentence as a hired assassin and that that sentence should then be adjusted in private by a Minister working on his own discretion, without any evidence or arguments in front of him, is a clear denial of civil rights. We should have a more practical and more principled proposal.
  The House of Lords was making and suggesting progress and we shall support it in the progress that the amendment would clearly bring to the Bill.
  Sir Peter Emery: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on what I thought was support for a case that is widely accepted throughout

  875
  the country—the fact that people expect all forms of murder, heinous and terrifying as they are, to receive the maximum sentence that the courts can give.
  I rise to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Leader of the House has, as quickly as possible, arranged for an experiment to be carried out during this debate, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that hon. Members will look at the way in which amendments are now marshalled and will note that for the first time the order paper shows the Government's view on the amendments. We never knew their view as papers were marshalled in the past. There is now just one order paper rather than the three with which we had to deal in the past. I hope that the House will approve of the experiment. Whether the Leader of the House decides to carry the idea forward will depend on the views expressed by hon. Members, so I hope that they will convey their views to the Leader of the House.
  I sincerely support the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand the arguments put by the Shadow Home Secretary, but they seem to be out of touch with the feeling of people in most constituencies— [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Law Lords?"] Some people do not always believe that the Law Lords are in touch with ordinary people. Indeed, some hon. Members believe that they should not be there at all because they are so out of touch. I shall not follow that argument, but I believe that the House should support the line that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking today.
  Mr. Archer: I have the misfortune to differ from the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about the merits of the debate, but I echo his comments about the new marshalling of the amendments on the order paper. There, at least, there seems to be some common ground across the Chamber.
  The arguments on this subject have been deployed at various stages in the Bill's progress, here and in another place. They have just been deployed persuasively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I rise only in the hope that, even now, it may not be too late.
  I do not pretend that I can adduce any original arguments at this stage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that he hoped that the Home Secretary might listen and answer some of our arguments —I hope that he will do better than that, and that he will listen to some of our arguments and consider them.
  Four principles are fundamental to our penal system, and they apply to every case. First, no one should receive a sentence greater than he deserves unless it is necessary to protect the public. That is the very principle running through the Bill—we have been reminded of it again and again from the Government Front Bench during debates on the Bill. That philosophy runs right through the system and applies, however grave or however venal the offence. An offender may have committed a horrifying and wicked offence and may be held to deserve a sentence of 20 years, but the principle still holds that he ought not to receive a sentence of more than 20 years, unless it is necessary to protect the public.
  If that principle is to be applied, it is essential that we know what length of sentence he deserves so that it is known at what point we may be justified in considering
  876
  whether a further sentence is necessary to protect the public. That will be the subject matter of our next debate, but I am a little disappointed that, having accepted that principle, the Government are applying it only to discretionary and not mandatory life sentences.
  Mr. John Bowis: I sought clarification from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about Opposition Members' arguments, and my argument was precisely the same as the hon. Gentleman's on the difference between the protection of the public and a deterrent. I entirely understand the view on heinous crimes to which he referred. I doubt whether a capital or a life sentence ever deterred anyone—people will still commit such crimes. Such sentences may help to deter people from committing the lesser types of murder that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described. However, surely it is worth protecting the public if it deters some people from committing that type of murder, given that those people are also protected by judges' recommendations and by the Home Secretary's discretion when listening to those recommendations.
  Mr. Archer: With respect, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has misconceived what is meant by protecting the public in this context. What is meant by it in the Bill is imposing a sentence longer than the offence deserves, because it would be dangerous to let the offender out. That is rather different from the deterrent argument, and if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall return to that argument later.
  If we are to incarcerate someone for longer than he deserves, we should at least know at what point we are considering incarcerating him for longer than he deserves. That seems to run right through our penal system and seems elementary. The Government have accepted that argument in relation to our next debate.
  In that situation it must preclude our disposing of two cases, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, which might have different motivation, intention and wickedness—for example, the deliberate and heartless killing of a total stranger for gain, compared with the mercy killing of a beloved relative—in the same way. If we appear to do so in the court, it cannot be said that no one will serve a sentence longer than they deserve.
  The second principle, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook alluded, is that assessment of the appropriate sentence should be carried out by a judge, as a judicial exercise, and it is not an appropriate function for the executive. The rules according to which sentences are assessed are decided by the legislature and proposals are introduced by the Executive. Maximum sentences are laid down in that way. But, the decision on individual sentences properly belongs to the courts.
  We are told that the public have strong views on these matters—we were told that yet again this afternoon. I am not sure what evidence we have heard for some of the opinions that have been expressed about the views of the public—perhaps we do not all meet the same members of the public. But whoever is in government and however well respected that individual might be, I am certain that the public are rightly suspicious of a member of the Government, who is subject to all kinds of political pressures, deciding the fate of individuals. That is why we

  877
  have got into difficulties when leaving to the Secretary of State the question of which convictions should be left to the courts and which should be overturned.
  4.30 pm
  The third principle is that the assessment of what is an appropriate sentence should be made by someone who has heard submissions on behalf of the offender and has seen whatever evidence can properly be submitted on his behalf. It is far preferable for that assessment to be made by the judge who has heard all the evidence in the trial. I do not believe that it would be acceptable to the public for such an assessment to be made by a politician or an official who has never even seen the offender—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State appears to be trying to drive a wedge between Opposition Members. I do not know whether evidence of that will emerge later. It is not a question of who is the Home Secretary or the junior Minister of the time who makes the assessment or of who is the official who makes the recommendation because, as far as the public are concerned—and they are right about this—the point is that those people are subject to political pressures that would not apply to the judiciary.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: As the House knows, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished Solicitor-General for five years. Did he hold those views then?
  Mr. Archer: Yes, I did—and not only did I hold them, but I expressed them on a number of occasions. The constitutional position remains the same, whoever is in government.
  Mr. Baker: I am simply saying that there were five long years during which the changes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now advocating could not only have been brought to the attention of the Government, but could have been implemented. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt so strongly, was he not in a strong position, as Solicitor-General, to make those changes?
  Mr. Archer: I shall come in a moment to the events that have occurred since the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues came into government, the number of people who have considered those events and the recommendations that have been made. If we had been in a position to consider all that, we might have reached a different conclusion.
  My point is that whoever makes the decision now may have read written submissions, especially if the offender is articulate or has someone who is articulate to speak on his behalf, but that is no substitute for an oral process during which the judge can say which matters are troubling him and when those points can be answered by the advocate for the offender.
  The fourth principle is that that process of hearing submissions and assessing the appropriate sentence should take place publicly. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook alluded to that. Offenders and the public are entitled to hear what is being said, to be assured that the judge has listened and to be told by the judge what assessment he has made.
  Under the present system, the judge writes his assessment secretly and the Lord Chief Justice makes a further assessment in the interests of consistency which, as has already been said, adds to the already burdensome
  878
  tasks facing him. Everything is secret up to that point—and the matter is then considered in secrecy again by someone at the Home Office. That person may disagree with the judge's assessment. In 1988, a Home Office Minister took it upon himself to increase the judge's assessment for 63 out of 106 mandatory sentences. The offenders were not to know that the Minister had disagreed with the judge, because they did not know what the judge had said in the first place. Not only is justice not seen to be done, but the offender embarks on his sentence without any idea of what the judge has assessed as the appropriate period for him to serve.
  Since we first debated this issue in the House, we have all had the advantage of reading the Woolf-Tumim report. Fundamental to the recommendations of that report on the philosophy of the criminal justice system is the concept that prisons are part of the system of justice and that what happens to prisoners must be just and must be seen to be just. Yet this is the negation of justice.
  On reading the debate in another place, I too was a little troubled by something that was said on behalf of the Government by Lord Waddington. He seemed to say that public confidence in the system might be shaken if the public knew the facts and the assessments that the judges were making. The suggestion that it is best to keep the public in ignorance because if they knew the facts they might misunderstand, is hardly one that we might expect to hear made on behalf of the Government in a democracy. Surely the public would be more reassured if they knew that the judge meant what he said in open court and that, when he recommended a life sentence, he meant that there should be a substantial sentence.
  I am surprised that the amendment which the Government are introducing to meet the ruling of the European Court is confined narrowly to discretionary life sentences. I should have thought that the argument that operated for discretionary life sentences operated equally strongly in the case of mandatory life sentences.
  I made passing reference to the events that had happened since we were last in government. It is perfectly true and I accept at once that in 1975 the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders recommended the proposal which has now been made by another place, and in 1978 the recommendation was repeated by the Advisory Council on the Penal System. But the proposal was reiterated by the all-party penal affairs group in 1986 and by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan in 1988. Since then, the proposal has been supported by two former Home Office Ministers—Lord Windlesham and Lord Harris, Justice, the Quaker Council for European Affairs, the Lord Chief Justice and three Lords of Appeal. I should have thought that that was sufficient for the Government to allay any fears on the part of the public that the matter had not been properly considered.
  One other benefit has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. If someone were seen publicly to address the degree of guilt and, consequently, the appropriate sentence, it would dispense with the need to make what many people may feel is an artificial distinction between murder and manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. We know the amount of court time and the resources which are diverted to making that distinction. It is not an appropriate distinction.
  The distinction that should be addressed is between a case which deserves a long sentence and one which does

  879
  not. As my right hon. Friend said, it may be that the distinction distorts the system because we are receiving convictions for manslaughter where the appropriate conviction would be for murder. Undoubtedly that was what persuaded victim support and the Group for Parents of Murdered Children to support the proposal.
  I am conscious of the passage of time, but I promised the hon. Member for Battersea that I would say a word about deterrence. For the most serious murders—the really wicked murders—long sentences will be given in any event. Any argument based on deterrence will apply equally to such cases. But where murders are committed under the stress of great emotion, I do not believe that people sit down and consider the sentence that they are likely to receive. That is the answer to the argument based on deterrence.
  The last argument adduced—I almost said "dredged up" but I do not wish to be offensive—by the Secretary of State was that when, in December, the House decided by a substantial majority not to reintroduce the capital sentence for murder, some hon. Members may have voted against because the alternative was a mandatory life sentence. If that is a valid argument, it would rule out all proposals for change on any matter which may have influenced any hon. Member when the House took a decision. So a simple method of strangling all proposals for reform on any topic, for that Parliament at least, would be to introduce any single proposal which is voted down.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): That is too lateral. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Archer: If the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir Peter Emery) wishes to adduce further lateral arguments, he may do so.
  The proposal may or may not mean that sentences are generally shorter. It may very well mean that some sentences are longer. No one argues that in an appropriate case there should not be a long sentence. But the proposal would mean that any individual sentence would be related, and manifestly seen to be related, to the merits of the case. That is what justice is about.
  Mr. Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and I wish to declare that interest this afternoon.
  The House will be aware that there is a thin blue line standing between evil men, and sometimes women, and the law-abiding citizens of this country. That thin blue line is the men and women of the police. Sometimes, tragically, that line is broken when police officers are murdered while protecting the public from the actions of vicious criminals and ruthless killers. When that happens the line is quickly joined as other officers take the place of their fallen comrades.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said:
  "At the core of the crime of murder is the intentional taking of another person's life—that is killing someone with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm."
  My right hon. Friend also reminded us
  "It is a crime of dreadful finality."
  I agree.
  What protection do the police have against the intentional taking of lives by, for example, armed criminals who do not hesitate to shoot them down in the street? Until 1965 the death penalty existed, which most
  880
  police officers consider a powerful deterrent to murder. However, Parliament abolished that penalty 26 years ago and in its place provided the life sentence for murder.
  One of the first major tests of the use of long sentences for the murder of a police officer occurred in 1966, only a year after the abolition of the death penalty. It was found to be wanting.
  Let me remind the House of what happened on a summer's afternoon in Braybrook street off Shepherd's Bush. Three policemen in an unmarked car became suspicious of a blue Standard Vanguard estate car parked near Wormwood Scrubs and they approached that vehicle. While one of the occupants of that car was being questioned—John Edward Witney was his name—another occupant, Harry Roberts, pulled out a gun and shot dead Detective Sergeant Christopher Head and Detective Constable David Wombwell. Another occupant of the car, John Duddy, then ran to the police car and shot Police Constable Geoffrey Fox in the head as he sat behind the steering wheel.
  I remember that case very well because it so happened that I lived and worked in the area at the time. All three men were eventually caught, arrested and given life sentences for murder in 1966. At the trial, the late Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones said:
  "I think it is likely that no Home Secretary regarding the enormity of your crime will ever think it fit to show mercy by releasing you on licence. This is one of those cases in which the sentence of imprisonment for life may well be treated as meaning exactly that."
  He went on to say:
  "Lest any Home Secretary in future be minded to consider your release on licence, I have to make a recommendation."
  He recommended a sentence of imprisonment for 30 years.
  As a result partly of that trial—many of us remember it and the loss of the lives of those three Metropolitan police officers—and the 30-year sentence that was awarded, the police, although they still wanted the return of the death penalty, felt that in the absence of that penalty they could at least rely upon the firm assurances of the Home Secretary of the day that no offender imprisoned for the murder of an officer would he released until the sentence had been completed.
  Those assurances were confirmed subsequently; first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when, as Home Secretary, he told the Police Federation conference in 1989:
  "Since capital punishment was abolished in 1965, the Conservative view of the murder of police officers has been proved by a single telling fact; in that time not one person convicted of murdering a police officer has been released from prison."
  4.45 pm
  I well remember when my right hon. Friend said that, because I had just been appointed as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I remembered that conference as it occurred early on in my new job.
  A year later my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Waddington, who was then Home Secretary, said to the Police Federation conference:
  "Parliamentary policy is that offenders imprisoned for the murder of a police officer will not be released until their sentence is completed."
  As a result, the federated ranks of the police gradually came to accept that their best protection, in the absence of the death penalty, was such assurances together with the belief that only as a result of the executive action of the Home Secretary of the day could those who had murdered

  881
  police officers be released. The police believed that those found guilty would either complete long sentences or be detained in prison for, as my right hon. Friend, the present Home Secretary, said today "the rest of his days." My right hon. Friend clearly envisages that, in a case of a serious murder, such as that which occurred in 1965, the individual concerned will remain in custody for the rest of his days.
  Unfortunately that belief was undermined to some extent when, earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary advised the police that one of the men convicted of that terrible murder at Shepherd's Bush, John Edward Witney, was to be released on life licence five years before the end of the 30-year sentence recommended by the trial judge.
  My right hon. Friend told the chairman of the Police Federation that that decision was taken after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and that it reflected the view that Witney's case could be distinguished from that of his two co-defendants since he did not fire a weapon during the shooting. He also said that the Parole Board did not consider that Witney would present a risk and accordingly it recommended his release. I hope, as I am sure every hon. Member does, that my right hon. Friend is right.
  What my right hon. Friend's decision has made crystal clear is, as he announced,
  "Murderers of police officers should normally be expected to be detained for at least 20 years."
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: What conclusions does the hon. Gentleman draw from this experience about the matter under debate? Does he believe that his clients, the Police Federation, would have greater confidence in the decision of a judge who initially recommended 30 years or in that of some unknown Home Secretary some years on?
  Mr. Shersby: I am grateful for that intervention and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment I shall give the House my answer.
  When my right hon. Friend announced his decision to release Witney, he said that 20 years was consistent with the Government's declared policy of ensuring that the time served by prisoners convicted of the worst offences of violence fully meets public concern about violence. However, it does not fully meet the concerns of members of the Police Federation. They expect the sentence imposed by the court to be completed, and that in the case of police murders the offender should lose his or her liberty to the state for the rest of his or her days.
  As a result of the release of Witney this month, the federation is now calling on the House to sustain the Lords amendment, and to rely on the courts to ensure that the offender will not be released before a fixed period determined by the court.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is that not the exact opposite of the view expressed strongly to us by the Police Federation six months ago?
  Mr. Shersby: I shall return to that point in a few moments, but it is true that there has been some change from the views formerly held by members of the Police Federation. That change has undoubtedly been influenced by the Witney case.
  I share the federation's concern, but I understand that, in advancing the case for overturning the Lords amendment, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
  882
  must have very much in mind that in the end it is the Home Secretary and the Government of the day who have to take responsibility for the protection of the public. That is one of the most essential considerations affecting our approach to this difficult matter. I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate she will tell us how she reconciles the release of Witney with the policy so clearly expressed by the Home Secretary:
  "the best and fairest system is the one we have now, where the life sentence is fixed by law, and the responsibility then passes to the Home Secretary of the day to decide how the sentence should be spent".
  I hope that, if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wishes—as I know that he does—to retain the full support of the police for his policy, he will give an assurance that there will be no more releases before the sentence fixed by the trial judge has been completed, especially in cases such as that which I have described, in which the recommendation was specific.
  I realise how difficult a decision my right hon. Friend has had to face today in deciding how to deal with the amendment. I believe that he has done as he has because he recognises that it is his responsibility as Home Secretary —as it will be the responsibility of his successors in due course—to protect the public and to be able to reassure them that no one who commits such murders will receive any sentence other than one that will deter and will protect the public from ruthless and vicious killers.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has holed the Home Secretary's argument below the water line. He has made it plain that the Police Federation, which is more continuously concerned than any other section of the community about the threat posed by murder to the public—and indeed, to the federation's own members—does not agree with the view that the Home Secretary sought to persuade the House was the general view of the public. It does not agree that a deterrent sentence, a mandatory life sentence, is the most effective response to the crime of murder.
  Nothing in the Home Secretary's speech adduced any evidence that the public's view of the mandatory life sentence was as he suggested. That idea is remote from what I understand to be public opinion on the subject. I believe that the public recognise that mandatory life sentences are not life sentences. Many members of the public are sceptical about such sentences because they vary so much. They vary not according to the courts' perception of the seriousness of the crime, but according to the view of the Home Secretary of the day some years later.
  I understand that the Minister of State is to reply to the debate, and I noticed that the Home Secretary, in an aside to her, spoke of his obligation to protect the public when he takes decisions on release. There is no doubt that that must be the predominant consideration in the minds of Home Secretaries when exercising their discretion, but it is not the predominant consideration that leads the public to criticise the mandatory life sentence. The public criticism is that too often a life sentence is too short. That is a more realistic appraisal of the public view of life sentences.
  The argument is not new for those who have already spoken in such debates, but I have not had the opportunity to speak on the subject earlier in the Bill's progress, so I intend to put on record a few of the considerations that have led me to believe that the time has come for a change in the law.

  883
  When capital punishment was originally abolished I was satisfied that the mandatory life sentence was a sensible alternative, but as we have seen the law evolve and cases being decided it has become increasingly clear that the penalty does not in any sense match the crime. Although the court is undoubtedly best placed to assess the heinousness of the offence—the court is possessed of the evidence and has the opportunity to see the witnesses —it is not the court that determines how long the convicted murderer will remain in prison.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described graphically what have been described in another place as the "secret communications" between the sentencing judge and the Home Office. It is not appropriate, and the public does not regard it as appropriate, that sentencing should be conducted in that manner—by secret negotiations with the Executive. Most members of the public regard judges as the appropriate people to make decisions about the seriousness of a crime and the length of prison sentence to be suffered by the convicted person.
  The law as it stands invests in the executive arm of Government the effective power of sentencing for murder—a power exercised in secrecy, so that it does not allow of an appeal in the normal sense of the word, a fact which has brought us before the European Court of Human Rights. Our procedures have been seriously criticised in that court, and we have been found to be in violation of article 5(4) of the convention. I look forward to hearing the Home Secretary's argument on how he intends to deal with the Thynne case.
  Moreover, the law as it stands does not distinguish properly between different degrees of murder. Clearly it is unsatisfactory that mandatory life sentences are automatically imposed in cases where patently less moral turpitude has been involved than in some of the more appalling cases that have come before the courts. It dilutes the sentence of life imprisonment, and the public perception that it may average nine years is perpetuated, when the truth is that a serious case of premeditated murder, of the kind that we all recognise, should mean true life imprisonment—that is, imprisonment for life. I believe that in such cases it should mean imprisonment for life, but that the law needs to be amended to enhance the deterrent effect of such true life sentences.
  5 pm
  Lord Nathan, who chaired the Select Committee in the other place, asked whether the existing law acted as a suitable or adequate deterrent and concluded that it did not because of the uncertainty, in practice, of the duration of the penalty.
  The Lord Chief Justice, whose views were alluded to at no point in the Home Secretary's speech, was extremely critical of the law as it stood and, in particular, of the very argument that seems to underlie the approach adopted by the Home Secretary. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the Home Secretary appears to be posturing in front of an audience which he considers—wrongly, in my view—is attracted to executive penalty and executive release.
  Lord Lane said:
  "It is no sign of weakness to replace what I suggest is a flawed system with one which at the very least offers an opportunity to achieve greater fairness and so greater justice."
  I think that Lord Lane was right, and the fact that the exercise of executive discretion is very much a matter of
  884
  whim has been illustrated by the practice adopted by successive Home Secretaries in the present Conservative Administration.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to one of the Select Committee's findings. In 1988, a higher tariff was decided by Ministers in 63 out of 106 mandatory life sentences which had been reviewed. In a six-month period in 1984, however, after Mr. Leon Brittan, as he then was, had altered the rules for review, Ministers increased the penalties recommended by trial judges in 80 cases out of 195. I do not know whether any of those alterations were made with a view to changing public perception of the effectiveness of the deterrent or what the reasons for those changes were, but they were certainly changes and they did not reflect a consistent approach by Home Secretaries to the protection of the public.
  These are difficult matters for Home Secretaries to decide. I have no doubt that there must be a procedure involving the Home Secretary in the case of those whose release would constitute a danger to the public. It is beyond question that that is not something that trial judges can take into consideration. It is also clear, however, that the Home Secretary is not so well placed as the trial judge to decide the penalty appropriate for the crime.
  I fear that we shall not conclude our discussions of this subject today. Judging by the tone and shortness of the Home Secretary's speech, and given that he did not address any of the substantial arguments deployed by the many Committees that have considered the matter or the arguments made in the other place, we shall clearly be returning to this debate in future. I hope, however, that we shall see a movement in the consensus within the Conservative party which reflects the very general concerns expressed by those who have to administer the law at the highest levels about the injustices of the present system.
  Mr. Lawrence: In my view, the Government are quite right, in the present climate of law and order, to reject their Lordships amendment. Since the abolition of capital punishment in 1962 there has been an alarming increase in murders, in crimes using guns and weapons and in the killing of police officers. In the five years to abolition, there were 290 murders a year, whereas in the past five years, there have been 647 murders a year—a doubling in the murder rate. In 1962, 2,000 crimes were committed with guns and weapons. Today, 10,000 crimes a year are committed with guns and weapons. That is a fivefold increase. In the 24 years to 1965, 14 police officers were killed in England and Wales, whereas in the 24 years since, 53 police officers have been killed. That is a threefold increase. In the past 20 years, 59 convicted murderers have been released and have killed again.
  It is doubtful whether life imprisonment works adequately as a deterrent, and this is hardly the time at which to weaken or appear to weaken the law further. The reason why the mandatory life sentence is so important —although, for the overwhelming majority of British people who want capital punishment restored, it is second best—is that the crime of murder is not like other crimes. It is unique. It involves a life being taken by a deliberate act, and in the eyes of the public, it should be dealt with by a unique sentence. To do away with the unique sentence for that unique offence would undoubtedly weaken public

  885
  confidence in the system of law and order because it would remove an element of deterrence. That confidence would be further weakened, if, in certain circumstances, the sentence passed for a murder turned out to be too light because the crime itself was in reality less serious than it appeared.
  One of the problems with the press today is its bad reporting of criminal trials. Its representatives are there at the start of the trial when the prosecution opens and they are there at the end but they are seldom there in the middle when the evidence is being given. The headlines scream, "Only two years for murder. This is a disgrace. Guilty judge, guilty jury, guilty system." That is nonsense but the public react and respond to the bad reporting in the media. Yet the facts of the case may be such that a sentence of two years may be quite adequate. Under the present system, a murderer gets life and the machinery of the system then determines whether he should be let out after two years. He may not spend his life in prison but the sentence will last for life and, if he offends or becomes a danger to the public once more, he will be recalled. The sentence of life imprisonment is a deterrent—albeit second best to the deterrent of capital punishment. The public will not be disturbed and their confidence will not be undermined because they know that, under the present system, there is an element of deterrence which continues and endures.
  There is another side to the coin. If the judge feels that it would not reflect the wishes of the public if he passed a light sentence, he might well pass a more severe sentence than the criminality deserves. The effect of the amendment, supported by liberals, would be to harden sentencing. It would be counter-productive. It would not achieve what is wished and would distort the prison population still further.
  The abolition of mandatory life sentences would have another effect. It would require the passing of sentences of 50, 60 or 70 years in the most heinous of cases. Will judges be prepared to pass such sentences? The logic of that would be to follow the American example. We hear of sentences of 99 years, to run consecutive to other sentences of 99 years. We hear of sentences of several hundred years passed on people who have committed a series of heinous offences. That makes a laughing stock of the sentencing system.
  I concede at once that the public confidence aspect is less important than the justice of the case. The question is, would more justice be done if we abolished mandatory sentences? That would be the case if "life" always meant "life", in all circumstances, with all murders and with all offenders, and regardless of whether a mercy killing had taken place. That, however, is not the position. The Home Secretary, acting on the advice of the Parole Board, decides whether the circumstances warrant earlier release.
  That is a fair way of dealing with such matters. It is not obvious to the public that they are being dealt with in that way, but, as I have already conceded, the justice of the case is more important than the public confidence aspect— although that too is terribly important.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that actual sentences should be determined by a judge rather than by the Executive. At first, that may seem an attractive point; however, nowhere else in the sentencing system is the sentence determined by
  886
  the judge. It is determined by the Parole Board, with the support of Parliament. The judicial sentence can then be reduced by two thirds, or by half, or sometimes in variance of the two.
  In passing a judicial sentence, the judge is not allowed to take into account the date of parole, or the fact that the accused may be likely to have his sentence reduced by a third. The judiciary does not really determine the length of sentences, and rejection of the amendment would not breach the position relating to Executive and legislative release.
  What of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that there should be a variation in sentences for murder? In the case of less heinous murders—the right hon. Gentleman gave the example of the two little girls—the answer is surely the same that we would give if we were discussing euthanasia. There may be some justification for a particular killing, but when the system says no to all killing we at least know that some deterrence exists—that people will be deterred from killing too easily, and that lives that should not be taken will occasionally be saved. That argument applies to euthanasia; it also applies to maintaining standard sentence—uniquely—in cases of murder.
  I understand why their Lordships took the view that they did. They did not have to deal with the public, as we do. Although public confidence is a matter for their consideration, it is nothing like as much a matter for their consideration as it is for the consideration of Members of this democratically elected House of Commons. I would guess that public opinion was the reason behind the Cabinet's refusal to adopt the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) when he served in a Labour Government.
  Mr. Archer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that we can all become wiser with the passage of time, especially when a number of people have given thought to the issues and produced reports?
  Mr. Lawrence: If that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of his position, of course I accept it. I assumed that his position had remained consistent throughout, and that he did not consider the abolition of mandatory sentences acceptable. I know that that point of view was expressed when the last Labour Government were in power. My point is that that Government did nothing to change the position—not just because the right hon. and learned Gentleman held a different view at that time, but because public opinion did as well. The Labour Government took account of public opinion; now we are taking account of what we perceive to be public opinion.
  Not only would the removal of the mandatory life sentence constitute a betrayal of the public—who, in a sense, entered into a bargain with the Government who abolished capital punishment that they would, while abolishing it, maintain the deterrence provided by life sentences—but it would constitute a betrayal of the hon. Members who supported the abolition of capital punishment on a number of occasions because the Government had said, "There will still be a deterrent—life sentences." If that deterrent is now removed, many hon. Members—certainly many Conservative Members—who have voted in the past for the retention of the abolition of capital punishment will feel that they would now reach a

  887
  very different conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) indicates that he is one example: there could be no finer example.
  5.15 pm
  As I have said, acceptance of the Lords amendment would be a betrayal. In 1962, a kind of pact was made with the British public to enable the Labour Government to abolish capital punishment. Now, acceptance of the amendment would betray all those who were assured that the alternative to capital punishment was the life sentence. That is why my right hon. Friend has made his position clear on the basis of public confidence. He is absolutely right to do so, and his view demands our support as a matter of common sense.
  The time may come when we shall be able to contemplate a change from the mandatory life sentence. Given a substantial reduction in the number of violent crimes, the public may then be in a frame of mind to accept the logic of the case. That time, however, is not yet here. Our view was held, after careful consideration, by the Crown prosecution service when it gave evidence to the Committee in the other place; it was also held—again, after careful consideration—by the Police Federation, until it decided to change its mind last week and a police murderer was released on parole. Right or wrong, such decisions are no less likely to be made when there is no mandatory life sentence than when there is.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support the rejection of the Lords amendment.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a telling point when he reminded us that Members of the other place have no constituents. In many respects, their beliefs do not reflect the views of the public; they are not listening, in the pubs and clubs, to what the public genuinely feel about this important matter.
  I speak not only as a representative of the public, but as one of the few hon. Members now present who has had the opportunity to defend accused persons in murder trials on more than one occasion. I shall never forget the atmosphere of those trials, and the sense of the seriousness of the matters with which they had to deal.
  The background of today's debate is the rise in the number of murders in the United Kingdom in the past few years. Some of those murders involved the use of guns during the commission of offences of dishonesty; others involved the indiscriminate killing of victims unknown to their murderers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is clearly concerned to hear that. Murder is a heinous and terrible crime: the public recognise it as such, and so should we.
  In 1967, the Labour Government abolished the death penalty. There was a free vote, and the matter was debated fully. The death penalty was abolished, however, on the understanding that it would be replaced by the life sentence. That reflected the strength of public feeling, and the seriousness of the offence in question. That feeling still prevails. How many hon. Members who are sitting here now receive letters from the public saying that the life sentence should mean life?
  Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend asks how many hon. Members are sitting here, but not many hon. Members are here; it would be different if we were
  888
  discussing dogs. Does not that show that the majority of Conservative Members support what the Home Secretary is doing?
  Mr. Hind: Precisely.
  The seriousness with which the public view the imposition of the life sentence for the offence of murder cannot be underestimated. Our sentencing policy does not follow the principle that life means life, but for serious offences such as terrorist murders, indiscriminate killings, gangland murders anmd other offences at the top of the scale, judges make recommendations. How many times have we read that a judge recommended that a minimum of 30 years be served? That is the way in which judges convey to the man in the dock, to the public and to the courts the seriousness with which they view such crime.
  I defended a woman who suffered from post-natal depression and killed her child. I placed her in a different category from a gangland member who murders a drug courier because he betrayed the system. The gradations in offences can be met by the existing system.
  We must respect the public's views. When somebody commits the offence of murder, the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Lords amendment is an unnecessary dilution of the public's strong feelings and of the need to emphasise the terrible nature of the offence.
  I support one point that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made. He sensibly said that the judge hears all the evidence and sees all the witnesses, including the accused if he gives evidence, and reads the social inquiry and psychiatric reports. Where the judge recommends what the sentence should be, it should be followed by the Home Office. I feel much disquiet about sentencing by Ministers and not by judges. The split between the independence of the judiciary and of Ministers is being eroded. I urge Ministers to take note of what the judge says. The existing system can continue without the interference of the Lords amendment and I recommend that the House rejects it.
  Mr. John Greenway: I must refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), whose views I much respect. I was deeply shocked by his remarks. What he suggested as the policy of the Police Federation is an ill-thought-out policy that it should reconsider and, in due course, reverse.
  I share my hon. Friend's passionate belief that our police deserve all the protection that Parliament can provide. On 17 December last year, I opened the debate on the restoration of the death penalty, and I share my hon. Friend's profound belief that, if the death penalty were available for the murder of a police officer, less police officers would be murdered.
  Mr. Hattersley: Fewer.
  Mr. Greenway: I stand corrected.
  We must accept the decision of the House, but it is an important point and not one to be made the subject of a trivial intervention. If we cannot have capital punishment for the murder of a police officer, we want a certain penalty. It is better to have the certain penalty of a mandatory life sentence, flawed though that is—the thrust of the debate has been the extent to which it is flawed and where we should strike the balance—because life does not

  889
  mean life under the present system, and even less so under part II of the Bill, where we are trying to achieve more certainty in sentencing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is wrong in his assessment that the courts will provide a deterrent in sentencing someone who has murdered a police officer and that that is a greater deterrent than the mandatory sentence. No one will be aware of the sentence until after a police officer has been murdered. We are on the slippery slope of finding out subsequently.
  I have considerable sympathy with the Police Federation's disappointment at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know well that many police officers were disappointed, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and to the Police Federation that the one man who knows what it is like to make the difficult decision whether to release on parole the murderer of a police officer, following the recommendation of the Parole Board, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has argued well this afternoon for the retention of the mandatory life sentence, and therefore the retention of a system in which he and his successors will be confronted with that difficult decision.
  Mr. Shersby: As a former Metropolitan police officer, my hon. Friend understands only too well, as he said in his speech, the reaction of the Metropolitan police and of other police forces to the circumstances surrounding the Shepherd's Bush murder. He will know that when I spoke to the police conference in May, I made it clear that in my judgment it was an important issue for it to consider. I left it in no doubt that the 20-year sentence was important. In my final remarks, I paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and pointed out that he had to make that difficult decision, of which I fully approved.
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, but the decision that the Police Federation has taken, which he announced to the House this afternoon, is based on a knee-jerk reaction to one difficult case and is not properly thought out.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: My hon. Friend kindly referred to me and he will know that the Home Secretary often has to make difficult decisions. In the Shepherd's Bush case, I was bound by decisions that had been taken by my predecessors, as the House knows. I have no doubt that the Police Federation will reconsider its views, for the simple reason that, if it supports the Lords amendments, the undertaking that Sir Leon Brittan gave the House in 1983, and which was confirmed by me—that anybody convicted of killing a policeman would serve at least 20 years—then falls. I doubt whether the Police Federation has considered that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will draw it to the federation's attention.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His comments will have been helpful to the House and to people outside.
  Some points made in the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) go to the heart of the difference between our views. He said, in effect, that not all murderers deserve a
  890
  life sentence. But every murder victim has already been subjected to a life sentence. More important, the balance which must be struck should surely be in favour of ensuring that those who should receive a life sentence do so. Only a mandatory sentence delivers that certainty.
  Lord Lane argued about the arrangements under the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1988 whereby the Attorney-General has the right to appeal against a lenient sentence—something opposed by the Labour party. I do not believe that we can expect with certainty that the right sentence will be passed on appeal any more than we can expect that the right sentence will be passed by the judge who heard the case. Therefore, there are differences between us as to a murderer's rights.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook talked about a civil right and justice being denied because of mandatory sentences. Again I ask: justice for whom—for those who kill or for those who are killed? The fulcrum of the problem rests on that issue. Do Members of Parliament believe that there is a sentence for those who commit the most heinous crime of murder which can deter some murderers? I happen to be one of those who believe that it can deter. That is why I believe that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are right to come down firmly against their Lordships' amendment and to call upon the House to reject it.
  Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way because I wish to make further comments, and time is pressing.
  We must bear in mind the far-reaching changes in sentencing policy that are already included in the Bill, particularly the provision for the early release of prisoners under part II. There will be major, fundamental changes in sentencing policy.
  In simple terms, before we even consider whether we should abolish the mandatory sentence, we should see how the new provisions in the Bill work in practice. In essence, we are saying that a person who is sent to prison for 15 or 20 years for having committed a serious crime, such as manslaughter, rape or armed robbery, will serve half the sentence. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out, if the mandatory life sentence is abolished, it is still open to the courts to impose a life sentence. I strongly suspect—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary enunciated this point—that, in practice, judges will impose a fixed term, rather than a life sentence. That will mean that the criminal will serve only half his sentence.
  I joined the police just after the murders in Shepherd's Bush. I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that the 30-year sentence became only a 25-year sentence, but I do not for one moment believe that judges these days would impose a 50-year sentence. That idea does not stand up. Until we have seen how the arrangements in part II work in practice, we should not go so far as to abolish the mandatory sentence.
  Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to a point repeatedly made not by woolly-minded readers of The Guardian but by Law Lords? The Law Lords said that the mandatory sentence was blunting the edge of the deterrent, because it was assumed in popular fiction that every sentence was the same and that it turned out to be nine or 10 years. They believed that what was really needed as a deterrent was a series of headlines stating,

  891
  "Policeman's killer sentenced to prison for 25 years." The Law Lords thought that the mandatory argument was working in the other direction.
  Mr. Greenway: I should have thought that potential murderers of police officers would see the publicity surrounding the release of John Witney after serving 25 years. I should have thought that potential murderers would hear the message from the House—certainly from Conservative Members—that that is the minimum term that we would expect murderers of police officers to serve.
  Those of us who wish to reverse the decision made by their Lordships believe that there is a greater certainty that murderers will serve long sentences if the mandatory life sentence is maintained rather than abolished.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I do not intend keeping the House long. This has been an interesting debate. Having read the proceedings in Standing Committee and in the other place, I do not know whether, if I were in my old job as a university teacher and were marking the debate out of 100, the score would be better in the other place than in this House, but I suspect that it would be.
  Two important principles have come out of the debate. The Government have fallen into some confusion because they have no consistent principle in this complicated matter. Once one gives up pursuing a consistent principle in this matter, one loses one's way. The principle of what goes on in our judicial system was thoroughly discussed in the other place by people involved in the sentencing process.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) put his finger on the point, referring to four essential principles. He was challenged to say why he did not introduce this change when he was a member of the Labour Cabinet. He was right to say that one does not start where one wants to stop. During the past 15 years, there has been an interesting change in the attitude of influential people in our judicial system—at one end, the judicial lobby and, at the other, the justices and those who represent them in the other place.
  There has been an important change in thinking. It has taken a long time for that to happen. Labour Members believe that time is important. We have had 15 years of well-informed debate on this matter, with committee of inquiry after committee of inquiry. Many people at the highest levels of the judiciary have changed their minds in the light of experience. As we pointed out consistently in Standing Committee, most people with some expertise in this matter believe that it is time for a change. If the Lords amendment is reversed, an opportunity will have been missed.
  Some people, including the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), have talked about the views that will be expressed in the pubs and clubs. We believe that it is important to listen to those views in addition to those of the people involved in the judicial system, but at the end of the day, we must judge, and our judgment is that the country wants an effective deterrent. What the judiciary wants matches what the men and women in the pubs and clubs want. In other words, they want an effective deterrent.
  It has become clear from the debate in another place and from the many committees of inquiry that, if the same mandatory penalty were passed for all crimes of murder,
  892
  the whole issue of deterrence and the whole range of murders would be confused. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) clearly stated, we feel very strongly that the wicked men who shoot policeman should receive the sentence that they deserve, but there is a difference between such murders and other murders. If the penalty is used right across the board and if the same sentence is given to, at the one extreme, the wicked men who shot three policemen in Shepherd's Bush and, at the other extreme, to the agonised spouse who, at the end of his or her tether, helps his or her partner to die, it will make the deterrent ineffective.
  I refer to two hon. Members—
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman referred to what he believed to be the view of people in the pubs and clubs. Does he agree that the man in the street understands that if a bank robber tries to shoot his way out of a corner and kills a police officer, that bank robber knows that he will receive a life sentence and probably more? That is the simple message. The bank robber will receive not merely a life sentence, but probably a recommendation to go with it. The bank robber understands that and will think about it when he has his finger on the trigger.
  Mr. Sheerman: That issue is interesting in itself, but it has nothing to do with the debate.
  We are not arguing against having a life sentence for the wicked people who perpetrate the crime that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West describes. We want a mandatory life sentence for such an evil deed. However, I wish to refer to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Another principle that we pursued in judging whether to accept the amendment was that it should not be the job of the Executive to make the decisions or to interfere with the decisions which are properly those of the judiciary. If I remember correctly, the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech that there was one issue on which he disagreed with the Home Secretary although he would go dutifully into the Division Lobby at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman said that sentences should be determined by judges, not by Ministers. That was the whole point of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—that, at the moment, the Executive has a very dubious role in these cases.
  It has been made clear in the debates in another place —and former Home Secretaries have also been candid about this issue—that it is not the Home Secretary who makes the important decision, but a junior Minister. It is not a junior Minister who has read all the proceedings of the trial, but one who perhaps has a little help from an appropriate civil servant. It is not a Minister who has been briefed or who has read the ramifications of the case. We know what happens and we know that justice is not being done in such cases.
  5.45 pm
  I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). If, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, the hon. Gentleman's speech holed the Government ship beneath the waterline, surely that of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West blew away the main mast. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made an important point. He said that the Police Federation had changed its mind, and that is an important decision. I know that Conservative Members do not like that, because they prefer the Police

  893
  Federation to agree with the broad thrust of their policies. It was the particular case of three policemen who were murdered in a ghastly way about 26 years ago which made the federation realise the problems of having the Executive —a Minister—interfering with what should be left to judges. We may want judges to make specific recommendations of very long, determined sentences for people such as the Shepherd's Bush murderers. That would seem to be the logic of our position and there is nothing wrong with that. We shall defend that logic and, in this instance, we believe that the Police Federation's change of mind shows eminent good sense.
  We believe that ideas have changed and that there is now a consensus, not a party-political consensus but one of informed people who believe that the time has come to change the law. We have had a good debate, and there was an excellent one in another place. The Government would be shirking their responsibilities in their duties to the country and to the criminal justice system if they did not, at this late stage, change their mind and support the amendment.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that we have had a good debate. We have discussed several issues, including the part played by the Home Secretary and by Ministers in the decisions on the length of time that people will spend in custody and the length of time that they will spend out of custody but still on life sentences.
  My first point relates to an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Of course the sentence should be passed by the judge. It is the judge who makes the decision, following and acting on the mandatory penalty set out by Parliament that the crime of murder requires a life sentence. At that point, the case goes to Ministers for them to consider the proportions of the sentence to be spent in custody and those which will be spent on licence.
  We also considered the Home Secretary's decisions and discretions and his accountability to Parliament for those decisions. Opposition Members seem to find that accountability difficult to comprehend.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Rumbold: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on, give way."] Not at all. I want to develop my argument a little longer, if I may. The hon. Gentleman has entered the Chamber only recently and has not sat throughout the debate. It would be courteous for me to take the opportunity to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friends. I do not feel that I shall be tempted to allow the hon. Gentleman's interventions.
  As I said earlier, one of the most important aspects of the decisions that are taken by the Home Secretary is that he is ultimately accountable to the public. We have heard a great deal about the public's view of the way in which murder is treated and about the way in which the judgments passed by the courts and by the Home Secretary act as a deterrent against more people committing the crime of murder. If Parliament is representative of the people and speaks for them, surely the Home Secretary, who is charged with the keeping of good order and with
  894
  ensuring that good order is seen to be kept, is also held to be accountable for his decisions about the length of time that different types of murderers serve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), in his capacity as spokesman for the Police Federation, rightly pointed to the recent release of Mr. Witney. Mr. Witney has served 25 years of imprisonment for committing a heinous crime. The crime of killing police is considered heinous by all Members of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Huddersfield and, I suspect, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), endorse that view, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. No one wants people who commit the crime of killing police to be treated other than with the most serious commitment to custody. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that we consider a sentence of 20 years to be the very minimum.
  The decision on the case was taken after consultation by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the Lord Chief Justice. In 1985, Sir Leon Brittan decided, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, that a distinction could be drawn between Witney, who did not fire any shots, and his two co-defendants, who did. The decision to release Witney is based on the advice of the Parole Board that he no longer presents a risk to the public. The risk factor is the cogent factor in the decision making of Ministers or of the Home Secretary about the point at which a person has served the length of time that is suitable as retribution. The remaining issue to be decided is whether the person presents a risk to the public if he is released.
  Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to continue, because I have one more point to make about the importance of murder.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) summed up the position well. I find it difficult to accept the notion that one can distinguish between one murder and another. I understand the difficulties that people have, because some murders are premeditated, and are especially ghastly and horrific. For other murders, there may be reasons for saying that one could think more kindly of the person who committed the crime. Essentially, human beings do not have the right to take the life of another person. We have never decided that that is the case. I seriously suggest that, when Opposition Members try to distinguish between one type of murder and another, they do no great service to the general public's view that murder is a serious crime which should attract the most serious penalty—life imprisonment.
  Our debate has been interesting. I say to hon. Members who have argued that we should accept the amendment that it would not be a wise move for the House at present if we take seriously into consideration the feelings of the general public about the importance of having clear signals of deterrence for the worst crimes that can be committed by people against others. I for one hope that we shall retain the present system which allows my right hon. Friend and any future Home Secretary the right to take the decision for which he and he alone is accountable to the democratically elected House of Commons.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 158.

  Division No. 191]

  [5.55 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  French, Douglas

  Allason, Rupert

  Fry, Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Gale, Roger

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Atkins, Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Batiste, Spencer

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gregory, Conal

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ground, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grylls, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bowis, John

  Harris, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hayward, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bright, Graham

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hill, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Burns, Simon

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

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

  Butler, Chris

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cash, William

  Irvine, Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Janman, Tim

  Churchill, Mr

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kilfedder, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cran, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knapman, Roger

  Curry, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knox, David

  Day, Stephen

  Latham, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dover, Den

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Emery, Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Madel, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Maples, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Marland, Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marlow, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maude, Hon Francis

  896

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Mills, Iain

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Stern, Michael

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mudd, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stokes, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tracey, Richard

  Price, Sir David

  Trippier, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Watts, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Wells, Bowen

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilshire, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Tom Sackville and

  Speller, Tony

  Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Alistair

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Bellotti, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

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

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Blunkett, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Boateng, Paul

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fearn, Ronald

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

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

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foster, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Carr, Michael

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gould, Bryan

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cox, Tom

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Crowther, Stan

  Grist, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  Hain, Peter

  897

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Haynes, Frank

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Patchett, Terry

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Henderson, Doug

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Geraint

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Richardson, Jo

  Janner, Greville

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Short, Clare

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Walley, Joan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Maxton, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Winnick, David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Worthington, Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 44 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 45, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause—Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment—

  " .—(1) Where a court sentences a person to imprisonment for life it shall state in open court—

  (a) its reasons for passing that sentence; and

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

  (2) The penal term shall be subject to appeal against sentence in the same manner as the sentence of imprisonment for life actually passed on the offender."

  Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a) a new clause—Duty to release discretionary life prisoners—

  `.—(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if

  (a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law; and

  898

  (b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order.

  (2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account—

  (a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it; and

  (b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below.

  (3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner—

  (a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part"); and

  (b) the Board has directed his release under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence.

  (4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless—

  (a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and

  (b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

  (5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board any time—

  (a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and

  (b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and

  (c) where he is also serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term, after he has served one-half of that sentence;

  and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence.

  (6) In determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act").

  (7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.

  (8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment; but—

  (a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and

  (b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

  (b), a new clause—Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales—

  `.—(1) This section applies where, in the case of a transferred life prisoner, the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, certifies his opinion that, if—

  (a) he had been sentenced for his offence in England and Wales after the commencement of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above; and

  (b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

  the court by which he was so sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.

  (2) In a case to which this section applies, this Part except section 28(2) above shall apply as if—

  899

  (a) the transferred life prisoner were a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part; and

  (b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.

  (3) In this section "transferred life prisoner" means a person—

  (a) on whom a court in a country or territory outside England and Wales has imposed one or more sentences of imprisonment or detention for an indeterminate period; and

  (b) who has been transferred to England and Wales, in pursuance of—

  (i) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 or section 2 of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884; or

  (ii) a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984,

  there to serve his sentence or sentences or the remainder of his sentence or sentences.

  (4) A person who is required so to serve the whole or part of two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

  (c), in clause 26, page 20, line 10, leave out 'discharges functions' and insert 'makes recommendations'.

  (d), in page 20, line 14, leave out `(4)' and insert 'and'.

  (e), in page 20, line 17, at end insert—

  '(4) The Board shall deal with cases as respects which it gives directions under this Part on consideration of all such evidence as may be adduced before it.'

  (f), in page 20, line 24, leave out 'making any recommendations' and insert 'discharging any functions'.

  (g), in page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (7).

  (h), in clause 30, page 22, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

  '(5) The Secretary of State shall not include on release, or subsequently insert, a condition in the licence of a long-term or life prisoner, or vary or cancel any such condition, except—

  (a) in the case of the inclusion of a condition in the licence of a discretionary life prisoner, in accordance with recommendations of the Board; and

  (b) in any other case, after consultation with the Board.'

  (i), in clause 32, page 23, line 5, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 7 and insert

  'on a reference under subsection (4) above the Board—

  (a) directs in the case of a discretionary life prisoner; or

  (b) recommends in the case of any other person, his immediate release on licence under this section, the Secretary of State shall give effect to the direction or recommendation.'

  (j), in clause 35, page 24, line 14, leave out 'the Prison Act 1952'.

  (k), in clause 37, page 25, line 15, leave out `directe' and insert 'ordered'.

  (l), in page 25, line 19, leave out subsection (2).

  (m), in clause 41, page 27, line 11, leave out from `above' to end of line 19 and insert

  'in subsection (5)(a) after the words "in the case or there shall be inserted the words "the licence of a long-term prisoner or", and subsection (6) shall be omitted.'

  (n), in clause 42, page 27, line 26, at end insert—

  "'discretionary life prisoner" has the meaning given by section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above (as extended by section 36(2) above;'.

  (p), in page 27, line 27, leave out `28(4)' and insert (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners)(8)'.

  (q), in page 27, line 35, at end insert—

  "'sexual offence" and "violent offence" have the same meanings as in Part I of this Act.'

  (o), in page 27, line 39, at end insert—

  '(3) Nothing in this Part shall require the Secretary of State to release a person who is serving—

  (a) a sentence of imprisonment for a term; and

  (b) one or more sentences of imprisonment for life,

  unless and until he is entitled under this Part to be released in respect of each of those sentences.'

  (r), in page 27, line 39, at end insert—

  '(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 25 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this Part as they apply for the purposes of Part I of this Act.'

  (s), in schedule 10, page 90, line 26, at end insert—

  'Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c.47)
  .—(1) In section 2 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (transfer of prisoners out of United Kingdom), in subsection (4)(b), for sub-paragraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

  "(i) released on licence under section 27(1)(b) or (2), (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners)(3) or 28(1) or (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;".

  (2) In section 3 of that Act (transfer of prisoners into United Kingdom), after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(9) The provisions contained by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above in a warrant under this Act shall, in the case of a prisoner to whom section (Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (discretionary life prisoners transferred to England and Wales) applies, include provision specifying the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of that Act (duty of Secretary of State to release discretionary life prisoners)."

  (3) In paragraph 2 of the Schedule to that Act (opera' ion of certain enactments in relation to prisoners transferred into United Kingdom)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from "section 60" to "of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 27(1)(b) or (2), (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners)(3) or (5) or 28(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 whether the prisoner has at any time served a particular proportion or part of his sentence specified in that provision,"; and

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "one third" there shall be substituted the words "any particular proportion or part".

  (4) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, for the words "section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" there shall be substituted the words "section 28(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991".'

  (t), in schedule 11, page 93, line 13, at end insert—

  '6A.— (1) This paragraph applies where, in the case of an existing life prisoner, the Secretary of State certifies his opinion that, if—

  (a) section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act had been in force at the time when he was sentenced; and

  (b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

  the court by which he was sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.

  (2) In a case to which this paragraph applies, Part II of this Act except section 28(2) shall apply as if—

  (a) the existing life prisoner were a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of that Part; and

  (b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.

  901

  (3) In this paragraph "existing life prisoner" means a person who, at the commencement of Part II of this Act, is serving one or more of the following sentences, namely—

  (a) a sentence of life imprisonment;

  (b) a sentence of detention during her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or

  (c) a sentence of custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act.

  (4) A person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of Part II of this Act unless the requirements of sub-paragraph (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

  Lords amendment No. 57, after clause 25, to insert the following new clause—Review of life sentences by Tribunal—

  ".—(1) The Secretary of State shall refer the case of every life prisoner to the Tribunal for review not later than two years before the expiry of the penal term applicable to his case.

  (2) The Tribunal may direct—

  (a) the release on licence of a life prisoner convicted of murder;

  (b) the release of a life prisoner convicted of an offence other than murder—

  (i) on licence; or

  (ii) unconditionally.

  (3) In determining whether to direct release the Tribunal shall have regard to the risk of the life prisoner's committing further serious offences and the need to protect the public against that risk.

  (4) The Secretary of State may revoke the licence of any life prisoner whose release on licence has been directed by the Tribunal and recall him to prison if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient in the public interest to do so and shall in that event refer the case of the prisoner so recalled to the Tribunal for further consideration so soon as practicable.

  (5) A life prisoner whose case is referred to the Tribunal under this section shall have the right—

  (a) to make representations to the Tribunal either orally or in writing;

  (b) to be legally represented before the Tribunal; and

  (c) to call witnesses on his behalf,

  and shall be given such information about his case and about the matters under consideration by the Tribunal as will enable him effectively to exercise those rights.

  Provided that the Tribunal may direct that there shall be no disclosure of any material which the Tribunal considers that it would not be in the public interest to disclose.

  (6) If the Tribunal determines not to direct the release of a life prisoner (whether convicted of murder or of some lesser offence) the Secretary of State shall refer his case to the Tribunal for further consideration within such period (not being longer than three years from the date of the previous determination) as the Tribunal may direct.

  (7) Where the Tribunal directs the release of a life prisoner other than one convicted of murder it may also direct the length of time for which the licence is to remain in force.

  (8) If the Tribunal gives no direction as to the length of a licence under subsection (7) above, it shall review the licence—

  (a) within three years from the date of the Tribunal's decision to release the offender on licence; and

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

  and shall on any such review either terminate the licence or direct the length of time for which it is to remain in force.

  (9) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to any directions given by the Tribunal in regard to a life prisoner whose case is referred to it under this section.

  (10) In this section "penal term" means the sentence of imprisonment which the court is required by section (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment) to state in open
  902
  court as being the sentence it would have passed had it not passed a sentence of imprisonment for life and it had not taken into account the risk of serious harm to the public if the offender were to be released after a determined number of years' imprisonment.

  (11) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life."

  Government motion to disagree.
  No. 58, in clause 28, page 21, line 20, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
  Government motion to disagree.
  Government amendments to Lords amendment No. 58: (a), in page 21, line 21, leave out 'and' and insert `together'.
  (b), in page 21, line 22, leave out 'a life prisoner on licence' and insert
  'on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner'.
  (c), in page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (4). No. 62, in page 22, clause 32, line 35, leave out ("or life")
  Government motion to disagree.
  No. 65, in page 27, clause 41, line 6, leave out ("in subsection (1)")
  Government motion to disagree.
  No. 66, in page 27 clause 41, line 8, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
  Government motion to disagree.
  No. 67, in page 27, clause 42, line 27, leave out ("28(4)") and insert
  ("(Review of life sentences by Tribunal) (11)")
  Government motion to disagree.
  Mrs. Rumbold: This group of amendments is concerned with the arrangements for determining when life sentence prisoners should be released from custody. The amendments propose new procedures that would apply to all life sentence cases both where the life sentence is mandatory—that is, murder—and where it is discretionary.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary argued earlier that a life sentence should remain the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder and that the Home Secretary should retain the responsibility for deciding when offenders convicted of that crime should be released. I invite the House to disagree with the amendments in so far as they seek to apply to mandatory life sentence procedures which place the decision on the release of convicted murderers in the hands of a tribunal once the period set by the trial judge has expired.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have already ruled amendments Nos. 56 and 115, which seek to set up a life sentence tribunal, out of order on the ground that they are outside the terms of the money resolution.
  We should bear in mind that the background against which we must consider changes to our procedures in life sentence cases is the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne. That judgment concerned only discretionary life sentence cases, and the courts drew a clear distinction between mandatory and discretionary cases.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the right hon. Lady's position on this issue compatible with the equivalent legal provisions concerning prisoners in Scottish prisons?
  Mrs. Rumbold: Separate legislation governs the review and release of discretionary life sentence prisoners in

  903
  Scotland. There are differences in practice and procedure between Scotland, England and Wales. The same principles apply, however, and we recognise that Scottish legislation will also need amending to take account of the findings of the European Court of Human Rights.
  The court's reasoning, with which I agree, was that in mandatory cases, as opposed to discretionary cases, the lawfulness of detention for life is determined from the outset by the trial judge. The sentence does not fall into the successive elements of punishment for the offence, followed by detention for so long as is necessary to protect the public, as it does in discretionary cases. It therefore does not follow that mandatory life sentence prisoners are entitled, after a certain part of the sentence has been served, to have their cases reconsidered by an independent judicial body.
  The Government amendments that are offered in lieu of Lords amendment No. 45, and the amendments to the words restored by disagreement with amendment No. 58, concern only discretionary life sentence cases. There has never been any doubt that our procedures in those cases would need to be changed in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. On 20 February, I said that my right hon. Friend would give the matter full consideration and would lay proposals before the House when he had completed various considerations. We are now doing that.
  My right hon. Friend would not conceal that he would have preferred to have a little longer to digest all the implications of the judgment and to consult rather more widely about the proposals. However, we have been asked by the House and by the other place for amendments to be introduced in the Bill—that is what we are now doing. The amendments in my right hon. Friend's name do precisely what we have been asked. I will now outline their main features. The House will see that, in substance, the procedure proposed is quite similar to that proposed in the Lords amendments.
  Provision is made for the trial judge to announce in open court the term within a discretionary life sentence which is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. That term will be open to appeal in the same way as a determinate sentence. One the term set by the trial judge has been served, the prisoner's continued detention will be based on the risk that he poses to the public, rather than the seriousness of the offence.
  It would be open to the trial judge, exceptionally, not to set a term. That would be an indication that the crime which had been committed was so wicked that detention for life was justified according to the seriousness of the offence alone, irrespective of the risk to the public. Such a life sentence prisoner would therefore be in the same position as a mandatory life sentence prisoner. The question of his eventual release would therefore be a matter for the Secretary of State.
  In all other discretionary life sentence cases, the prisoner would be entitled to have his continued detention after the term set by the trial judge reviewed by an independent body having the status of a court for the purposes of the European convention on human rights. We propose that that body should be the Parole Board, operating under a special set of procedures which would be laid down in rules made by the Secretary of State under clause 26(5).
  We intend that the panel of the Parole Board which will consider discretionary life sentence cases will be chaired by
  904
  a judge who is a member of the board, and one of its members will be a psychiatrist. The prisoner will be entitled to appear before the panel and be legally represented. If the panel concludes that the prisoner's continued detention is no longer necessary to protect the public, the Parole Board will direct the Secretary of State to release him. The Secretary of State will then be obliged to release the prisoner on licence, subject only to a power, exceptionally, to delay release for up to six months if it is in the public interest to do so—for example, because the release of a terrorist prisoner would otherwise coincide with some sensitive terrorist incident.
  The proposals include transitional provisions for prisoners who are already serving discretionary life sentences. They will become eligible for review by the Parole Board in its new capacity once their existing tariffs have been served. My right hon. Friend's proposals also cover a number of other cases not dealt with in the Lords amendments, including prisoners sentenced concurrently to more than one life or determinate sentence, and prisoners transferred from other jurisdictions to serve their sentences in England and Wales.
  Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State for showing her characteristic courtesy in giving way. With such a prisoner, where stands the local review committee? Is it to be bypassed by the panel that the right hon. Lady mentioned? The panel will be made up of, among others, a psychiatrist and a judge. Am I to take it that the local review committee has no place in the scheme of things?
  Mrs. Rumbold: That is the case in respect of the proposals that we are bringing forward for England and Wales. The Parole Board will subsume the work done by the local review committee. I shall take account of the hon. Gentleman's question about the situation in Scotland and report to him.
  The proposals meet in full the requirements of the European Court. I hope that the House will accept them in preference to the tribunal amendments introduced in the other place.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Sheerman: We do not want to make a meal of this, but it is interesting to note the Government's transformation in terms of the speed and the manner in which they have reacted since the Bill went from a Committee of this House to another place. We welcome some of the reactions that the Government have announced, but we are still worried that what the Minister of State has announced will not quite meet the criteria that the European Court of Human Rights has erected. If that is the case, we shall certainly force the matter to a Division.
  The new proposals still leave the United Kingdom in breach of the European convention on human rights and liable to challenge before the European Court on a future date. We all know—we have long discussed it—that the new clauses do not meet all the points in the two judgments, which stem from a long time ago. Characteristically, the Government have waited a long time to respond to the judgments in the case of Weekes of 1987 and Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell of October 1990.
  The Government's thought process started in 1987, which is a long time ago. When we pressed the matter in Committee, we were told that there was still a long road

  905
  ahead before we could get any definitive answer. We now seem to have an answer, because the Government have been pushed by the other place to make some decisions.
  The proposals from the other place are superior to the Government's reaction, so unless the Minister of State has a total change of heart and mind, we shall oppose the Government amendments.
  Subsection (7) of the new clause gives the Home Secretary power to defer an offender's release for up to six months after the date directed by the Parole Board
  "if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest."
  We have sought eminent legal opinion on this matter, but that subsection flies in the face of the European Court's ruling, which requires an open court-like body, not the Executive, to decide on a release date. I do not want to return to the debate that we have just had, but one of our central reservations about both the mandatory life sentence and the discretionary life sentence clauses is that we believe that the principle of the Executive interfering in the judicial process is fundamentally wrong. We believe that the European Court of Human Rights will not accept such further executive interference. It is surprising that the Government have acted as they have, given that they were given a clear direction from the court. I am sure that their legal counsel must be saying, as ours is, that their proposal will not meet the criteria set down.
  It is hard to envisage why the Home Secretary needs the additional power. The Parole Board could delay a prisoner's release until a suitable hostel was available. In what circumstances would there have to be a delay? We should hate to be political, but would the delay occur when a release would be politically embarrassing, such as just before a general election? Do the Government want the reserve power of six month's grace for reasons of political sensitivity? We want to know why that delay should be built in.
  The European Court has made it clear that the decision must be made by a court. We should like to have the details spelt out, and we are not satisfied that the "court-like" criterion specified by the European Court will be met by statutory regulation. The Minister should fill in a little more detail about how the system will work. Our legal counsel suggested that, within the framework of the Bill, statutory regulations could not introduce a sufficiently court-like body. We may be wrong, and we never like to be too categorical about such legal matters, but our eminent counsel has suggested that that is so. Will the Minister clarify that point? We should love to know why the Government could not announce their proposal in Committee. It seems that what the Minister has suggested would not allow a totally open hearing, in which the prisoner could appear and be legally represented.
  The Government's proposals do not seem to provide any safeguards. Government amendment (e) to Lords amendment No. 45 merely states:
  "The Board shall deal with cases as respects which it gives directions under this Part on consideration of all such evidence as may be adduced before it."
  That is fairly opaque. Will the Government be making new rules to that effect? The Bill gives the Government power to make rules about the board's proceedings, but such basic rights should surely be on the face of the Bill. This is
  906
  an important issue and it worries us that it is being introduced through the back door and not on the face of the Bill.
  Given the Minister's previous responsibilities, she will know only too well that the nearest equivalent to the Parole Board's role in respect of lifers is the mental health tribunal, where patients can be represented and obtain legal aid for the purpose. We believe that, without legal aid and representation, lifers will have little chance of arguing their case in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, many of them are mentally disordered. For example, Thornton received a life sentence for setting fire to two curtains, Bilton received a life sentence for setting fire to a bed and Block received a life sentence for setting fire to a dustbin in an empty warehouse and then calling the fire brigade. All those tragic cases involved people who were mentally disordered. The Minister should state clearly whether legal aid will be available in such cases.
  The burden of proof as to whether a prisoner is safe seems to have been reversed. Now, the prisoner must satisfy the board that he or she is safe, rather than the board having to demonstrate that the prisoner's incarceration is necessary. The Minister did not make that clear.
  The Government have introduced the provision at a late stage, and it is not possible for us to amend it. That is a disgraceful way to deal with a major Bill in this Parliament. The Government have not had a heavy legislative timetable, and this was the main Bill in the Queen's Speech. Surely it deserved better treatment through the legislative process, and we should have been forewarned of such developments. Given the time that the Government have had to think about the legislation, it has been handled in a disgraceful way.
  We tabled amendments from Committee stage onwards, but the lawyers involved in bringing the original case before the European Court are understandably angry that, having spent years trying to get the legislation changed, they do not now have the opportunity to comment, as they would have done if the change had been introduced a little earlier. If the Government had made their reaction to the judgment of the European Court clear, the people most involved would have had a chance to react, not just in a negative way, but so as to make the legislation better.
  As worded, the Government's proposal applies only to life sentences imposed for violent or sexual offences. It is feasible that a person could receive life for other offences. Does the definition include, for example aggravated burglary? Will such offences be covered by the Government's provisions?
  The wording suggests that the proposals come into effect only where the original sentencing court orders that they should. Does that mean that the original court can effectively veto the prisoner's right to use procedures under the European convention? That is not clear from what the Government have said to date. That point must be clarified now because this is the last opportunity to do so.
  My remarks have been based on two factors. First, the Government should have met the strictures and criticisms of the European Court much earlier than they have. Secondly, due to the late timing of the Government's proposals it will be difficult to refine the legislation. The Minister knows that, during the passage of the Bill, we have had some bitter, contentious and principled arguments and disagreements, but we have also had some

  907
  lively co-operation. I think that Ministers and Committee members will agree that the Opposition have improved the Bill no end during its process. That is our constitutional duty and right as Her Majesty's Opposition. We have tried to fulfil that duty and we have bitterly opposed some aspects of the Bill. Unless we receive satisfactory replies, we shall have to disagree with the proposition that the European Court's strictures have been met in full.
  Mr. Maclennan: I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about whether the Government's proposals will rectify the wrong to which the European Court of Human rights has drawn attention. I am not satisfied that the Government's provisions, which were tabled late, are sufficient for the purpose.
  Although the facts of the Thynne case that found this country to be in breach of article 5.4 of the European convention turned on a discretionary life prisoner's sentence, I am not entirely clear whether the court rested its arguments on the fact that the life sentence was discretionary as opposed to mandatory. There is a risk that other cases involving mandatory life sentences may now go before the European Court. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) referred to the narrowness of the finding, and the case certainly deals with a non-mandatory situation. Has the Minister taken advice on the width of the European Court's finding?
  6.30 pm
  This exceptional new clause, which allows the Secretary of State to
  "defer a prisoner's release … for a period not exceeding six months"
  seems to run across the court's finding. On what provision of the European convention do the Government rely in importing the exceptional provision set out in subsection (7)? That alone may result in our being drawn back into contention in the European Court.
  I have tried to follow the Minister's description of the new procedure, but it does not seem to meet the underlying reasoning of the European Court, which was clearly set out in the judgment. It said that the review that it considered necessary should be
  "sufficiently wide to consider the conditions justifying, according to the Convention, the special type of deprivation of liberty ordered against these applicants".
  Its findings reaffirmed the Weekes judgment that neither the Parole Board nor judicial review proceedings satisfy the requirements of article 5(4). The Government appear to be refining the procedures to be followed by the Parole Board. It seems to me as a layman that the European Court will not be satisfied that the review will be sufficiently wide to
  "consider the conditions justifying, according to the Convention, the special type of deprivation of liberty".
  The Minister delivered her speech with a great deal of celerity and I should like to hear more, because the issue is important. It is embarrassing for this country to be dragged back and forth to the European Court on such issues. Moreover, it is late in the Bill's proceedings for the Government to make such a proposal in the feasance of the proposals from another place, which have been carefully considered by a number of lawyers who have tried to meet the European Court's objections to this country's proceedings. I hope that the Minister will reply at some length on those points.
  Mr. Tom Cox: I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the problem of our going backwards and forwards to the European Court, which will continue to happen increasingly unless we straighten out the clause.
  We must give hope to those now serving life sentences in our prisons. I have experience of prisons because Wandsworth prison is in my constituency and I also serve on the board of Wormwood Scrubs, which is the life assessment area unit for the south of England. Over the years, I have met and got to know many men serving life sentences. Some of them have committed the most horrendous offences and will say—if they are honest with themselves, as they start to become after a while—that the severity of their crimes were such that they would expect to remain in prison for the rest of their lives. I fully accept that anyone who takes life has committed a serious offence.
  The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), is doing the rounds of prisons so she must also get to know inmates and hear about their case records. 1 often wonder, when I meet men who are serving life sentences, what I would have done in those circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) outlined the kind of person that we are discussing—they have little hope of ever being released—but there are others who need to be given some hope.
  I fully accept that judges who hear a case have a right to make an observation to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has a right to bear in mind the information that he receives from those who work in the establishments where lifers are kept. However, when a prisoner appeals for consideration of release, far too many inmates serving life sentences are given no hope that there will come a time when they can appeal and be given a date for their release. That must surely be an important criterion if we want genuine reforms in our prisons. I assume that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, want reforms. One certainly hears repeatedly from Ministers that the Government seek such reforms. If the ever-increasing number of inmates serving life sentences follow the rules and are not put on report, they should have the right to be given a degree of hope that there will come a time when they can appeal for release, with all the conditions that then follow.
  When I meet lifers in Wandsworth prison and Wormwood Scrubs, they complain bitterly to me about the lack of opportunity that they are given. That is why, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, they feel that the way in which the Home Office is dealing with their case is unjust. They then ask the Court of Human Rights to deal with it.
  What does subsection 5(a) mean by the words
  "after he has served the relevant part of his sentence"?
  What period of time are we talking about? I am concerned about inmates serving life sentences who hope that one day they will be released. Many inmates find it increasingly difficult to find out when they might be released, because so much secrecy surrounds the reasons why inmates are not given the dates on which their sentences will be terminated and for how much longer they will remain in prison.
  Within the past few days, I have received a letter from the Minister of State concerning a constituent of mine who is serving not a life sentence but 12 years for an offence

  909
  involving the use of firearms, which I accept is a serious matter. My constituent has served about five years, has applied for release and has been turned down. No reasons were given. As an inmate in a category C prison, as a result of downgrading from a category A to a category C prison, surely he has some right to believe that he will be released in the near future. I beg the Minister to try to understand the problems caused for governors and prison officers when an inmate, who has followed all the rules of behaviour as he or she understands them and has not committed the most horrendous of crimes—we are not arguing about that—has been knocked back, to use the jargon, about the date of release.
  It is about time that the Government were open about what is being proposed, and especially about this amendment. I should have thought that the comments and observations of the Law Lords and of the other place are very relevant to it, and it is regrettable that the Home Secretary is seeking to remove it.
  As other hon. Members have said, the Home Secretary or the Minister of State should spell that out. Irrespective of party, Members of Parliament have to deal with inmates who write to them in great detail and with great frequency asking, "Why is this happening to me?" It would be helpful if the hon. Lady could answer some of my questions about secrecy. Why is there not more openness about the reasons for decisions which go against an inmate? Why is more hope not given to inmates who, although they may have committed a serious crime by taking someone else's life, feel that they have no hope of being given a release date so that they can start to live a normal life with their families and, one hopes, start to become of benefit to society? That is surely what prison reform in its broadest sense means, and I hope that we shall hear about that from the Minister when she replies.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) raised many issues, but began by castigating us for not coming forward with our responses to the European Court's judgment earlier. I remind him that that judgment in October 1990 was not a foregone conclusion and had no predictable outcome, as he well knows. He also suggested that the Lords amendments were a superior solution to the amendments that the Government have tabled. That is not correct, because, among other things, they failed to confer new review rights on existing prisoners such as Gunnell, Wilson and Thynne, and the Government amendments provide for such review procedures.
  The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about the way in which the new parole boards will operate. Our amendment provides that the parole boards will have the final say about the release of discretionary life sentence prisoners—that is the effect of subsection (3) of amendment (a) which is proposed by the Government in lieu of amendment No. 45.
  The panel of the parole board that considers such cases will be chaired, as I said in my opening remarks, by a judicial member of the board and the prisoner will be able to present his case and be legally represented. In answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, prisoners whose cases are before the board will be eligible for legal aid under the normal rules.
  910
  The prisoner will be present and the board will have exactly the same status and procedures as a court, as the European Court of Human Rights proposes. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland seems to doubt whether that will be the case. Parole board tribunal arrangements will be very different from those referred to by the European Court of Human Rights in the Weekes judgment, to which he referred. The board, operating as a tribunal, will be a court and will be accepted as such for ECHR purposes and I hope that that reassures him.
  Specific procedures are not set out in the amendment, but will be dealt with in rules made under clause 26(5) of the Bill, as I am sure the hon. Member for Huddersfield will be glad to know.
  6.45 pm
  Cases in which a term will not be set will be entirely a matter for the sentencing judge's discretion, if he feels that it is right to state a minimum. We think that it would be wrong to limit his discretion.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked whether aggravated burglary would qualify and the answer is yes, if a life sentence is given. The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Caithness and Sutherland both mentioned the Home Secretary's power to delay release, and I think that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggested that that might be a loophole. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights recognised that a limited power to deny release might be justified in some circumstances on the grounds of what it termed expediency.
  The Home Secretary is always accountable to Parliament for any decisions to use that power, and he has a responsibility to protect the public and to prevent serious disorder, as we said in earlier debates. I submit that he must be in a position to discharge that responsibility by delaying a lifer's release when there are compelling reasons to believe that it would cause some form of public outrage.
  In my opening remarks, I cited the example of the release of a terrorist on the anniversary of a tragedy caused by his actions which was to be marked by a public meeting. That might turn a peaceful demonstration of public feeling into something very different and very nasty. I am certain that the House will agree that the Home Secretary should be in a position to prevent that by delaying release for a short period. I assure the House that that power would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
  At the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned a number of matters and asked what the "relevant part" of a life sentence means. It means that part of the sentence that is the number of years announced by a judge in open court at the time of sentencing. This time period is also subject to appeal in the normal way, as he may know. The hon. Member spoke at some length about inmates who have no information about when their sentence may come to an end. That is not quite correct, as it is my understanding that most lifers are told early in their sentence when the first formal review of their case will be heard, which gives a clear sign of the length of time that they are likely to be in custody.
  Although it is not apparent that the hon. Member for Huddersfield is paying a great deal of attention to the responses that I have given, I think that it is clear to hon. Members who have listened that they have satisfactorily answered the matters that he raised. I believe that the Government's proposals, as outlined in the amendments,

  911
  are the correct ones and that they will satisfactorily answer the points that were raised by the European Court of Human Rights.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 147.

  Division No. 192]

  [6.49 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gale, Roger

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Allason, Rupert

  Gill, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Amos, Alan

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Ashby, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gregory, Conal

  Atkins, Robert

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Grist, Ian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ground, Patrick

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Benyon, W.

  Hague, William

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hannam, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

  Bowis, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Harris, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bright, Graham

  Hayward, Robert

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

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Burns, Simon

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Burt, Alistair

  Hill, James

  Butcher, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butler, Chris

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cash, William

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Irvine, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Janman, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Curry, David

  Kilfedder, James

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Dover, Den

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Evennett, David

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Maclean, David

  Forman, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Malins, Humfrey

  Franks, Cecil

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marlow, Tony

  912

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Moate, Roger

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Trippier, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Pawsey, James

  Waller, Gary

  Raffan, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Riddick, Graham

  Watts, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Speller, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Tim Boswell and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Donald

  Dobson, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Doran, Frank

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Margaret

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bellotti, David

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foulkes, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cox, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Crowther, Stan

  Haynes, Frank

  Cryer, Bob

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Henderson, Doug

  Darling, Alistair

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hood, Jimmy

  913

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Geraint

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Richardson, Jo

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Short, Clare

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Madden, Max

  Snape, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Strang, Gavin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Wallace, James

  Meacher, Michael

  Walley, Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mullin, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, William

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 45 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (t) made in lieu thereof

Clause 1

  RESTRICTIONS ON IMPOSING CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert
  ("punishable with a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law.")
  7 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 14.
  Mr. Patten: These amendments bring offences which are triable only on indictment within the scope of the restrictions on the use of custody in clauses 1 and 2. We debated this issue in Committee and the issues have been well aired both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We have also had the benefit of some extremely good debates in another place. The amendments substantially improve the present position on indictable offences.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments No. 2 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
  Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we will discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 133, 134 and 141.
  Mr. Patten: The main purpose of this group of amendments is simply to clarify and to some extent restructure the arrangement of the provisions of part I of the Bill. That reflects the views expressed in another place, especially by the judiciary. The changes do not affect the substance of the provisions in any way, although the opportunity has been taken to remove any possibility of inconsistency in the interpretation of the provisions as they affect multiple past or current offences. We have benefited from debates in Committee and in another place on these amendments.
  Mr. Sheerman: I shall speak briefly to Lords amendment No. 9. This amendment and the subsequent linked amendments provide that the courts must normally consider a pre-sentence report before imposing a custodial sentence for an offence which is triable only on indictment. Those changes were made by the Government in response to Opposition amendments. When the Government react to Opposition amendments, we are always pleased. But before the changes the Bill required the courts to consider a pre-sentence report, which would normally be prepared by the probation service, before imposing a custodial sentence for an offence which was summary or triable either way.
  If an offence was triable only on indictiment, courts could pass custodial sentences without considering such a report, if the offender had previously served a prison sentence.
  There are two reasons why it is right that a requirement for pre-sentence reports should be extended to indictable-only offences. It is worth repeating them, even though, as the Minister said, the matter has been covered elsewhere.
  First, such reports explore possible alternatives to a custodial sentence and advise the courts of them. That helps to ensure that courts do not pass custodial sentences without considering possible alternatives. Consideration of alternatives is just as relevant to many indictment-only cases as it is to offences which are summary or triable either way.
  Secondly, probation reports contain objective information about the offender's background and circumstances and about his or her attitude to the offence. Those may be important factors in assessing how far mitigating factors are present. That can be crucial, first, to the decision on whether the offender deserves custody and secondly, if he deserves custody, to the decision on the length of the sentence in the light of the offender's degree of culpability.
  The considerations that I have described are just as relevant in indictment-only cases as in summary or either-way cases. The second consideration that I mentioned answers the argument by people who ask what is the point of insisting on a pre-sentence report in cases where the offence is so serious that realistically the only question is how long the sentence will be.
  When the matter was debated in Committee, the Government strongly resisted similar amendments. Their change of heart since the Bill was considered in the House of Lords is to be welcomed, even if it is belated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 3 to 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.")

  Mr. Patten: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: amendment (a) to the Lords amendment: after subsection (4) insert—

  '(4A) For the purpose of facilitating the making and submission of medical reports, the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment of duty psychiatrist schemes in courts to which this section applies.

  (4B) Regulations made under subsection (4A) above may be made so as to apply only in specified areas.'

  (b) in line 32, at end insert—
  "'duty psychiatrist scheme" means a scheme which provides for the psychiatric examination of the mental condition of offenders by a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved.'
  Lords amendments Nos. 48, 101 and 107 to 110.
  Mr. Sherman: The intention of Lords amendment No. 13 is to require courts normally to consider a medical report before passing a custodial sentence on an offender who is or appears to be mentally disordered. The amendment was tabled by the Government in response to amendments tabled by Peers in the all-party penal affairs group, with the support of the Opposition.
  Following discussions on this issue in the House of Commons, in the Committee stage in another place the Government initially amended clause 3 to require a court before passing a custodial sentence on a mentally disordered offender, first, to consider any information before it which relates to his mental condition, whether in
  916
  a pre-sentence report, a medical report or otherwise, and, secondly, to consider the likely effect of such a sentence on that condition and on any treatment which may be available for it.
  However, that measure did not require the court to obtain a medical opinion if such an opinion was not already before it. Therefore, it achieved little, because it is likely that a court would in any case consider any information that it had available on the offender's mental condition.
  The strengthened amendment to place a duty on the court normally to obtain a medical report is therefore a significant improvement on the present legal position. However, if the provision is to work properly, it will require the establishment of a duty psychiatrist scheme at courts throughout the country to enable reports on mentally disordered defendants to be prepared speedily. Otherwise, the courts may obtain reports by remanding defendants to the suicide-inducing conditions of prison medical wings. That would be far from the intention of all those who have pressed for the provision in Lords amendment 13 to be included in the Bill. The case for including in the Bill a statutory requirement to establish duty psychiatric schemes is important to us. I wish to speak about that too because our amendments and the Government's amendment are part of this group.
  We were keen to amend the Bill in Committee because even the research by Professor Gumm—inspired and financed by the Home Office—found that possibly 20 per cent. of people in our prisons are suffering some kind of mental disorder. That number has steadily increased.
  It is not surprising that the Government are criticised for their care in the community policy, because we have all seen people in our constituencies who are in need but who are no longer sent to mental institutions for treatment and care. Because of that policy an increasing number of men and women suffering from some kind of mental disorder are on our streets, perhaps begging. Crisis at Christmas investigated those sleeping rough in London the Christmas before last and found that a high percentage were suffering from a mental disorder.
  Nowadays, an increasing number of people who go to prison for a range of criminal acts, usually of a reasonably minor nature, are suffering a mental disorder. Should the Minister ever visit prisons and talk with prison governors, I am sure that he would accept that the constant refrain one hears on such occasions is: "These people should not be here. They never used to be. We are not trained to look after and care for them. They belong in a special category."
  In Committee, we tabled an amendment to introduce a duty psychiatric scheme whereby psychiatrists would be on call in courts so that a rapid assessment could be made of the mental state of a person should anyone in the court suggest that that person had a problem. The essential reasoning behind our amendment is a desire to change the existing circumstances for those suffering from a mental disorder. We want to offer courts another option instead of the traditional one of remanding someone in custody for psychiatric reports. We want to deter the courts from such action.
  People who are under great stress and who have a history of mental disorder are sent to prison—to some of the worst, dark Victorian institutions. That is most dangerous. It is tragic, but not surprising, that a large

  917
  number of such people proceed to attempt to commit suicide, many successfully. Others do ghastly things to themselves, such as self-immolation.
  We want to introduce an early-warning system so that a psychiatrist can appear at a court to give a rapid assessment of a defendant so that that person does not have to go to prison. We are seeking to achieve that early warning system with the introduction of a duty psychiatric scheme.
  In response to our amendments, the Government have argued in this House and another place that a scheme would place too onerous a responsibility on the medical profession at this time. However, if we phased in that psychiatric scheme, surely that would be an acceptable solution to any problem.
  Successful experiments have already been undertaken in a number of courts in London and Peterborough. We believe that the psychiatric scheme should be spread to other courts as resources allow. If the Government accept the amendment, we believe that that would act as an incentive for the introduction of such schemes. [Interruption.] The Minister and his hon. Friends may ask whether I have the resources, but the psychiatric scheme would save thousands of pounds. When a prisoner is remanded in custody for psychiatric reports it is usually for two weeks. I believe that the scheme could be cost-neutral at the very least, because every time we stop someone from going into prison who should not be there we are saving enormous amounts of money.
  7.15 pm
  The report that the Government commissioned from the Home Office showed that possibly 20 per cent. of prisoners suffer from a mental disorder. If we cut that number in half, the savings to the Exchequer from that 10 per cent. who avoided prison would still be prodigious. The Minister is aware that that is true. Avoiding sending some people to prison represents an enormous saving every week and every month. I do not believe that the duty psychiatric scheme would be an expense. It would save money, but perhaps I should hedge my bets and say that it would be cost neutral. If we proved that cost neutrality we should extend the scheme throughout the country. We are confident that remarkable savings would be made.
  We believe that the Bill should contain a duty on the Government, as resources become available, to extend a psychiatric advice scheme to all our courts. The scheme could be introduced on the basis of priority, as I believe that the inner-city courts have a greater need for such a scheme than other courts.
  We believe that the amendment is common sense, and we hope that even at this late stage we have converts in the Minister and the Government.
  Mr. John Patten: While responding to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on the Opposition amendment to amendment 13, I will, if I may, speak strongly in favour of Lords amendment No. 13. I shall also speak to Lords amendment Nos. 48 and 101 and Nos. 107 to 110.
  We discussed the problems associated with the sentencing and treatment of mentally disordered offenders a number of times during the passage of the Bill. We all agree that more should be done to ensure that courts have
  918
  the necessary information when sentencing an offender who might be mentally disordered so that wherever possible he received treatment as well as punishment or, best of all, treatment without punishment, from health or social services departments under the Mental Health Act 1983. That is our desire.
  I have been much influenced by the words of wisdom that I have received over the years from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) who has taken such a notable interest in the problems facing the mentally disordered.
  As I said on Report on 20 February, the problem is to find a way of squaring the circle to enable the courts to identify and to obtain reports quickly on those suspected of being mentally disordered without defeating the pourpose of the exercise by having to put them on remand in custody for a long period awaiting those reports. I said then that we would continue to work on the problem and that we would introduce amendments in another place. We have done so and the amendments before us now are the fruits of those labours.
  Lords amendment No. 13 makes new provision for the obtaining of psychiatric reports in cases where the offender appears to be mentally disordered. An exception is provided in subsection 2 of the new clause introduced by the amendment for cases where the court does not consider it necessary to obtain a medical report. That may, for example, be because the court already has sufficient information about the offender's mental condition without needing to call for a new report to be prepared.
  The House will agree that the provision represents a considerable step forward in ensuring that full account is taken of an offender's mental condition before sentence is passed.
  With regard to the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 13, there is no disagreement between the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and myself about the value of duty psychiatrist schemes. I have visited such schemes, and have been a strong proponent of the experimental schemes that have pleased the hon. Gentleman so much. The question is simply whether an amendment such as that proposed is necessary in order to achieve the objective of promoting the development of new schemes.
  The Opposition amendment seems to imply that those concerned with the running of magistrates courts are thought unlikely to create duty psychiatrist schemes unless the Secretary of State compels them to do so by means of a statutory instrument. I can assure the House that that is not the case. Courts such as that in Peterborough, and projects in Hertfordshire such as the Hertfordshire Care Trust, have introduced some valuable schemes. I stress that those are local initiatives, centrally supported. That is the advantage of schemes that arise in response to local conditions rather than being imposed from the top downwards, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield would wish.
  The Government have introduced a substantial package of measures which will be of considerable benefit in ensuring that mentally disordered offenders are properly taken care of within the criminal justice system, yet which avoids the dangers to which I referred throughout earlier debates. I hope that the House agrees that those measures more than fulfil the commitments that I gave in Committee. I commend them to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 181.

  Division No. 193]

  [7.21 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Allen, Graham

  Leighton, Ron

  Anderson. Donald

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Beckett, Margaret

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bell, Stuart

  McKelvey, William

  Bellotti, David

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McMaster, Gordon

  Blunkett, David

  Madden, Max

  Boateng, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Martlew, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Maxton, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Meacher, Michael

  Carr, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cohen, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Corbett, Robin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Cox, Tom

  O'Brien, William

  Crowther, Stan

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pike, Peter L.

  Darling, Alistair

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Primarolo, Dawn

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

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dewar, Donald

  Randall, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Doran, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Rogers, Allan

  Eadie, Alexander

  Rooker, Jeff

  Edwards, Huw

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fearn, Ronald

  Sheerman, Barry

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

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Short, Clare

  Flynn, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Foulkes, George

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

  Fraser, John

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Snape, Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Strang, Gavin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Graham, Thomas

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Haynes, Frank

  Wigley, Datydd

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Henderson, Doug

  Winnick, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Worthington, Tony

  Howells, Geraint

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Janner, Greville

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amos, Alan

  Allason, Rupert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Amess, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  920

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Ashby, David

  Harris, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Atkins, Robert

  Hayward, Robert

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hill, James

  Benyon,W.

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Irvine, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Janman, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Key, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Kilfedder, James

  Bowis, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knapman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Knox, David

  Burns, Simon

  Latham, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Butler, Chris

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lightbown, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Chapman, Sydney

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Madel, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Marland, Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Cran, James

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Curry, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Day, Stephen

  Mills, Iain

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Dover, Den

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Dunn, Bob

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dykes, Hugh

  Norris, Steve

  Eggar, Tim

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Pawsey, James

  Favell, Tony

  Raffan, Keith

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Forman, Nigel

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Freeman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  French, Douglas

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Fry, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gale, Roger

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Speller, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Stern, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Stevens, Lewis

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Gregory, Conal

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Grist, Ian

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Ground, Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Grylls, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

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

  Viggers, Peter

  921

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Watts, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. David Davis.

  Wilkinson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 9

  COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
  Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 8, line 22, leave out ("sections 17A and 17B below") and insert
  ("paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders) to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (reciprocal enforcement of certain orders)")
  7.30 pm
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23, 105, 112, 135 to 137, 164, 166 to 168 and 171.
  Mr. Patten: This group of amendments makes sensible arrangements for persons subject to certain community sentences imposed by a court in England or Wales to carry out the sentence in Scotland—incidentally, I see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is with us—or Northern Ireland if that is their normal place of residence. It also makes arrangements for an offender convicted or sentenced in Scotland or Northern Ireland to carry out the sentence in England or Wales if that is where he or she lives. The amendments bring the existing provision for reciprocal enforcement up to date in the light of the new framework for community penalties provided in the Bill, which has been widely welcomed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 15

  INCREASE OF CERTAIN MAXIMA
  Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 12, line 19, leave out ("or disobediences")
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 28, 30 to 40, 113 and 114.
  Mr. Patten: The amendments deal with unit fines. Most of them improve and clarify the unit fine arrangements set out in clauses 16 to 18. The unit fines system has been widely welcomed and we are extremely grateful to the official Opposition for the welcome in principle that they have given to unit fines.
  The amendments make no significant changes to the principle of the unit fines system as debated in the House. They simply deal with certain practical difficulties in the
  922
  operation of the scheme, identified both in Committee and in the other place, or bring the unit fine provisions more closely in line with existing legislation concerning the imposition of fines, or are consequential on other drafting changes in part I of the Bill.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister referred to the welcome given to the unit fines system by the official Opposition. Let me take this opportunity to make it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends had been advocating day fines long before they became known as unit fines, so we, too, welcome the proposals.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 22

  COMMITTALS FOR SENTENCE
  Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 18, line 3, leave out second ("the").
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 42, 43, 46, 47, 139, 140, 148 and 170.
  Mr. Patten: Taken together, the amendments make a number of minor changes to committal proceedings. In particular, I would bring to the attention of the House one very important amendment—amendment No. 46, which increases the maximum penalties that may be imposed on those found guilty of bomb hoaxes. In the magistrates courts, an offender will now be liable to a maximum sentence of six months—the longest sentence that such a court may impose for a single offence—as opposed to three at present. The maximum sentence that a bomb hoaxer might receive in the Crown courts will increase from five years to seven years—and quite right too. I am sure that I say that with the agreement of the whole House, because a bomb hoax is an irresponsible waste of other people's time and efforts. It can cause great inconvenience to many people. It can also endanger lives by making it harder to identify and respond to genuine warnings.
  Let me give one example to show why we consider the amendment so important. The House will recall that, last February, a bomb was discovered at Paddington. In the 24 hours after that bomb was discovered, 84 hoax calls were made by people with sick and demented minds and a further 800 hoax calls were made the following week. In view of that spate of hoaxes, I announced at an earlier stage during the passage of the Bill that I would conduct a review of the maximum penalties to be made available. The new maximum penalties provide a clear indication of the seriousness with which the House regards the offence, and I believe that the general public will welcome the new provisions. I note that increasingly severe sentences have recently been handed down within the old maximum of five years—and quite right, too.
  Mr. Sheerman: The official Opposition certainly agree with what the Minister said about bomb hoaxers. I should, however, like to make two points, very briefly.
  We all regret not only the terrorism that was responsible for the ghastly events at Victoria station—and, indeed, the recent spate of bombings—but the resulting death and serious injuries. It was because we were in the

  923
  midst of the Committee stage of the Bill when the Paddington and Victoria bombs exploded that we debated the subject at such length.
  We support the Government's determination to deal firmly with the hoaxers, but I should like to introduce a word of caution. Either intentionally or because of a slip of the tongue, the Minister said that a number of hoax calls were made by sick and demented people. The Opposition believe strongly that psychiatric services should be available in courts; we also believe that there are far too many mentally disordered people in prison.
  We do not want the amendment to catch in the net even more people who, being mentally disordered, are very suggestible, and may be tempted to commit such stupid crimes. I agree with the Minister that, whoever commits them, they can result in an ineffective response to genuine emergencies and crises, and must therefore be dealt with seriously: we recognise that stringent penalties should be applied. Hoax calls are a dangerous game; indeed, they are hardly a game at all, for they are playing with people's lives. I hope, however, that it will be possible to differentiate between normal hoax callers and mentally disordered people who are sucked into such activity, and thus to deter those who should know better.
  Mr. John Patten: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who picked up my loose use of English. Rather than simply referring to "sick and demented minds", I should have used the words "sick and demented, or evil and bad". I believe that the majority of people who carry out bomb hoaxes deserve the severe punishment that the amendment would provide, because I believe in evil and in the vileness of human nature.
  Mr. Sheerman: Many of the amendments that we are discussing are being taken in clusters, but I feel that some that might not otherwise be debated should be "flagged up". On this very day, a ten-minute Bill relating to the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was passed, having been presented by a Conservative Back Bencher. Given that his party is currently in power, it was an historic occasion. It is, surely, not entirely coincidental that we should now be debating a group of amendments one of which—No. 47—proposes a change in the penalties imposed on those who sleep rough.
  The Opposition do not intend to divide the House on the amendment, but we feel that it represents only a tiny step in the right direction. We are disappointed that the Government did not grasp the opportunity offered by Opposition amendments to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act. Homelessness is an appalling problem. We believe that the explosion in the number of roofless people sleeping rough in the streets has been generated by three main areas of Government policy: cuts in benefit, the disastrous implementation of the "care in the community" programme—which resulted in the closure of mental institutions—and the discharge of mentally ill people into the streets without any support. A further problem has been the dramatic contraction in the amount of affordable housing.
  Only today—ironically—I was telephoned by the prison department of the Home Office. I was asked whether I, as the local Member of Parliament, could give the department the name and address of a prisoner who
  924
  had been writing to me regularly. The Department did not know where to write to the prisoner, because he had been discharged to "no fixed abode".
  7.45 pm
  That telephone call brought home to me very starkly how much more needs to be done to improve the prison system, and to implement the recommendations of the Woolf report. The prisoner in question—a Mr. Sheehan —used to be one of my constituents; he used to write to me. Following his release, no one knows where he is. I shall, of course, try to track him down: I shall refer to all the addresses that I have on my file. None the less, he may be one of the vagrants who will sleep rough tonight in central London. In any event, I wish him well; I hope that he has a job, and a roof over his head.
  The Government's response to the problem has been to provide some accommodation in London this winter—and to use the criminal law to sweep the streets clean of homeless people. They still see homelessness as a crime.
  Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in what I expected to be a short and uncontentious speech.
  The hon. Gentleman said that, during the winter, the Government provided some accommodation and then proceeded to use the criminal law to sweep the streets clean. At that time, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning provided more than an adequate number of housing places in central London for anyone who wanted to take them. I am sorry to say—it does the hon. Gentleman's argument no good at all—that some people simply refuse to take such places even when they are available.
  Mr. Sheerman: I am tempted to break into a song called, I believe, "The Streets of London", and to ask the Minister not exactly to walk down those streets hand in hand with me, but to meander down some of the streets that I visit regularly in the evenings on the way back to my flat. I should like to show him all the homeless people who are still living on the street.
  The Opposition do not believe that the Government's response has been adequate so far. Some extra places have been provided to shelter the homeless, and the Metropolitan police have tried harder to move people away from the city centres. Part of the Government's response, however, has been to clean up the streets so that homeless people are not visible, because of the volume of public protest about them.
  Even if they are not visible, the homeless are still there. Although none of us likes it, begging is a manifestation of poverty and homelessness. Young people who are denied employment, benefits and housing often have no alternative. They must beg to survive. An amendment tabled in the other place would have denied the courts power to fine people who were sleeping rough and begging peacefully, and left them power to deal with professional beggars. After the Napoleonic wars, many returning soldiers were considered a nuisance, but surely we have no place for such laws today. Young people are often denied the power to free themselves from the streets.
  As I have said, the Government had a perfect opportunity to throw out the Napoleonic statute and to accept that homelessness is a social problem. They seem, however, to be rather confused about the issue. They have introduced some measures to tackle homelessness in

  925
  London, but they have done too little, too late. This was yet another desperate attempt to ameliorate some of the worst consequences of the past 12 years of Conservative Government.
  Independent experts estimate that between 1,000 and 1,500 people still sleep rough in London—two or three times as many as the Government estimate. I challenge the Minister to dispute that. Although Government policy has not gone far enough, there appears to be some recognition that homelessness is a social problem and that social solutions are necessary to resolve it.
  The Minister thought that I would be non-controversial, but I shall quote the comments of Earl Ferrers in another place. He has the measure of the problem and understands its underlying nature, although he was unwilling to accept the logic of repealing the Napoleonic code. He said:
  "It is important to get one issue absolutely straight. Homelessness and poverty are social matters of great concern. They should be tackled. One likes to think that that has been done albeit not hard enough or successfully enough under other legislation … The fact that there may be more beggars coming on to the streets is a matter for great regret. It is also something which we are all greatly concerned about"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 1991; Vol. 527, c. 1635.]
  If homelessness is not a criminal problem but a social one, the Vagrancy Act should be repealed. The amendment goes but a little way towards doing so, but it is typical of the Government to sit on the fence. They should visit a London court in the morning and see the lot of the vagrant. The way in which we use the Vagrancy Act, which could have been swept away, is shameful. The greatest pressure to get rid of the Act is coming from barristers and solicitors who work in the courts of London and other big cities because they know what a ghastly travesty it has become.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We have now reached Lords amendment No. 56. I am satisfied that the Lords amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue, such as is required to be authorised by a resolution of the House and that such charge has not been so authorised, and accordingly, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendment is deemed to be disagreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 57 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 58 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (c) made to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Lords amendment No. 59 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 60 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 61 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 62 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 63 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 64, after clause 39, to insert the following new clause—

  Persons extradited to the United Kingdom
  (".—(1) A short-term or long-term prisoner is an extradited prisoner for the purposes of this section if—

  (a) he was tried for the offence in respect of which his sentence was imposed—

  (i) after having been extradited to the United Kingdom; and

  926

  (ii) without having first been restored or had an opportunity of leaving the United Kingdom; and

  (b) he was for any period kept in custody while awaiting his extradition to the United Kingdom as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

  (2) If, in the case of an extradited prisoner, the court by which he was sentenced so ordered, section 67 of the 1967 Act (computation of sentences of imprisonment) shall have effect in relation to him as if a period specified in the order were a relevant period for the purposes of that section.

  (3) The period that may be so specified is such period as in the opinion of the court is just in all the circumstances and does not exceed the period of custody mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above.

  (4) In this section—

  "extradited to the United Kingdom" means returned to the United Kingdom—

  (i) in pursuance of extradition arrangements;

  (ii) under any law of a designated Commonwealth country corresponding to the Extradition Act 1989;

  (iii) under that Act as extended to a colony or under any corresponding law of a colony; or

  (iv) in pursuance of a warrant of arrest endorsed in the Republic of Ireland under the law of that country corresponding to the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965;

  "extradition arrangements" has the meaning given by section 3 of the Extradition Act 1989;
  "designated Commonwealth country" has the meaning given by section 5(1) of that Act.")
  Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment addresses the vexed issue of prisoners who have spent time in custody abroad awaiting extradition to this country and responds to the concern expressed in Committee by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
  Mr. Stuart Randall: As the Minister said, the amendment deals with people who are extradited to the United Kingdom. It was referred to in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It was moved by the Government in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord Thomas of Gwydir at the request of Prisoners Abroad and supported by the official Opposition and peers on the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group.
  Although the Lords amendment does not go so far as the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord Thomas, it has been welcomed by Prisoners Abroad as a useful compromise. It enables the judge to recommend that a specified period spent in custody abroad should count towards the sentence. By taking account of that time, the new clause should end the anomaly of such prisoners being sentenced to less than the proper term. The Opposition would have liked those held in custody abroad to be given the same automatic credit as those held on remand in this country. Nevertheless, we welcome the new clause as a move in the right direction.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments 65 to 67 disagreed to.

Clause 45

  VIDEO RECORDINGS OF TESTIMONY FROM CHILD WITNESSES
  Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 29, line 20, leave out ("and proceedings in youth courts")
  8 Pm
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 73 and 116 to 118.
  Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is not about to leave the Chamber. I am about to pay her a compliment and I should like her to be in the Chamber to receive it.
  The amendments make further refinements to the Bill's provisions about the rules of evidence and procedure for child witnesses—the so-called Pigot clauses, about which we had extremely good debates in Committee. The amendments are intended to bring about an easier and more uniform application of the new provisions. I pay due compliments to the representatives of the official Opposition who made their voices heard in Committee. I cannot do the same in respect of the Liberal Democrats because, alas, they were not represented there, for reasons which I understand. I know of the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in this matter.
  If I may speak over the heads of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I should like to say that the hon. Lady made a splendid, substantial and lasting contribution to improving the way in which children and their plight are dealt with in court. She did so because of her interest in this issue over the past two or three years.
  The amendments will be widely welcomed, and I commend them to the House.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I thank the Minister for his kind words, but we do not have the system right yet. I welcome the Lords amendments because they strengthen the clause on video-recording children's testimony.
  I deeply regret the fact that an amendment allowing further implementation of the Pigot report was lost in the other place, partly because the Liberal Democrats voted against allowing children to give video-recorded evidence in pre-trial proceedings. The amendment would have saved many children the trauma of having to wait a long time to give evidence in a trial, and even though the amendment would not have affected a court's flexibility to recall a case if new evidence having a significant effect on the outcome was produced, the Liberal Democrats voted against it.
  I very much regret the fact that the Bill does not include a measure for which I have fought for many years and which would have permitted video-recorded evidence to be used if a child's life was likely to be placed at serious risk if he or she appeared in court. That small amendment would have been rarely used but would have strengthened the Bill.
  Having commissioned the Pigot report, the Government appear to have decided that it goes too far down the road towards providing a fair trial for a child and the accused. Despite all their fine words and all the injustices that have been done to children over many years, they have failed to give true justice to children in our courts.
  I ask the Minister one last favour. Will he undertake to provide official data to enable research to be carried out
  928
  into delays in the prosecution of child abusers? I understand that the Nuffield Foundation is providing funding to Joyce Plotnikoff and her team to carry out research. It would help if official data were supplied to that lady. The evidence may help the Minister to do another U-turn and implement all the recommendations in Judge Pigot's report.
  Dr. Godman: I hesitate to speak in an English debate, but I agree with the Minister that the Lords amendments refine clause 45, on video recording the testimony of child witnesses, and clause 46, which is an important clause.
  I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I am gratified by the Minister's comments about the involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) in these matters. I offer my compliments to the Minister, his colleagues and officials for what is, from a Scottish perspective, astonishing legislation.
  The Bill is remarkable, and I say that without rancour or resentment. Last year, I attempted to change the law in Scotland by plagiarising these clauses and including them in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), paid me the compliment of accepting an amendment on television links but, disappointingly, he refused to accept a remarkable innovation enabling video-recorded interviews to be used, where appropriate as evidence.
  It is important to interview, as soon as humanly possible after an investigation, a child who may be involved in the appalling circumstances about which we are speaking. The longer the delay between investigation and an interview using video recordings, the greater the dangers. All that was said in Standing Committee.
  I should like to warn the Minister. I appreciate the fact that the Orkney cases are under investigation, but there was severe criticism of the way in which children alleged to have been involved in sexual abuse cases were interviewed by so-called professionals. Will cognisance be taken in the guidelines of the mistakes made in the Orkneys?
  How many courts have television links and how often have those links been used in child abuse cases? Has the Home Office commissioned research into the use of such links? What training will be given in interviewing children where video recordings are used in evidence?
  I profoundly regret the fact that the Minister's Scottish Office colleagues chose not to follow the path taken in the Bill. Investigations are carried out in Scotland into allegations about dreadful cases of sexual and child abuse. I am convinced that, if we had similar legislation in Scotland, children would be spared the humiliating ordeal of giving evidence in court within a few feet of the accused.
  One of the most modern courtrooms in the United Kingdom must be Glasgow sheriff court. I do not know the names of the architects, and perhaps they should remain nameless, but in that most modern court which deals with child abuse cases—they are also dealt with in the High Court—the child witness is placed within 12 feet of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse. From an architectural point of view, if nothing else, that is a living disgrace. The architects should have been advised to take into account the problems facing child witnesses in such cases.
  Despite some of the excellent extant legislation on family law and children, there is no doubt that in

  929
  attempting to ease the burden faced by children in such circumstances, English law is ahead of Scottish law. To me, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, that is a matter of deep regret.
  Mr. John Patten: I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his kind words about the Home Office and Home Office Ministers. I am used to bouquets coming to me from all angles from Scottish hon. Members—for instance from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who is not in the Chamber tonight—but I rarely receive them from Glasgow. A compliment from the hon. Gentleman is extremely welcome, and I thank him for it. The design of the sheriff courts in Scotland is not a matter for me, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's strictures on architectural matters to the attention of the Lord Advocate who, I believe, has ministerial responsibility for such issues north of the Border. As always, there is a difference between the two jurisdictions, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider carefully whether there are any lessons for Scotland in the new provisions.
  With regard to interviewing techniques and guidance, we are drawing up codes of practice which will take account of all relevant experience. I will ensure that copies of those codes of practice are sent to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman also asked about research, and that is one thing that we have plenty of in the Home Office. Yes, there will certainly be a full programme of research and monitoring. I do not have statistics about the numbers of courts equipped with video equipment, which was the last issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him with the statistics. I have seen some of the experiments being carried out, and I am sure that the police or others in the Metropolitan area would make it possible for the hon. Gentleman to visit them. I am sure that he would see much of interest to him.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), that will be the last time that I drag her back into the Chamber to receive a complaint. She asked me to make three U-turns and stirred up a debate when there was not meant to be one; it was not part of my game plan, and I had intended to make a quick compliment and get on with the next group of amendments.
  The Home Office will make available to Mrs. Plotnikoff any details that we have . We are aware of her research and welcome it, and we shall do all that we can to help her in her work by the provision of data.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 47

  ATTENDANCE AT COURT OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN
  Lords amendment: No. 74 in page 33, line 12, 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
  930
  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."
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 75.
  Lords amendment No. 76, in clause 49, page 34, line 16, leave out from "years" to end of line 18 and insert—

  "(a) to exercise those powers if it is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that their exercise would be desirable in the interests of preventing the commission by him of further offences; and

  (b) where it does not exercise them, to state in open court that it is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) above and why it is not so satisfied."

  The following amendments to Lords amendment No. 76: leave out '(a)'.
  (b), leave out from `offences' to end of line 8.
  Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 151.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Patten: I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and 151 which refer to the provisions for binding over the parents of young offenders. I shall then deal in the second part of my speech with an issue that I know concerns the official Opposition. That may be convenient for the Opposition's spokesman.
  As the House will know, we firmly believe that the binding over of parents of juvenile offenders can play an important role in helping to prevent further offending by young people. We wish the courts to make much more and better use of this power. That policy was set out clearly in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", and that is what the provisions of clause 49 are intended to achieve.
  Where the offender is 16 or 17, we think that the courts should have the power to bind over the parents and should have the full discretion to use that power as and when they think it appropriate to do so. Clause 49 already achieves that. However, where the young person is under the age of 16, we think that the courts should be under a duty to consider the question of binding over the parents of a juvenile offender in every case. We also think it right that such powers should be used wherever the court considers it helpful in preventing reoffending by the young person. Amendment No. 76 would achieve that.
  Where the juvenile is under the age of 16, the court will be required to do three things. It will be required to consider exercising the bind-over power in every case. It will be required to exercise the powers if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is satisfied that their exercise would be desirable in the interests of preventing the commission of further offences by the young person. Where the court does not exercise the powers, it will be required to state in open court why it has chosen not to do so.
  The reference to the use of the power to bind over parents to help to prevent reoffending by the young person is especially valuable. It directs the court's attention very clearly to the positive purpose and benefits of binding over. It also makes it clear that there is no compulsion to bind over a parent when it is clear that the parent is not in a position to exercise the control that would prevent further offending.

  931
  It may be convenient if I now speak to Opposition amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 76. One of the main points of clause 49 is that a court will always have to consider whether 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 its reasons for not doing so. That is the theory and the practice that we want to see. The Opposition's amendments would remove the second half of that provision. We would effectively be returning to the law as it stands and we do not want to do that. The Government believe that the magistrates' existing discretion to bind over parents or guardians is not used as often as it might be, and if amendments (a) and (b) were accepted, there would be no additional obligation on magistrates even to consider whether they should exercise their powers to bind over.
  I turn now to amendment No. 77. Clause 49 allows the courts to bind over parents for up to three years. During such a period, family circumstances may change. For example, it is possible that a child whose parents are bound over when he or she is 14 or 15 and still at school, may leave school, get married and leave home before the hind-over period of this length has ended. To allow for such changes in circumstances, amendment No. 77 provides the courts with a power to revoke or vary an order binding over a parent if it would be in the interests of justice to do so.
  Mr. Maclennan: I want to ask the Minister for his view on amendment No. 74 which is grouped with this amendment, but which he has not dealt with. It would be of interest to know the Government's view.
  Mr. Patten: I shall do my best.
  In the interests of justice, the parent or guardian must make an application to the court, and the court must be satisfied that there is a relevant change of circumstance.
  Amendment No. 75 is a technical amendment. As the Bill is drafted, it is the court that convicts the young offender which would be required to consider the binding over of parents. However, the convicting court may not be the court that sentences the young offender.
  In amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and No. 151, we have made some sensible improvements to the Bill. That brings me to the end of the first half of what I said I would deal with. I now deal with the second part—amendment No. 74, which concerns the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I cannot, under any circumstances, commend it to the House.
  Amendment No. 74 is designed to make it easier for parents to attend court when their child appears as a defendant, by requiring the courts to inquire into possible difficulties that parents in employment might experience in attending court during normal working hours and, if necessary, to hold at least one sitting a fortnight outside normal hours to accommodate them. That alone would cost between £7 million and £10 million.
  I see no advantage in compelling a court, before setting a date, to seek out the defendant's parents and to see whether, in the court's view, their employment might be jeopardised by coming to court during normal hours. A parent reluctant to attend might seize the opportunity to claim that his job would be in danger, or might give some other fallacious reason, if he had to be absent for even part of a day. The court would then have to confirm with the parent's employer that that was the case, with all the
  932
  attendant costs and all the delays in the criminal justice system which would flow from that. As we all know, one of the best things to do with juveniles is to get them brought before the court as quickly as possible and dealt with as quickly as possible so that they learn the lesson before they have forgotten it.
  It should also not be forgotten that many of those in employment are engaged in shift work or work at weekends. Such work patterns seem to provide considerable flexibility for parents. Not only parents, but victims must be taken into account. The House of Lords did not mention victims and the inconvenience caused to victims who have to appear as witnesses and who may have to come out after dark in the evening. Why should victims have to come out in the evening, for example, and make an attendance at court as witnesses at great inconvenience to themselves?
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: I really cannot—
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman must restrain himself.
  We need to take into account the perfectly proper considerations of all court users. We must take into account not only the accused and the accused's parents, but witnesses and victims. In taking a balanced view of amendment No. 74, we taken into account the convenience not only of parents, but of all court users. Does the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) want me to give way? I did not think that he did—
  Mr. Sheerman: I had resigned myself to coming back to the subject of victims in my remarks in response. The Minister knows—and I do not know how he did not blush when he made the point about victims—that we tried to put the whole role of victims in the court system high on the agenda. The Minister knows that he and his Government would not allow victims to be discussed when the Bill was in Committee.
  Mr. Patten: If the Opposition wished to deal with the serious problems facing witnesses in court, and the fact that the elderly, the disabled and other victims might have to turn out at night to attend court sessions, they would have taken them into account in tabling their amendments, and would not have tabled them in their present form. I cannot recommend amendment No. 74 to the House.
  Mr. Sheerman: I will start with the "Home and Away" part of the Minister's remarks, rather than with the "Neighbours" bit of his speech—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (M r. Randall) said that the first half was "Neighbours" and the second half was "Home and Away", and that they were as bad as each other. It was a bit dismal to listen to the Minister's rather negative response.
  In Committee, the Minister opposed the ideas in the amendment. He has had to change his mind, because he has been defeated in the Lords and he has to make some concessions. However, he does not have the good grace lo say that he was wrong in Committee, that he has learnt his lessons and that he is trying to improve. Instead, he threw in the gratuitous insult about victims, although we desperately tried to get victims on the agenda of the Bill

  933
  and were prevented from doing so by the long title of the Bill. Every time we sought to amend the Bill, we were knocked back because the amendments were out of order.
  Like the Minister, I will start by discussing amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 76. It 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 or her and to exercise proper control, unless it considered that that was unreasonable.
  On Report in the Lords, the Government removed the statutory presumption in favour of binding over parents in response to amendments moved by peers in the all-party penal affairs group. We are always grateful for small mercies, and that was a positive change from what the Minister said in Committee. We had argued from the beginning in Committee that the bind-over proposals were wrong and were opposed by all who worked in the system as doctrinaire nonsense which would create far more problems than it would solve.
  The Minister has staked his reputation on legislating for happy families. We have told him that one cannot do it, that, if one imposes a £1,000 fine on parents for their children's good behaviour, it will not work, and that it will destroy families rather than unite them. We told him that until we were blue in the face. It was not until those in the other place told him that, that he had to accept that some part of our argument was right.
  We stressed that the proposals were likely to increase rather than reduce juvenile crime by placing an additional burden on many families who were already under pressure. Amendment No. 74 was a welcome modification of a quite unworkable proposal. Through amendment (a), we are saying that the new version of the clause would require courts to give reasons if they did not bind over parents. Although an improvement on the original proposals, that will still—[Interruption.] We had strictures from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, earlier about my not concentrating fully on her remarks. I was not, because I was trying to follow how we had lost a couple of clauses. I hope that the Minister has not lost a couple.
  The power for the courts to give reasons if they do not bind over parents is still not good enough. Although an improvement on the original proposal, it will still place inappropriate pressure on courts to use a measure that, in the vast majority in cases, would do more harm than good. It is misguided to place pressure on the courts to use that power in cases in which they do not currently regard as sensible to do so.
  Binding over parents and requiring them to forfeit money if the child reoffends is likely to increase parents' resentment and to aggravate further relationships between them and their children, putting the children more at risk than ever. It will increase the pressures on many families who are already struggling to survive against great odds. In some cases, it will accelerate the trend for parents to throw their children out of the house to join the growing ranks of the young homeless. We have talked about the homeless, and about the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the
  934
  missed opportunity to get rid of it. The problems that I have described would have been more serious if the Bill had not been amended by the Lords.
  We believe that a further refinement would be for the Minister at last to say that the provision was a bit of an ideological wheeze which he thought might go down well at the Conservative party conference and might impress some Back-Bench Members. He should say that, because of the implacable opposition of the Magistrates Association, the Justices Clerks Association and everyone who does the job in juvenile justice, he has taken some notice. He should go the full way and forget the proposal.
  The "Neighbours" part of my speech concerns amendment No. 74, which is better than the first part—which is hard to believe. I will not render this bit with an Australian twang. The amendment requires youth courts to hold at least one sitting a fortnight in the evening or at weekends when that is justified—I hope that the Minister will listen—by the number of cases that would be dealt with more appropriately at such a time. The amendment was moved not by some radical firebrand, but by Baroness Faithfull, a constituent of the Minister. I know that he has great respect for that lady. She moved the amendment on behalf of the all-party penal affairs group and it was carried on Third Reading by 79 votes to 75, against the Government's wishes.
  One result of the amendment will be to reduce the risk that requiring parents to attend court with their children would jeopardise their employment. Perhaps if one is of the aristocratic persuasion in a marginal Oxford constituency, one may feel that it is irrelevant to consider how the courts cater for people. The Opposition have consistently said that the real change that needs to be made to the courts system is that the system should be more consumer-oriented. The people who use the courts should find friendly courts and places which are not aloof. The courts should be people's courts where people can find justice. They should be run for the people and not for the barristers, lawyers and others who are there to serve. It is about time that we had a legal system based on the principle of serving people who use them rather than those who work in the courts.
  8.30 pm
  The Minister of State may be contemptuous of the idea that ordinary working people and single-parent families must attend court. Perhaps the Minister of State should be reminded of the number of homeless people in the marginal Oxford constituency that he represents. He would be surprised at the number. There are many in my much less marginal constituency of Huddersfield. Those families need to be able to attend courts at more convenient times than at present.
  What is wrong with weekend or evening courts? The Minister plucks figures out of the air. He seems capable of adding up only in tens. His proposals seem to cost £10 million, £100 million or £1,000 million.
  Mr. John Patten: I said £7 million.
  Mr. Sheerman: Well, £7 million to £10 million. The proposal has not been costed properly. We should at least be able to experiment in the areas where there is greatest need. We might then make the courts people's courts instead of lawyers' courts. The Opposition believe that justice and access to justice is what this Bill could have been about. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The

  935
  one small measure that Baroness Faithfull managed to propose in the other place could be a sign that the Government are at least prepared to accept that change.
  I am sorry that the Minister has been contemptuous of this, sensible amendment which would have opened up the courts and made them more amenable to those who have jobs in which they lose pay if they do not turn up. The proposal would have made matters more convenient for single parent families and those who suffer from the kind of discrimination that I have described at work. If those people do not turn up at work, they are not paid and the family is not fed or shod.
  Mr. Maclennan: I was more surprised by the Minister's reasons for opposing amendment No. 74 than by the fact that he opposed it. There is no requirement to hold courts at the convenience of the parents or guardians of young people brought before the court. There is a requirement to hold such courts only when that is justified. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary because, as I understand it, it is open to the courts to hold evening sittings if they so choose at the moment.
  As it is desirable that the courts should hold evening sittings if that is in the interests of justice including the interests of the witnesses, the amendment must be unnecessary. I understand that courts increasingly choose to sit in the evenings. That makes a great deal of sense. It saves time and it expedites hearings. It also meets the convenience of many people who are not necessarily professionally engaged in court, and it may even be for the convenience of those who are so engaged, who may prefer to handle a long list of cases rather than a short list and have to return on another occasion.
  The Minister's over-the-top opposition to the amendment was uncharacteristically unsympathetic. I hope that he does not disapprove of the holding of evening courts. I was surprised by his suggestion that the costs would increase. I was also surprised that he was able to cost matters in that way. It must be difficult to judge how often courts would choose to sit in the evenings. I would like to know the Minister's assumptions and how he made his calculation of £7 million to £10 million of additional expenditure. If courts could dispose of matters which they would otherwise have to bring back on another day, that would save money. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government do not oppose evening courts.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 132.

  Division No. 194]

  [8.36 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Amos, Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bright, Graham

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burns, Simon

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butler, Chris

  Benyon, W.

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  936

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Latham, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Conway, Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lightbown, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cran, James

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Curry, David

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

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

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Devlin, Tim

  Maclean, David

  Dicks, Terry

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Dover, Den

  Madel, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Malins, Humfrey

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marlow, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Evennett, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Favell, Tony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Mudd, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Norris, Steve

  Franks, Cecil

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Freeman, Roger

  Patnick, Irvine

  French, Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Gale, Roger

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Gregory, Conal

  Shersby, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Grist, Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ground, Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Grylls, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hague, William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Stern, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

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

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Harris, David

  Sumberg, David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hayward, Robert

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hill, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Trippier, David

  Irvine, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Jack, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Waller, Gary

  Key, Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Kilfedder, James

  Watts, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Knapman, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Wilshire, David

  Knox, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  937

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Mr. Tom Sackville and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Leighton, Ron

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Allen, Graham

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Anderson, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Beckett, Margaret

  McKelvey, William

  Bell, Stuart

  McLeish, Henry

  Bellotti, David

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Madden, Max

  Blunkett, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Maxton, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Meacher, Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Meale, Alan

  Carr, Michael

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cohen, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Corbett, Robin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mullin, Chris

  Cox, Tom

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Crowther, Stan

  O'Brien, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Darling, Alistair

  Prescott, John

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

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dewar, Donald

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dixon, Don

  Randall, Stuart

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Richardson, Jo

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Eadie, Alexander

  Rogers, Allan

  Eastham, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Edwards, Huw

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fearn, Ronald

  Sheerman, Barry

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

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Short, Clare

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Fyfe, Maria

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

  Galbraith, Sam

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Galloway, George

  Snape, Peter

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Strang, Gavin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Graham, Thomas

  Wallace, James

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hood, Jimmy

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Howells, Geraint

  Winnick, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Worthington, Tony

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 74 disagreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member is not now pressing his amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 76?
  Mr. Randall: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 78, after clause 49, insert the following new clause—Detention etc. pending trial—
  In section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer after charge), for subsections (6) and (6A) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

  "(6) Where a custody officer authorises an arrested juvenile to be kept in police detention under subsection (1) above, the custody officer shall, unless he certifies—

  (a) that, by reason of such circumstances as are specified in the certificate, it is impracticable for him to do so; or

  (b) in the case of an arrested juvenile who has attained the age of 15 years, that no secure accommodation is available and that keeping him in other local authority accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him,

  secure that the arrested juvenile is moved to local authority accommodation.

  (6A) In this section—

  'local authority accommodation' means accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989);

  'secure accommodation' means accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty;

  'sexual offence' and 'violent offence' have the same meanings as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;

  and any reference, in relation to an arrested juvenile charged with a violent or sexual offence, to protecting the public from serious harm from him shall be construed as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him." ")

  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Randall: I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  '(b) in the case of an arrested juvenile who has attained the age of 15 years, that keeping him in such accommodation with such supervision as the local authority proposes to make available would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him before he is brought before the magistrates' court to which he is charged to appear.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed amendment: (b), in line 24, leave out
  'secure accommodation means accommodation provided for the purpose of securing liberty'.

  (c), in line 26, leave out "'sexual offence" and "violent offence" have the same meaning as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991'.

  (d), in line 29, leave out

  'charged with a violent or sexual offence'.

  939
  Lords amendments Nos. 79 and 80,
  Lords amendment No. 81, a new clause—Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation and amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
  Lords amendments Nos. 97, 119 to 121, 130 to 132, 144, 152 and 163.
  Mr. Randall: Amendment No. 78 was a response by the Government to concerns expressed in another place by Lord Elton and opposition to the continued detention of juveniles in police custody in circumstances in which local authorities have offered to accommodate them until their court appearance. The purpose of the Government's amendment is to lay down restrictive criteria that will help to meet those concerns. We welcome the proposal, and our amendment is intended to improve the measure by clarifying some of the wording.
  We are concerned that the Government's intentions could be thwarted unless the wording is modified. There are two problems, the first of which lies in the wording of paragraph (b) of Lords amendment No. 78, where there is a risk that the reference to "secure accommodation" could send the wrong message to police custody officers by suggesting to them that, where no secure accommodation is available, they are almost automatically entitled to regard other sorts of accommodation as inadequate to protect the public. Local authorities have effective ways, other than secure accommodation, of ensuring security and the surveillance of arrested juveniles, whom they usually have to hold for no more than one night before producing them at the next available court.
  The reference to "secure accommodation" reinforces the tendency for police custody officers to regard other sorts of accommodation as inadequate and will produce wide inequalities between different districts. Children in regions without immediate access to secure accommodation will be at risk of being held in police cells. Moreover, local authorities that take their duty to provide accommodation for detained juveniles seriously, and have access to secure accommodation, will have to choose whether to earmark secure accommodation beds exclusively for that purpose. Secure accommodation is an expensive and valuable resource, but the proposals to end remands in custody will place extra demands on it. To leave paragraph (b) as it stands will place an irrational demand on this limited facility.
  The second problem lies in the wording of paragraph (b), which refers to the notion of protecting the public from serious harm, but defines "serious harm" only in terms of violent and sexual offences. The custody officer is given no guidance on how to interpret "serious harm" in relation to other offences. Our proposals will ensure that the term "serious harm" means protecting the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, whatever the offence for which the juvenile is arrested. That will ensure consistency between the courts. I hope that the Government will accept our proposals in the constructive manner in which they have been presented and are intended.
  Lords amendments Nos. 79 to 81 set out stricter criteria for the remand of juveniles in custody in the short term and provide for the ending of such remands in the long term. The important short-term changes are that such remands will he restricted to cases where they are needed to protect the public from serious harm from the defendant, and that no juvenile can be remanded in
  940
  custody unless he or she has been offered legal representation. That is unquestionably a welcome and substantial step in the right direction.
  However, we believe that the real need is to end completely the remanding of juveniles to adult prisons and remand centres, and we have debated that issue at considerable length. Where it is necessary to remand a juvenile, it should be to a secure place in a community home staffed by those specialising in working with children, not to a prison department establishment. While the Government have committed themselves to ending juvenile remands in custody eventually, they have not committed themselves to a timetable for doing so. They have said that they will end such remands where sufficient local secure accommodation is available, but they have not announced a specific timetable.
  In February, the Home Office issued a consultation paper entitled "The Remand of Alleged Juvenile Offenders". The Home Office proposed to restrict custodial remands in the short term on the lines of the Bill's provisions—to establish between 30 and 35 more secure beds for juveniles in local authority homes and to review the position, but not necessarily to end juvenile remands in custody, over the next four years.
  There has been mounting concern at the remand of juveniles in custody, and many cases can be quoted. The Minister knows only too well that there were some frightening problems relating to young remand prisoners in Hull prison. We should all compliment the staff there, who have to cope in such difficult circumstances. The conditions in which some young people, but not as many as before, are now held are much worse than those for sentenced young offenders in young offender institutions —indeed, they are the worst conditions in the whole penal system. The young people are often confined for most. of the day in overcrowded, insanitary cells. Boys of 15 and 16 are held with older teenagers up to the age of 21, many of whom are much tougher and more experienced offenders. That is a recipe for criminal contamination, bullying and suicide attempts.
  In the 12 months to end of June 1990, 1,300 boys aged 15 and 16 were remanded to prisons and remand centres. However, the number of juveniles on remand in penal establishments at any one time is much smaller. On 30 April 1990, there were 65 untried and 19 convicted, unsentenced boys under the age of 17 in prisons and remand centres. The Opposition believe that, with such numbers, it should be possible to plan a timetable strategy.
  In their consultation paper, the Government estimated that the necessary secure accommodation should be ready in four years' time. However, four years is a disturbingly long time in view of the gravity of the problem. Even more disturbing is the lack of a firm commitment to end the custodial remand of juveniles at that date. Although, ideally, we should like to see a more rapid timetable for ending that practice, the amendment is limited to providing that it should be discontinued at the time when the Government have established that the necessary secure accommodation is in place.
  The amendments are positive and constructive and tackle a terrible problem for which the Government have failed to come up with a timetable. I hope that the House will support them.
  9 pm
  Mr. John Patten: Amendment (a), which is the first of the two amendments to Lords amendment No. 78, would remove the reference to secure accommodation from new subsection 6(b) and insert a reference to supervision. Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I argue that the nature of the accommodation alone should not determine whether the police can safely transfer 15 and 16-year-olds to the local authority, but that the quality of the supervision should also be considered. I happen to agree that quality is important and Lords amendment No. 78 allows the quality of supervision to be taken into account. It does not compel the police to hold on to 15 and 16-year-olds if they are satisfied with local authority arrangements.
  However, I cannot commend the Opposition amendments to the House because, alas, they have an undesirable side effect. They would widen the discretion of the police to hold young people in police cells. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman wants. Lords amendment No. 78 requires the police to make the transfer if secure accommodation is available. The Opposition's amendments as drafted would remove that requirement. I know the drafting style of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I am sure that he did not draft the amendments. Perhaps they were drafted by the learned counsel to whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred earlier. If they were drafted at great cost to the Labour party by some outside source, I hope that it was done on a no foal, no fee basis because it is extremely badly drafted and produces the opposite to what the Opposition set out to achieve. It would allow the police to hold a 15 or 16-year-old, even if secure accommodation were available, if the police certified that that accommodation offered inadequate protection to the public. That cannot be right and I am sure that it is not what the Opposition intend.
  The remaining Opposition amendments to Lords Amendment No. 78 deserve serious consideration but would further restrict police power to hold an arrested juvenile aged 15 or 16. Provided that no local authority secure accommodation is available, Lords amendment No. 78 allows the police to hold 15 and 16-year-olds where there is a risk of serious harm to the public. It does not matter whether that serious harm would be caused by a sexual or violent offence or in some other way. For example, it may be another in a series of bad domestic burglaries of the homes of elderly people after dark. Unfortunately, the Opposition's amendment would limit the concept of serious harm to death or serious personal injury. That simply does not recognise the reality of the problem.
  The public have a right to expect protection and consideration for their fear of further attack or burglary by 15 or 16-year-olds. We should not underestimate the harm that a serious domestic burglary can cause. It is not easy to judge serious harm but I believe that the police will be called upon to make difficult decisions, often on the basis of limited information. A balance must be struck between the needs of the young person and those of the public, but the police must have the discretion to strike that balance, at least overnight, and the Opposition's amendments
  942
  would deprive them of that. Moreover, they could expose both the young man—it normally is a young man rather than a young woman—to further harm.
  As for Lords amendment No. 81, on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West spoke towards the end of his speech, there is not a scintilla of difference between us on the end that we both want to achieve—the ending of remanding young people in prison. The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to staff at Hull prison, who have done an extremely good job. However, the amendments to Lords amendment No. 81 would set a firm date of four years after the enactment of the Bill for prison remands to be ended. The Government are committed to ending such remands as quickly as possible and I happen to think that that deadline will be met but—it is a big but —let us suppose that the deadline cannot be met in some part of the country for, say, a combination of planning reasons. Local protest groups, local authorities not granting planning permission or appeals to the Department of the Environment could all prevent that deadline from being met. If the deadline of four years were not met in such areas, dangerous young people would remain on the streets. I am afraid to say that, while I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, I cannot agree with the actuality of the amendment, nor can I commend it to the House, and I hope that hon. Members will resist it.
  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 78 agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry].
  Lords amendment: No. 81, to insert the following new clause—

  Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation
  (".—(1) In relation to any time before such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, section 23 of the 1969 Act as substituted by section (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation)(1) above shall have effect with the following modifications.

  (2) In subsection (1), immediately before the words "the remand" there shall be inserted the words "then, unless he is declared by the court, after consultation with a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department, to be a person to whom subsection (5) below applies".

  (3) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

  "(4) Where a court declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) below applies, it shall remand him—

  (a) to a remand centre, if it has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception from the court of such persons; and

  (b) to a prison, if it has not been so notified.

  (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.

  (5) This subsection applies to a young person who is male and has attained the age of fifteen, but only if—

  (a) he is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence

  943
  punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more; or

  (b) he has a recent history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation, and is charged with or has been convicted of an imprisonable offence alleged or found to have been committed while he was so remanded,

  and (in either case) the court is of opinion that only remanding him to a remand centre or prison would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him."

  (4) In subsection (6)—

  (a) for the words "imposes a security requirement in respect of a young person" there shall be substituted the words "declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) above applies"; and

  (b) for the words "subsection (5) above" there shall be substituted the words "that subsection".

  (5) In subsections (7) and (9), the words "without imposing a security requirement" shall be omitted.

  (6) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(9A) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, a relevant court may, on the application of the designated authority, declare him to be a person to whom subsection (5) above applies; and on its doing so, he shall cease to be remanded to local authority accommodation and subsection (4) above shall apply."

  (7) In subsection (12), the definition of "secure accommodation" shall be omitted.")

  Amendment proposed: (a), in subsection (1), after `appoint', insert
  `which day shall be no later than the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed'. —[Mr. Randall.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided Ayes 127, Noes 202.

  Division No. 195]

  [9.6 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Allen, Graham

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Margaret

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bellotti. David

  Fearn, Ronald

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

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boyes, Roland

  Foster, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fraser, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Carr, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cox, Tom

  Howells, Geraint

  Crowther, Stan

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Mön)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  944

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Loyden, Eddie

  Randall, Stuart

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Richardson, Jo

  McKelvey, William

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rowlands, Ted

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meale, Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wallace, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William

  Worthington, Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Curry, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkins, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Evennett, David

  Benyon, W.

  Fallon, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Favell, Tony

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forman, Nige!

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fry, Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gill, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butler, Chris

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Grist, Ian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ground, Patrick

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grylls, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Churchill, Mr

  Hague, William

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Conway, Derek

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cran, James

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  945

  Harris, David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayward, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hill, James

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Shelton, Sir William

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Irvine, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Janman, Tim

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Speller, Tony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Key, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Stern, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Knapman, Roger

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Sumberg, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Summerson, Hugo

  Latham, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Madel, David

  Watts, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Marland, Paul

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wilshire, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Moate, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Neil Hamilton and

  Norris, Steve

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 81 agreed to.

  After clause 50
  Lords amendment: No. 82, to insert the following new clause—Custodial sentences under 1933 Act—
  (". Section 53(2) of the 1933 Act (punishment of certain grave crimes) shall have effect, in relation to a person who has attained the age of 16, as if the reference to any offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for 14 years or more, not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law, included a reference to an offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (indecent assault on a woman).")
  Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 83 and 155.
  Mr. Patten: The provisions of the Bill bring 17-year-olds within the youth court
  system for sentencing purposes and treat 16 and 17-year-olds as a distinct group within that system. The amendments make further useful minor provisions in regard to the sentencing of 16 and 17-year-old offenders, and I know that they will be widely welcomed.
  Mr. Randall: As we see it, amendment No. 82 empowers the court to pass custodial sentences longer than the normal 12-month maximum on juveniles convicted of indecent assault. At present, section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, under which longer sentences can be passed, is restricted to offences which carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment or more in the case of an adult. Indecent assault has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, so it currently falls outside the scope of section 53. As some of the most extreme indecent assaults can be as bad as rape, it is difficult to quarrel with the amendment, and the Opposition are pleased to support it.
  Mr. Patten: I greatly welcome the support that the hon. Gentleman has given. I am grateful to the official Opposition.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 83 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 84, after clause 58 insert the following new clause—Default power where probation committee fails to discharge statutory duty—

  ".—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section if he is of the opinion that, without reasonable excuse, a probation committee—

  (a) is failing properly to discharge any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment; or

  (b) has so failed and is likely to do so again.

  (2) An order under this section shall—

  (a) state that the Secretary of State is of the said opinion; and

  (b) make such provision as he considers requisite for the purpose of securing that the duty is properly discharged by the committee.

  (3) Where an order is made under this section, it shall be the duty of the committee to comply with the provision made by the order."

  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 85, 86, 98 and 99.
  Mr. Patten: It is widely recognised that the provisions in the Bill to deal with more offenders in the community make it more important than ever to have a probation service that is efficient, effective and accountable to the Secretary of State. Lords amendment No. 84 and the associated amendments ensure that the line of accountability is clear to my right hon. Friend who is, in the end, responsible for the public expenditure involved. The related amendments also tidy up some areas of concern about the relationship between the probation committees and local authorities on payment and manpower.
  Mr. Randall: I want to speak to Lords amendment No. 98 and the way in which we arrive at the manning figures for the probation service. We believe that the wording of the amendment is important. We have already expressed deep concern that the probation committees should be free

  947
  to decide how many probation officers an area needs. If local authorities were involved in the decision that could cause unworkable tension between the parties.
  Lords amendment No. 98 makes it clear that it is not necessary for the probation committee and the local authority to reach agreement on the number of probation officers as a matter of routine. Although that does not meet all our concerns we believe that that amendment is a step in the right direction and we therefore support it.
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I should just like to say how much I support the amendment. My right hon. Friend will be aware that a constituent of mine, Mr. George Arkless, has had considerable difficulty with the north-east London probation service. It seemed to me that there were difficulties in the channel of communication between the probation service and the Home Office. Anything that strengthens those channels of comrnunication must be welcomed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 64

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF PRISONER ESCORTS
  Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 43, line 2, leave out ("as respects any area")
  Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 92, 94 to 96, and 122 to 129.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Amendment No. 88 and the associated amendments are all concerned with the Bill's provisions on prisoner custody officers. Amendments Nos. 90, 94 to 96 and 122 to 129 make some modest improvements to the provisions of the Bill relating to the certification of prisoner custody officers. They do two things.
  First, they enable different grades of certificates to be issued depending on whether the person concerned wishes to be authorised to escort prisoners, to work in a contracted-out prison, or both. However, we believe that it is most likely that many prison custody officers will want to do prisoner escorting only or in a contracted-out prison only. Although many of the requirements and much of the training will be common to the two functions, it does not seem necessary for someone who is going to escort prisoners to receive training which is relevant to work inside a prison only, and vice versa. Secondly, the amendments provide for expiry dates to be set for prisoner custody officer certificates. We think that it would be better if provision were made for the certificates to expire after a certain period. Otherwise, they could remain in force for many years after the holder has ceased to be employed as a prisoner custody officer—perhaps for the rest of his lifetime.
  Amendment No. 92 was introduced in response to an undertaking that I made when the clause was considered by the House in Committee. The clause places prisoner custody officers under a duty to attend to the well-being of prisoners under escort. We agree that that duty should include matters such as the explicit obligation to protect
  948
  prisoners from public scrutiny and insult and to provide adequate light, ventilation and standards of physical comfort in the vans used to transport them.
  We intend to make rules to cover those matters, so as to ensure that prisoner custody officers are under no less an obligation than are prison officers under prison rules with regard to the escort of prisoners.
  The amendment is phrased in general terms because matters other than those mentioned may also affect the welfare of prisoners, and they may need to be taken Into account, too.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 79

  INFORMATION FOR FINANCIAL AND OTHER PURPOSES
  Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 53, line 7, leave out
  ("avoidance by such persons of discrimination")
  and insert
  ("performance by such persons of their duty to avoid discriminating")
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  When the House considered the Bill on Report the Government introduced an amendment to clause 79, which placed on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a duty regularly to publish information to facilitate the avoidance of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground by persons engaged in the whole area of the administration of justice. Lords amendment No. 100 builds upon and clarifies 'that provision, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Sheerman: This is probably the last time that I shall comment on anything in the Bill—I am sure that some Members will be pleased about that.
  The amendment would change the wording of clause 79 to establish the principle that those administering criminal justice have a duty to avoid discriminating on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground. We pushed hard for that idea in Committee, and once again we see the fruits of our work coming from another place. It is rather odd making a case in Committee in the House of Commons and then seeing the same arguments—although they may be a little more eloquently deployed—used in the House of Lords, where they seem to have some magic ingredient that enables them to be accepted.
  The Minister deserves at least some congratulations, although he will not get all of them, because I have some small reservations about the Government's attitude. As a compromise, following pressure from Baroness Flather and other peers in the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, the Government accepted that the Bill should include a statement of the principle that decisions of the criminal justice system should not discriminate on the ground of race.
  It is revealing and important to put it on the record that, on 21 March, during the Committee stage in the House of Lords, Lord Elton—a former Conservative Home Office Minister—said:
  "I was a reluctant convert to the view that there appears to be an element of discrimination against ethnic minority offenders in our criminal processes. In his reply, I asked my noble Friend to consider what are the social effects of that. The fabric of our society is only sustainable if the mass of society consents to the criteria on which justice is

  949
  administered. If a particular discrete, identifiable and self-identifiable sector of that society believes that there is a system of justice which is just for other people but not just for them, whether or not that belief is well founded, the effects upon our society as a whole will be very damaging because those people will see the judicial system not as a means of maintaining law and order but as a means of keeping 'them' down and 'us' up. That is a recipe for internecine warfare and is very dangerous."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 1991; Vol. 527, c. 1040–41.]
  I welcome that important statement by Lord Elton, and the fact that it was made in the debate on this very amendment. We have made that point consistently throughout our long proceedings on the Bill. We must not only ensure that there is no discrimination in the criminal justice system—and, at the moment, there is evidence to suggest that there is; we must prove to those who feel that there is discrimination that there is not.
  9.30 pm
  I warmly welcomed the Minister's invitation, following the Report stage of the Bill, to meet him at the Home Office with representatives of the black community, black probation officers, lawyers and so on. We had a good exchange of views. I thank the Minister for that and acknowledge that some progress was made.
  Having given my little bit of praise, let me go on to say that, to understand the strength of feeling on the matter among the black community and other members of ethnic minorities, we need first to appreciate the widespread and mounting concern about the disproportionately large number of black people in the prison system. The proportion of the prison population coming from ethnic minorities has risen—from 12·5 per cent. in 1985 to 16 per cent. in 1989. Although ethnic minorities constitute less than 5 per cent. of the general population, the proportion of female prisoners from ethnic minorites is even greater, at 24 per cent. That is a worrying figure.
  I see that the Home Secretary is in his place, and I must point out to him that it is not as worrying as the appalling and sad figures that we have received this evening—I believe that they will be published officially in the media tomorrow morning—which show a 17·6 per cent. increase in the crime figures. I say that with great sadness. Those figures must depress all of us in the House who believe that law and order are so important. Perhaps the Government will now accept our invitation to talk jointly about crime prevention measures upon which we can all agree.
  There are two reasons why the disproportionately large figures for ethnic minorities cannot simply be attributed to differential crime rates or to the fact that a higher proportion of the black population are in the crime-prone teenage groups. The first is that the Home Office statistics on the ethnic breakdown of the prison population, first compiled in 1985, and published annually since then, show that members of ethnic minorities entering prison have, on average, fewer previous convictions than white prisoners, and that, before conviction, they were less likely to receive bail than comparable white defendants.
  That has worrying implications for the way in which the ethnic minority community views the criminal justice system, and there is a measure of justification for its perception, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree. The figures suggest that people from ethnic minorities who commit offences are more likely to end up in prison than comparable white offenders. Therefore,
  950
  although we welcome the Government's change of heart and mind, the Opposition will take a little of the credit for adding to the creative process to which any sensible Bill gives rise.
  The second reason is that, although the findings of research studies conflict to some extent—I have always been honest about that—a disturbing number of studies contain indications that members of ethnic minorities are treated differently from white people at various stages of the criminal justice process. We have argued throughout our proceedings on the Bill that a statutory duty such as that expressed in the amendment is essential. We believe that, in drawing attention in primary legislation to a duty not to discriminate, Parliament would be making an important statement about the significance that it attaches to the principle of non-discrimination. The existence of such a provision is psychologically important.
  I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, would agree with me—given your considerable knowledge of legislation—but in my view it is not always just the words that matter; sometimes the psychological impact on our citizens is even more important. You probably do agree, Mr. Speaker; you have often said as much as I have passed the Chair.
  During the passage of the Bill, the Opposition have consistently argued that such a non-discriminatory duty is important; the Government, however, have been slow to accept its importance, and have continually resisted our amendments. They have now introduced the notion of a duty not to discriminate , but have done so in a rather indirect way, incorporating that duty in a clause that deals with the publication of information. Given the importance of the issue, we feel that it should have featured at the front of the Bill, as a key principle, rather than being buried in a rather obscure clause at the end. The Government have moved forward a little way, but they have done so in a grudging manner that will not impress all who are concerned about racism in the criminal justice system.
  Let me end on a positive note. My visit to the Home Office proved valuable: communication was established, and some creative ideas were developed as a basis for future exchanges. We were also given a cup of tea. I promise that in a short time, when I am a Home Office Minister, I shall reciprocate and extend the same co-operation to the Minister—if he survives the contest in Oxford.
  Although we are a bit discontented about the Government's grudging attitude, we accept that that is the way of these things. Let me say—and it may be the last thing that I say on this Bill—that progress on the less controversial areas has been rewarding: some people's lives will certainly be changed, or at least touched, by the slight improvements that our creative approach has secured.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 86

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Lords amendment: No. 104 in page 54, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("also") in line 32 and insert
  ("The following provisions of this Act, namely—

  (a) this section;

  951

  (b) sections (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders), 15(1) and (2), 21 (Sentence for murder) (Courts duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment) and 23(3) and (4); and

  (c) Schedule (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders), paragraph 6 of Schedule 5, paragraph 5 of Schedule 7, paragraph 15A of Schedule 10 to this Act and, so far as relating to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, Schedule 12").

  Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in paragraph (6), leave out from '21' to 'and' in line 6—[Mr. John Patten.]
  Lords amendment No. 104, as amended, agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: I am satisfied that Lords amendment No. 115 imposes a charge on the public revenue, such as is required to be authorised by a resolution of the House. Such a charge has not been so authorised; accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the amendment is deemed to be disagreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 162 disagreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.—[Mr. Kirkhopel.]
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. John Patten and that Mr. Barry Sheerman be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Ordered,
  That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Ordered,
  That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Child Benefit
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
  That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
  The draft regulations lay the foundations for the October increases in child benefit—the second this year —announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 19 March. They provide for child benefit to rise, from 7 October this year, by £1 per week for the eldest eligible child—from £8·25p to £9·25p—with an increase to £7·50p per week for all remaining children. It is the first part of a process which will ensure that every family will gain from the increases, including those on income support and family credit and those in receipt of national insurance benefits with child dependency increases.
  The child benefit increases are being made in addition to the extra £l per week that each family has been receiving since April and, with our undertaking to index link from next April, they confirm our commitment to child benefit, which we see as the cornerstone of our policies for family support. The changes bring our expenditure on child benefit this year to £5·3 billion, or almost a tenth of total social security spending. Yet that is only a part of the total package of benefit expenditure on families, which amounts to more than £11 billion. I am sure that hon. Members would like to know that that is an average of £30 per week for each family with children.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there can be few hon. Members who are more delighted than I that the Government are taking this proper line on child benefit and giving the benefit to mothers, who so urgently need it? We have fought this battle for many years, and it is delightful that the Government are being so positive.
  Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman), who represents the neighbouring constituency to mine, for her assiduous support. Her message will have been noted by all mothers.
  I am sure that the House would like to know what the increases will mean for individual families. For more than 40 per cent.—those with only one child—it will mean that from October their income from child benefit, which is tax free, will increase by £2 per week, which is a rise of more than 27 per cent. compared with the position before April. For a family with two children, child benefit will be increased by more than 15 per cent.—from £14·50 to £16·75 per week, equivalent to £72·50 per month or £870 per year. To produce the same effect through wages for people paying standard rate tax and national insurance contributions would require them to earn an additional£1,300 gross per year—about an extra £25 per week. Those increases, paid to mothers, will bring to nearly 7 million families worthwhile extra help with the costs of bringing up their children.
  The measures have been warmly welcomed. I believe that I can sum up the mood of those who have campaigned

  953
  for them by quoting Ms. Fran Bennett of the Child Poverty Action Group. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, she said:
  "I am writing on behalf of CPAG to say how delighted we were that this year's Budget included announcements on both immediate increases in child benefit and the government's longer term intentions."
  The regulations underline the philosophy of all post-war Governments of accepting the need for sharing between parents and the state the financial responsibility for bringing up children. Child benefit goes to all families with children as a recognition of the fact that at all levels of income they face greater expenditure than other families. For those families who need it, this universal provision is supplemented by extra help through the income-related benefits. We will be bringing forward further regulations to ensure that those groups, too, will benefit from the October increases in child benefit.
  The Government did not forget those groups in drafting their child benefit proposals, but the Opposition did when they presented their alternative Budget proposals. The House may recall that this matter was spotted only through the astuteness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate on family hardship on 13 March. He highlighted the inconsistency between the costings and stated objectives on child benefit in the so-called shadow Budget—long may it remain so—and it was only his kindness in pointing this out which enabled the Labour party to amend its pledge to include families on income-related benefits.
  This continuing recognition of the needs of the less well-off families lay at the heart of our 1988 social security reforms. At a time when the majority of families were benefiting from rising earnings, we recognised that some people, through no fault of their own, had not yet fully shared in the nation's increasing prosperity. We decided, therefore, that the least well-off families—those on income-related benefits—should be one of our main priorities for extra help. Instead of just universally increasing child benefit, we made substantial extra help available to those families, over and above the annual increases required to maintain the value of their benefits. Those families are now better off than they would have been simply relying on an increase in child benefit.
  When we introduced income support, we provided a system which was flexible and which allowed us to respond swiftly and sensitively to the changing needs of families and individuals. I will give the House an example of the way in which that works. We enhanced the age-related provision for children by introducing a family premium, including a special premium for lone parents. In addition, there is now a premium of £16·65 per week for a disabled child, on top of the basic family premium of £7·95.
  With the help of family credit—our other major change—people can move off income support to become better off in work. The success of this benefit is mirrored in the fact that we now have a record caseload of 328,000 people on family credit. We believe that this year we shall spend more than £500 million. Compared with 1978–79, in real terms that represents more than eight times the expenditure on family credit's predecessor, family income supplement. It goes to more than three times the number
  954
  of people receiving FIS, with the average award of more than £30 a week being some three times higher in real terms.
  Not content with that, we shall make family credit more accessible by reducing the hours of eligibility from 24 to 16. That is a further commitment to helping families on low incomes.
  When we came to office, we deliberately set out to increase people's ability to earn more, to retain more of what they earned and to contribute to the general prosperity. Working families with children have benefited from the Government's policies of reducing the rates of income tax and simplifying the system of national insurance contributions. A family on average male earnings, for example, has seen the real value of its take-home pay increase by a third since 1978–79.
  The Opposition continue to concentrate on headline figures when talking about child benefit, but they completely overlook the fact that the money from not uprating child benefit has been spent on extra help for the poorest families with children when better-off families were benefiting from increased earnings and lower rates of taxation. The Opposition have conveniently ignored the fact that, from October, the total support for families with children will in a full year be greater than if we had merely indexed child benefit. From October, the additional real-terms help that we have provided since 1987–88 will be worth a massive £500 million in a full year.
  The Opposition also fail to appreciate that families mean more than families with children. There are families with, perhaps, an elderly member or someone who is sick or disabled. They, too, have considerable needs. We have considered those families and have made available, for example, an extra £200 million for older and disabled pensioners through the 1989 measures. An extra £80 million was made available in April for those aged between 65 and 74.
  I mentioned the need to balance the help that we provide for all families and the help for low-income families. In previous years, with mainstream family incomes arising, our judgment was that it was right to concentrate resources on the less well-off familes through the income-related benefits. This year, after careful consideration, we decided that the time was right to look after families with children generally. The extra £1 per week child benefit which all families have been receiving since April recognises the additional costs faced by all families with children, and it is a clear signal of our continuing commitment to the benefit. The October increases build on the April improvements and, as I said, we shall bring forward regulations to ensure that these increases are carried through the benefits system so that families at all income levels will gain from them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster adverted to the fact that we should be proud of the help that we give to families with children. Not only do United Kingdom families benefit from the most comprehensive income support system in Europe, and from having family credit which is unique in its construction in Europe in giving help to the families of the employed and the self-employed on low wages, but we compare very favourably in our overall provision of basic child benefit. There is a problem in making an accurate European comparison because of the range and complexity of financial support for families in different European countries, but I must draw the House's attention to the fact that several Community countries

  955
  have extra conditions for entitlement to child benefit. For example, Germany, Greece and Italy have means tests, and Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain link eligibility to insurance status, so not all families can qualify.
  Therefore, although it is true that all European Community countries have a cash benefit equivalent to child benefit, many have additional qualifying criteria which do not apply in the United Kingdom. However, in cash terms alone, if we consider the 40 per cent. plus families in this country with only one eligible child, in July 1990 we ranked fourth in our child benefit provision for such a child up to the age of five. This year, we are increasing that provision by more than 25 per cent. Perhaps it is worth drawing the House's attention to the fact that in France there is no such provision. If replicated here, that would remove entitlement to child benefit from those 40 per cent. plus United Kingdom families.
  I hope that I have demonstrated to the House how we have developed a balance between universal and income-related benefits and how we have balanced help to families with children. Nor have families without children been ignored. The draft regulations will increase child benefit from October and, as I said, we shall introduce further regulations to carry those increases through into other benefits so that all families with children will gain. Those regulations are for the benefit of our children and for the families responsible for their upbringing. I commend them to the House.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: We are told that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over 99 just men. In that context, I welcome the order and the Government's final change of heart on the question of child benefit, although I somewhat suspect their motives.
  The Opposition sought to have the regulations debated on the Floor of the House for three main reasons. The first was to condemn the astonishing convolutions and inconsistencies in Government policy which have plagued child benefit over the past four years. The second was to point up the large shortfall in child benefit which still exists after the zig-zags in what is euphemistically called "child benefit policy". The third was to press again the view that child benefit be allowed to play its full and unique role in combating child poverty.
  In June 1987, as everyone now knows only too well, the Conservative manifesto stated:
  "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother."
  Four months later, the Government broke the pledge. The former Secretary of State for Social Security, who made a distinctive contribution to social policy by denying that poverty existed, announced that child benefit would be frozen. In October 1988, the then Secretary of State repeated the freeze on the ground that benefits needed to be targeted. It did not seem to occur to him that, in the autumn of 1988, at the height of the boom, it was hardly consistent to reject child benefit because a small fraction of it went to the wealthy while lavishing unlimited public subsidies on some of the richest people in the country in the form of mortgage interest tax relief.
  In October 1989, the present Secretary of State again repeated the freeze. He sought to justify it on two main grounds. The first was:
  956
  "it helps only those who do not receive income support and family credit."—[Official Report, 25 October 1989; Vol. [58, c. 846.]
  That is the opposite of what the Government, in the form of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, are saying today. When the hapless Secretary of State tries to defend the indefensible Thatcherite dogma of freeze, he says one thing. When he is trying to win an election, he says the reverse, and all in the space of two years.
  The other main ground cited by the Secretary of State was that it was better to concentrate extra help on less well-off families. That ignores the important fact that child benefit has vastly better coverage of less well-off families than a device such as family credit could ever have.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned family credit. Will he clarify his own party's policy on family credit? Is it to abolish it o r to let it wither on the vine, as the hon. Member for Holborn, and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said?
  Mr. Meacher: It is neither. The hon. Gentleman should read our policy document. We have made it clear that we, unlike the Conservative party until an election heaves into sight, believe in child benefit, which is what our debate is about.
  I was making the point that half a million mothers in households with an income of less than £100 a week receive child benefit—and it goes to them virtually 100 per cent. —and that more than 2 million mothers in households with incomes of less than £200 a week also receive it. That represents a far greater body of families in near poverty than the fewer than one third of a million—I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnha m) will take this point on board—who manage to obtain family credit. There is a low take-up rate and there is still some doubt about exactly what it is. It is probably around 60 per cent. to 65 per cent., but the overall numbers are small. Even above the level that I have mentioned, child benefit remains well targeted. Some three quarters of all Government expenditure on child benefit goes to fami lies with incomes below the average. That is very important.
  Three successive years of Tory freeze have left their mark, especially on poorer families. They reduced the value of tax-free income provided by child benefit and thus increased the impact of taxation on all families with children. They had a particularly severe effect on large families and they gradually forced more and more families who previously had been able to maintain their independence to apply for more means-tested benefits. They have slowly but surely intensified the poverty trap.
  Three successive years of Tory freeze of child benefit have also left their mark on the Treasury. Its cumulative saving over those years reached £1·2 billion at current prices in 1990–91.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Meacher: It is no good the Under-Secretary of State shaking her head. Those are the official Government figures.
  One might be forgiven for thinking that successive Secretaries of State, when they announced or re-announced a freeze, failed to announce that the Treasury made a killing on each of those occasions and that that was the driving force behind the policy.

  957
  In October 1990 with a general election mooted for the middle of 1991, the Government got cold feet about the increasing unpopularity of their freeze policy, particularly as inflation was then heading towards 11 per cent. The Secretary of State then announced that he would increase child benefit, but only for the first child. There would be £1 extra for the first child, but nothing for the other children. He tried to justify that by suggesting that priority was needed for the first child to compensate the mother for the loss of earnings after giving up work. He has failed to explain how an extra £1 a week in child benefit compensates for the loss of perhaps £100 a week in earnings. We would still be interested in an explanation of that.
  That was not the only thing that was wrong with the new policy. The £1 was clawed back from widows and the poorest families on income support so that those who needed it most received nothing. So much for a Government who have spent the last three years obsessively proclaiming the merits of targeting. They gave the child benefit increase to the rich and denied it to the poorest—[Interruption.] I can understand why Conservative Members might be embarrassed about that, but the first £1 increase did exactly what I have said.
  As the spring 1991 general election faded in the depths of the recession and Government eyes began to fasten on October 1991, the Government had another try. After no increase for three years, we have now had two increases in a single year. I can only say that the children of this country should demand annual elections, because they do wonders for child benefit under this Government.
  It is now proposed that there will be a further £1 increase for the first child in October plus a derisory 25p for second and subsequent children. Twenty-five pence is about a third of the price of a school meal. That is the only increase in child benefit that 5 million children who happen not to be the eldest child in a family have received in child benefit over the past four years.
  This time round, the child benefit will go to those on income support. That is welcome as far as it goes. However, perhaps the Secretary of State could explain the inconsistency of giving a £1 increase to the first child in April which is clawed back from families on income support and then giving another £1 increase in October only six months later which is not clawed back from families on income support.
  Throughout the past four years, the Government have treated child benefit not as help for families, but as an ideological pawn in their battle against the welfare state. The only consistency in the wild and rapid changes of policy has lain in the Government's perception of their own electoral self-interest.
  After all those convolutions and gyrations of policy, child benefit is still far short of being restored to its real value in April 1987. Even for the first child, it will still be 30p a week short of that level, but for all subsequent children the shortfall will be considerable—just over £2 a week. For an average three-child family, that still represents a loss of £228 a year.
  The first priority is and must remain to make good for all children the losses over recent years. The Labour party remains committed to restoring the real value of child benefit at its 1987 level for all children. We shall make
  958
  those substantial increases for all children, particularly for second and subsequent children, without deductions for children on income support.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman just once more because no one else is seeking to intervene.
  Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the Labour party's policy a little clearer than it was. Would he like to put a cost figure on that pledge?
  Mr. Meacher: Certainly—£695 million.
  Having stated again that overriding priority from which the Government still fall far short, I wish to raise two specific points of detail about the order. The first is whether the Government will now reconsider the long-term structure of child benefit, having produced what can be described only as lop-sided after a series of panicky, last-minute compromises. It certainly does not reflect any social reality. A recent cross-section poll of hon. Members —it certainly did not include me—found that only 12 per cent., two thirds of whom presumably must be Conservative Members, supported the present structure of child benefit. Many other countries in the EEC have child benefit or its equivalent which increases with the number of children in a family or with the age of the child, but none which actually decreases it according to the number of children.
  How do the Government justify the oddity? The Under-Secretary of State made no attempt to talk about that matter. Perhaps he could give some assistance with the Government's view if it is not quite as cynically expedient as I believe it to be. If there is any rationale behind it, we would like to know what it is. When the Government consider the matter in a more measured manner, what more considered proposals do they have for the longer-term shape of child benefit?
  Secondly—this is related to my first question—what will be the mechanism of index linking in future? From an answer that was given in the Official Report of 22 May, it appears that the Government intend to inflation-proof the overall amount spent on child benefit rather than index each rate. Some of us had automatically assumed that it would be each rate, but that appears not to be. If it is the Government's intention to index the overall amount rather than each separate rate, that would be undesirable. If the Government wished to alter the balance—it certainly needs to be altered—between the two rates, it would be much better if that were done by over-indexing one or other of the rates. That is a much better way to get the matter into balance while still ensuring that at least both rates will maintain their real value over time.
  After three years of the freeze and neglect that we have seen a further year of patch up and make do, which is riddled with inconsistencies, the order, although it is certainly welcome as far it goes, raises more questions than it answers. We want an explanation about that in the wind-up speech. The fundamental point is that, until the real value of child benefit has been fully restored for all children and the commitment to its future made absolute, child benefit policy will remain a major difference between the parties which will be resolved only at the coming election.
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to speak briefly because I am not satisfied with the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who did not make Labour party policy clear and did not answer the point about family credit. He said that the Labour party's policy was not to abolish it or to let it wither on the vine. What is the Labour party's policy and where does it leave the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who said that the party's policy was to let family credit wither on the vine? Do the Labour party spokesmen have two different policies? Why does not the hon. Gentleman come clean and state his party's policies?
  Why have Labour's statements on child benefit produced a gradual climb down from its own original statement in its paper, "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change"? That paper stated:
  "we will increase Child Benefit in our first year by a substantial amount which will more than make good the loss in value through this Parliament."
  In its policy document, "Looking to the Future", the Labour party said that an increase in child benefit would be implemented
  "at least to make up the loss in value".
  Now, we hear that it is to be restored to the 1979 level, at a cost of £695 million, which shows that the original statements were not thought through properly—a characteristic of Labour party policy on this subject. The Labour party has obviously not thought through its ideas on family credit.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West dismissed family credit as going to only a small number of families. Eight times as many families have benefited from family credit than benefited from family income supplement—390,000 families receive it, which is not a small number. The benefit of family credit is that it helps families to stay in work, whereas the policies of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, such as a national minimum wage, would throw people out of work. The Labour party obviously prefers to have people out of work than in work. Why does riot the Labour party acknowledge the benefits of the family credit scheme, go with it, and say that it supports the Government policy, which has been successful?
  We have been able to make some increase in child benefit, but, because it is not targeted as well as family credit, we place an emphasis on family credit in helping people to stay in work. We do not agree with the policies of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, which would increase taxes and throw people out of work.
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman still opposes a national minimum wage, will he retract the statement that he made not long ago, that it would be much better if the whole of Britain reflected sweatshop conditions?
  Mr. Thurnham: If the hon. Gentleman looks at what I said in my speech, he will see that I was talking about wealth shops. He should not confuse a question with a statement in a speech, and should read the Hansard report. He would then see that I was advocating wealth shops.
  The difference between Government policies and Labour party policies is that we want people to be in work, whereas the Labour party want people out of work. I cannot see the benefit of that. The hon. Gentleman would do better to argue with his fellow party members about the disadvantages of a national minimum wage, and climb down from that policy, because it is getting him nowhere.
  960
  He should look at Government policies, which target benefits to help people back into work instead of taking them out of work.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Archie Kirkwood: The proposed increase is welcome, but it has been a long time coming. It is right for the House to take a moment or two to consider the consequences that flow from the changes introduced by the regulations.
  There are three major sectors that deserve additional scrutiny. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that there will still be real losses for second and subsequent children in relation to the amount of money that they could otherwise have expected had child benefit been fully indexed. The additional element for first children needs to be considered carefully, because it is a fundamental change and the Government's future policy in that respect must be analysed.
  The mechanism for index linking the new system is potentially problematic, if my understanding of it is right. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was right to say that the Government's policy on that issue does not bear examination because of the changes that have been made in the past five or more years. That will be a matter of some concern and will be debated publicly at the general election.
  Child benefit remains by far the most effective way to target families in poverty. That is my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament and my opinion as someone who tries to study such matters as effectively and diligently as I can. Will the Minister confirm that the increases to £9·25 and £7·50 in October will also have a knock-on effect for claimants of other benefits, rather than being deducted from other benefits as such increases have been in the past? 1 understand that orders are in the pipeline to implement that measure between now and October. Although we may debate the issue when the orders are published, if the increased payments are to be made in October we have little time to study the orders.
  I should be interested to know how that will be done because when one considers the complications involved in ring fencing the child benefit increases, I doubt whether it will be as easy as it sounds. If the Department of Social Security has given any thought to how it will approach that, I shall rest a little easier in my bed tonight if the Minister will say a word about it. I welcome the fact that the increases will be ring-fenced. Because of the increases in child support personal allowances, it will benefit principally parents under the age of 25. That is good news because that group of claimants has suffered from some of the recent changes in Government policy, and they are hard-pressed and in urgent need of support.
  The October increases will still leave all children with less benefit in real terms than in 1987, and second and subsequent children will receive substantially less. First children need an additional 30p a week and second and subsequent children need an extra £2·05. If the level of child benefit had been properly uprated to 1991–92 levels, it would have been increased to £9·55. That is a substantial amount of money, and a substantial loss will have been suffered over the years by families who need it.
  As for the new structure, what was the Government's thinking in moving in that direction? The differential of £1·75 a week is welcome, but what does the future hold in

  961
  respect of differentials? What examination did the Department undertake before it moved in that direction? Was consideration given to alternatives? Were the results of the family household survey analysed? Why have the Government brought forward an increase in this way? There have been a number of conflicting rationalisations and justifications for making the move. First, we heard that the increase for the first child was necessary because of start-up costs. If a couple experienced start-up costs when the first child came along, it was daft to have abolished the maternity grant under the Social Security Act 1986.
  Start-up costs were the first justification for considering giving extra support for the first child in the family. However, in some uprating statements the Secretary of State and other Ministers have said that that was not the rationale behind the change, and that the presence of any child, rather than the number of children, was the factor that had decided the Government to move in that direction. We should have a public debate about such significant changes. If the Government have evidence and have conducted analyses which lead them to that conclusion, it is right that they should share their thinking with the House.
  The announcement was made in the Budget statement, which is all very well and good. I understand that Treasury Ministers have to go into purdah and do not tell anyone what they are thinking until they release the contents of the Red Book. However, we should be given some insight into the reasons behind making this move.
  In the meantime, the priority as regards resources should be to try to do everything possible, and for Social Security Ministers to try to make good the losses for all children—losses sustained as a result of cuts in the past five or six years.
  Finally, I have several questions about the consequences of the index-linking of child benefit. The Government have made a commitment that inflation proofing will take place from April 1992. However, the hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned inflation-proofing the overall amount and it is right that the House should ask the Government to explain exactly what is involved in that. If one inflation proofs the amount of money, but gives discretion to the Secretary of State to allocate money within the increased total it introduces some uncertainty into the type of indexing that we may be confronting. It would be far simpler if the Government made an early commitment that they will index each rate, so that there is no doubt about that. Otherwise, people will not be able to make any sense of what faces them.
  Once the system for indexing of increases in child benefit is up and running, what period of time will be used, because the annual retail prices index runs from September to September, but these increases will be introduced in October? Will the Minister clarify the confusion that exists in my mind by saying a few words about that?
  Finally—
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: For the second time.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Finally, twice—the hon. Gentleman is quite right, this is the last "finally". What changes, if any, will this make to the Secretary of State's statutory duty
  962
  —placed upon him in section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986—to review all the factors and circumstances relating to child benefit, before he decides whether to increase it? Is there a change in that? If not, it would be good if we were told that that was the case.
  Finally, for the third time—[Laughter.] I was just testing. Do the Government intend to introduce inflation-proofed index-linked guarantees into primary legislation, or will they rely on a series of secondary statutory instruments? If this is a new Government policy, let them give a copper-bottomed guarantee that they will take the early opportunity of next year's social security Bill —because there is one every year—to try to enshrine—
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Not this year.
  Mr. Kirkwood: If the Secretary of State is complaining about lack of legislation for his Department, he is complaining unnecessarily. If there is a social security Bill next year, will the Government take the opportunity to enshrine the promise that they will index link child benefit into primary legislation, so that there can be no hedging of bets in the future?
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: And finally, in this brief but instructive week in politics, we have seen the great contrasts that exist under the Conservative Administration. We have seen the results of the privatisation of the electricity industry, with massive profits being announced this week by the East Midlands electricity company. In addition, we have seen the fat salaries that have been paid out, most notably this week to the chairman of British Gas.
  In contrast, this packed House, with its packed Press Gallery, is now considering child benefit and social security regulations. On the one hand, there is privilege, with individuals and organisations raking in thousands and thousands of pounds, while on the other hand, we are faced with the beneficiaries—if they can be called that—of the regulations, which give the princely increase in child benefit of 25p per week to the second-born child, with a £1 increase to the first-born child, whom I have referred to as the Eastbourne child, given that the increase was first announced prior to that famous by-election.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked, what does 25p buy? Most mothers would say that it does not buy a heck of a lot—not even a bar of chocolate these days.
  Mr. Meacher: Don't spend it all at once.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend says, "Don't spend it all at once," but it is very easy to spend it all at once because even £1 will hardly pay for an average loaf and pack of butter. People will hardly be rejoicing in the streets at that miserly increase. However, even the increase—small as it is—is due more to the likelihood of a general election than to any great generosity on the part of the Government.
  Let us analyse the Conservative Government's record on child benefit. Better still, let us ask British mothers about it. They will say that the purchasing power of child benefit has been reduced throughout the lifetime of this Government. Clearly, child benefit has not been safe in their hands. Even after the much trumpeted U-turn on child benefit, the child benefit for all children—first-born,

  963
  second-born and any others—is worth less than at the time of the last general election. Even after the increase, it is now worth 30p less for the first child and £2·05 less for all the other children. Using the 1987 figures, that represents a loss over a year of £154·70 for a two-child family. If we use 1985 as the base, child benefit would now have to be £10 per week to maintain its value.
  We have a Government who can waste billions of pounds trying to prop up the poll tax. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is in his place. The Government have also wasted billions of pounds encouraging people to opt for private pensions—[Interruption.] As I have said, I am glad that at least one Sheffield Member is present. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is not, but in any case, I see far too much of him in Committee on the Child Support Bill. The Government are also wasting billions of pounds on other ideological lunacies, yet they cannot find the relatively far smaller sums to maintain the value of child benefit, which is the main benefit for this country's children.
  The Government appear totally confused about their policy. They seem to be asking, "Shall we keep child benefit or not? Shall we let it wither on the vine or index-link it?" The Government's changes of position continue to mock and to abuse the 1987 Conservative manifesto pledge, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West:
  "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now".
  Never has such a catch-all been used to catch so much. At least under the former Prime Minister all Ministers knew what they had to do—they just had to obey their orders. Now, however, in the era of indecision and dithering, the child benefit system appears to have been designed by a committee. At the moment, we are unique in Europe in having a two-tier system, in which the second and subsequent children are valued at £1·75 per week less than the first child. All of them receive less than they did before the benefit was frozen by this Administration. The larger the family, the larger the loss.
  The Government's family policy owes more to the scissors and paste of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) than to long-term principle. As the Family Policy Studies Centre understated:
  "the rationale of the new structure is unclear."
  It deserves a medal for describing the position in such terms.
  Even the return to inflation-linking in April 1992 is edged with uncertainty. It is not the £7·50 and £9·25 but the overall amount spent on child benefit that will be linked to inflation. That is as if to underline the Government's lack of confidence that they have got the differential between the first and second child right and their belief that at some stage they will need to adjust or even scrap the differential. The Opposition would certainly support any measures to scrap the differential and level up child benefit to a reasonable level again.
  Before next July, the next Labour Government will be in office and we will restore child benefit to its 1987 levels. Currently, that would carry a value of £9·55. That will be for all children. We will end the discrimination between children in the same family. We believe that child benefit is the best way to help families with children. It is better targeted than means-tested benefits because it reaches all the people whom it is intended to help. As it is not withdrawn when income rises, it does not create a poverty
  964
  trap and lock low-paid families into poverty incomes. It does not penalise mothers for taking paid employment when it is vital for them to do so in the labour market of the 1990s. Most importantly, child benefit helps to prevent child poverty and gives a subsidy to families at a time when their needs are greatest.
  These shameful increases in child benefit have been levered out of the Government by impending electoral catastrophe, rather than a caring and thoughtful assessment of the needs of children and mothers. Labour will restore child benefit to its rightful place and its rightful level.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Jack: To listen to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is to listen to a travesty of a description of accurate policy-making. I reminded him and his hon. Friends that it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who had to point out the failings of Labour policy and its shadow Budget. Lurking somewhere in the remarks made to the House this evening by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, there seemed to be yet another shadow spending pledge. I am sure that when we examine the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, we will find that his statements go further than the simple pledge that his party has made. I shall examine his words in great detail.
  There is no dithering on this side of the House on policy. The hon. Member for Oldham, West accused us of making savings in some way. I find it amazing that he seems to wish not to listen to the simple message of the £500 million of extra spending by the Government on families with low incomes since the changes in 1988. I can certainly give him a blow-by-blow account of where some of that money has gone. We made £200 million available to less well-off families in April 1988. In April 1989, another £70 million and in April 1990 another £70 million was made available. The list goes on. It is a roll of honour of which we are proud, and I am proud to put it on the record tonight in replying to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  One of the themes running through the speeches made by hon. Members was the basis on which we are increasing child benefit both in April and, under the terms of the order, in October. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that the right balance was, with effect from April 1991, to recognise the additional costs faced by families by paying the extra £1 of child benefit to the first child. Clearly, the major impact on a family's budget is when the first child arrives. It was in pursuit of dealing with that that my right hon. Friend reviewed child benefit in both April and October. As I said in my opening speech, some 40 per cent. of families in Britain have one child. I also alluded to how the change in benefit would affect two and three-child families.
  Hon. Members have asked about our policy on uprating. I reiterate that we are pledged to increase the new rates of child benefit in line with movement in the retail prices index each year, starting in April 1992. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will carry out his statutory duty to review the level of child benefit at the appropriate time in the uprating statement he will announce the allocation of the individual amounts between the eldest eligible child and other children. In

  965
  answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) I should not like to go further than that because I would not like to anticipate the views of my hon. Friends. However, the policies were clearly stated in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 22 May.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also asked how the rest of the package would be introduced. That will be done by regulations subject to a negative resolution. I shall write to him about the details of precisely how that will be done.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West, in contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East (Mr. Thurnham), chided and perhaps criticised us for our policy. He suggested that in some way we have been penny-pinching to poorer families. Tonight, we have demonstrated the additional help that we have given. The hon. Member for Oldham, West always seems to forget that the rates of income support and family credit have increased at times when child benefit has not been increased. The hon. Gentleman should study those figures carefully.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West also spoke about poverty statistcs. I can but draw his attention to a letter published in The Guardian by my right hon. Friend in response to his outburst on poverty statistics. The hon. Gentleman has been found wanting in his use of those statistics. He should not chide the Government too much because the recent report from the Select Committee on Social Services on low incomes revealed that, using 1981 prices held at constant levels, the numbers below half average incomes fell in real terms from 2.89 million people in 1987 to 2·77 million in 1988. That demonstrates an
  966
  improvement in overall standards of living and some of the dangers of using the statistics with which the hon. Gentleman chooses to chastise us.
  Mr. Meacher: If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has unwisely chosen to debate statistics, will he deny that, according to the Government's own publication "Households below Average Incomes" the number of households that are below half-average income doubled between 1979 and 1987? Will he also accept that in the Government's 1987 publication the lowest decile was found to have had a fall—
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Decile?
  Mr. Meacher: The lowest tenth of the population—for ignorant Conservative Members. That group's income fell by 5·7 per cent. Does the Minister accept that that is the Government's figure? Perhaps he will apologise to the House for the fact that that can happen at a time when the income of the rest of the population has increased by about 30 per cent.
  Mr. Jack: When the hon. Gentleman has the courtesy to apologise for his inaccurate use of the statistics given to a Select Committee, perhaps I will respond in kind to the points that he has put to me.
  In the brief time available to me, I have tried to deal with the main themes raised in the debate. The House and outside bodies welcome the Government's commitment to child benefit increases now and in the future. I commend the regulations to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

  Fish Farming
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.38 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of the Scottish salmon farming industry, the outlook of which is increasingly serious. A brief look at the history of salmon farming reveals that it started more than 20 years ago and in the past decade it has witnessed spectacular growth. Its annual output is valued at £140 million while exports amount to £55 million. There is great potential for growth. Of the capital investment of £120 million, 25 per cent. has come from Highlands and Islands development board assistance, with the rest coming from the private sector. I am sure that the Minister approves of that. The industry has a research and development programme, which I should like to see increased substantially. I shall return to that.
  Of fundamental importance are the 6,300 jobs that the industry has created. Of special concern to me and my colleagues who represent constituencies with fish-farming interests are the jobs that have been created in the highlands and islands.
  My support for the fish-farming industry is based on the contribution that it has made to the lives of those who live in the areas where it is located. It provides employment for viable communities in isolated areas. It sustains schools, shops and, above all, employment for people such as crofters and small family farmers, who form the backbone of the rural economy. These people sustain, especially in the highlands and islands, important cultures, traditions and values.
  Salmon farming has probably replaced forestry as a source of employment. When the Forestry Commission was first established, one of its purposes was to provide jobs for those who could not sustain a living off the land. For salmon farming, however, the reality now is a far cry from the promise of the past. There is a serious crisis, with a consequent loss of confidence in the industry. There have been job losses and forced sales, especially of small fish farms. In 1989, the European Community market price for salmon collapsed from a farmgate figure of £1·65 per pound to only £1.
  I have a letter from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in which it is estimated that 56 companies have been sold or closed between 1988 and 1989. That organisation believes that all large and small companies in the industry have been seriously weakened. Without an early remedy within the European salmon market, the Scottish salmon farming industry will not survive as we know it.
  In Lewis and Harris in the Western Isles, 18 companies have ceased to trade. That has affected the employment of 90 to 100 people. Co Comunn Na Hearach, Co Comunn Na Pairc and Western Isles Salmon—to list only three—were all community-based companies. They were local employers run by local people.
  I received a letter today from a croft-based operation in Daviot near Inverness, which currently is surviving. The letter states:
  "My croft-based operation supplies smolts to ongrowing farmers on the West Coast and Shetland".
  Clearly that involves the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The letter continues:
  968
  "I employ 8 full-time workers and 4 part time, all local, 7 of them being ex-students of Inverness College and under 25 years of age … We are a successful and profitable company producing 800,000 smolts per year. However, the market difficulties being experienced by our customers due to Norwegian dumping cause concern and put our future at risk."
  He went on:
  "This was described to me yesterday by our main customer 'we cannot go on like this we might as well stand on the shore tearing up pound notes'."
  Why has this happened? There has been a sudden and unprecedented rise in Norway's production—in fact, a doubling from 80,000 tonnes in 1988 to 160,000 in 1990. It has been dumping its excess on the world markets, selling at below its production costs and undercutting its own minimum domestic price system.
  Following the 1989 EC market collapse, to which I referred earlier, an anti-dumping case was brought before the Commission. The case was proved, and an 11·4 per cent. import duty was proposed but never implemented. Meanwhile, the Americans imposed an import duty against the Norwegians, which simply compounded the problem by diverting further tonnage from the United States to the EC market.
  I know that the Government are anxious to stress their record on environmental issues, and at the same time to promote high safety standards. In recent years, consumers have become acutely aware of the dangers posed by the use of chemicals in food. Certain pharmaceutical products must be bought by salmon farmers for use in aquaculture; they must be certified, and the cost of authorisation is reflected in the sale price.
  Here again, there is a huge discrepancy between this and other EC countries. Our Government are failing to provide any assistance, according to a written reply that I recently received from the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. In Spain, authorising a new product costs the equivalent of £8; in Luxembourg, it costs the equivalent of £49; in France, the equivalent of £155. In the United Kingdom, it costs £12,000.
  At the same time, the Government are spending less on research and development. Since 1980, when £2·3 million was spent on fish-farming research and development, there has been a real-terms cut of 29 per cent. The Government spent only £3 million in 1990–91. That is simply not acceptable at a time when people are increasingly worried about the possibility of fish-farm pollution around our coasts and in our inland waters. The Crown Estate Commissioners, who take their whack in rent, should contribute much more to research and development; too much profit goes straight to the Treasury.
  There is also the threat posed to the industry by the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations. I could not let this evening pass without repeating my plea to the Minister —a plea that I have often extended to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Strathclyde —to make allowance for the smoked salmon and fish-curing industry in Scotland. Without special exemptions applying to delivery of such products, many smokeries will go out of business, and that will have a huge effect on areas like Argyll and Bute.
  To cap it all, there is the added shock of the suggestion in last week's talks that the European Free Trade Association be given access to the EC tariff-free trade area.

  969
  That must not leave the Scottish industry defenceless: we need more talks to agree a reference price. The whole issue is really a trade disagreement, not a fisheries disagreement.
  What are the Government going to do about this? In the past weeks and months, the Government have received increasing representations and requests to act decisively and swiftly. That message has been carried to them by Members of Parliament and by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association. The Leader of the House told me during business questions a month ago that he had held discussions on the subject at the recent Tory party conference in Perth. Perhaps the Minister of State, who is to reply, also held such discussions.
  The belief is that the Government will not give Scottish salmon farming a high priority. Appeals to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the Prime Minister have had little effect. As the Scottish Office Minister responsible for fisheries, the hon. Gentleman must surely realise that this is an important Scottish industry. I appreciate that he has many other tasks that take up his time, but he and his noble Friend in the other place should go to Brussels tomorrow and seek EC action on measures against Norwegian dumping and set the scene for a long-term and stable solution to the problem.
  Will the Minister tell me—if not tonight, perhaps later —what rule or legislation allows Highlands and Islands Enterprise to refuse grant aid to those who are not members of the Scottish Salmon Growers Association? In Cowal in my constituency, 85 per cent. of salmon produced is not eligible for grant assistance.
  I am particularly worried about the small growers, many of whom have had to pull out of the organisation simply because they cannot afford the levy. Only the large companies and the multinationals can continue to pay a fee that has risen from 1 to 3 per cent. of turnover. In addition, high interest rates guarantee that the smallest companies are hardest hit. Surely there must be a discretionary element that ensures that the right projects receive the necessary backing from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, regardless of their membership of the SSGA.
  The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland keep saying that to persuade the Commission to act the Government will need good evidence of the extent and impact of Norwegian imports. I must tell the Minister that we have given such evidence time and again—on 15 separate occasions since January—to the Commission, to the fisheries department at the Scottish Office and to the MAFF.
  I am grateful to the Minister for having listened so patiently, and I hope that I have conveyed to him the serious nature of the situation. If the salmon fish farming industry in Scotland is to survive, it needs Government action now.
  10.53 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on her success in raising this issue for debate. I know that she has taken much interest in the salmon farming industry, and I much appreciate her concern about the difficult trading conditions that are facing many fish farmers.
  970
  Salmon farming has been one of the success stories of the past decade in Scotland. The geography and environment of our western coastline and islands, with their clean, unpolluted waters and protected coastal inlets, are ideally suited to salmon farming.
  From a production level of 1,000 tonnes in 1980, the industry has grown steadily year after year to an output of more than 32,000 tonnes in 1990, with a first-sale value of more than £100 million. As the hon. Lady said, the industry is a major employer, employing almost 2,000 people directly, with two to three times that number employed in related industries such as processing, packaging and transport.
  I understand that some £120 million was invested in the industry during that period. As the hon. Lady pointed out, most of that money came, appropriately, from the private sector, but there has been significant Government support. Some £30 million has been provided through the Highlands and Islands development board—now Highlands and Islands Enterprise—and the European Community has also made a valuable contribution.
  The problems which we face now, which the hon. Lady set out, are those of success. They stem from a rapid expansion of this young industry, an expansion which has run ahead of the increase in demand for salmon, although that has been growing by about a quarter each year in Europe. We have a problem of surplus production capacity for Atlantic salmon, and that will mean a period of—dare I say it—consolidation, even retrenchment, until supply and demand come back into balance. Our concern, of course, must be to ensure that the pain of such retrenchment should fall fairly where the cause of the problem lies.
  The letter from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to which the hon. Lady referred came from Mr. Gaskell, and the hon. Lady quoted some of the points which had been made. The letter said that HIE was
  "convinced that without early remedy within the European salmon market, our salmon farming market will not survive as we know it"
  and that
  "the financial standing of all companies in the sector has been seriously weakened".
  Those statements are not particularly helpful. What is needed is confidence in the industry and in the future.
  Although Scotland produces by far the largest amount of farmed salmon in the European Community, our output is less than one quarter of Norway's. The Norwegians' figures show that between 1988 and 1990 production of farmed salmon rose from 80,000 tonnes to over 160,000 tonnes. More than 60 per cent. of that salmon is exported into the EC. Even in a market which has developed as rapidly as salmon, this was bound to have a destabilising effect.
  The first signs of difficulty came in 1989 when the market price for salmon began to fall significantly and the industry saw signs that salmon from Norway was being sold in European markets at unreasonably low prices. The Scottish salmon growers, in conjunction with their Irish counterparts, alleged that the Norwegians were "dumping" salmon in EC markets and asked the Commission to intervene. As a result, as the hon. Lady said, the EC announced in February 1990 that it would mount an anti-dumping investigation. The Government supported that investigation. We did not seek—nor shall we—any "protectionist" measures for our industry. Our concern

  971
  has always been to promote an orderly expansion of this market and to ensure fair competition within the European market.
  As the hon. Lady said, in August 1990, the EC announced its finding that dumping by Norwegian companies had taken place and that this had caused injury to EC producers. The Commission proposed that an anti-dumping duty of 11·4 per cent. should be levied on imports of Norwegian salmon to the Community. In the event, it became clear to the Commission that this was not supported by member states and earlier this year the Commission formally closed the anti-dumping case.
  The Government, however, had been keeping in close touch with the industry and with the Commission about the outcome of this investigation. We were able to obtain assurances from the Commission and, through it, from the Norwegian Government about future market stability. The Commission undertook to monitor closely the market for farmed salmon; to initiate discussions with the Norwegians, if so requested; and to consider urgently a further anti-dumping case against Norwegian companies should the EC industry so request.
  The Norwegian authorities, for their part, agreed that they would continue their programme to freeze surplus salmon production which the Norwegian industry had been funding since the beginning of 1990 and to take other measures to control what the Norwegians term "black sales"—sales outside their export sales organisation.
  The Norwegian measures had a welcome effect on the EC market for salmon—prices recovered during 1990 but they have since fallen back, and in recent weeks they have fallen back to the levels that caused the industry in 1989 to raise its anti-dumping case. So it seems clear enough that we face renewed instances of Norwegian dumping of farmed salmon into Europe.
  Officials of the fisheries department were in contact with the Commission throughout the early months of this year, and were present when the industry met the Commission in April to renew its protests about Norwegian dumping. We have pressed the Commission to take action, either with Norway or in respect of the EC market, to bring stability back to the market. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of that.
  That pressure has borne some fruit. Recent reports from Norway show that new steps have been taken to control supplies and future output. I understand that the Norwegian industry has reached agreement with a consortium of banks for a short-term loan facility of 1·6 billion kroner—about£145 million—to freeze up to 40,000 tonnes of fish this year. We also understand that action is in hand to destroy up to 20 million smolts this year, which would otherwise produce up to 40,000 tonnes of fish in 1993. These are very welcome steps which should ensure that we recover the balance between supply and demand for Atlantic salmon before too long.
  However, we recognise that, as long as a large quantity of frozen salmon remains available for sale, it will be very difficult to obtain a reasonable level of prices. We are also concerned at reports from our industry that the Norwegian minimum price system, and the Norwegian's efforts to stabilise the market, are being undermined by consignments of salmon entering France at prices that are quite inconsistent with the Norwegians' minimum price.
  Last week, therefore my, noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at the Scottish Office, arranged to meet the Norwegian ambassador, and expressed to him
  972
  very clearly our concern that the Norwegians' efforts to achieve market stability were proving ineffective, and that we were facing again evidence of dumping of Norwegian salmon in the European market. The ambassador was asked to convey to his Government our serious concern at these developments and our intention to follow them up through the European Commission.
  The hon. Lady mentioned research and development, but the figures that she gave did not tell the whole story. The Government are also carrying out work on the environmental aspects of fish farming, which will be of direct benefit to the industry. The industry has contributed over £1 million so far to fund research and development, as it should. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has provided up to £400,000 this year with the prospect of additional funding over the next two years. The Crown Estate has also contributed more than £300,000, those sums are additional to the figures that I recently provided for the hon. Lady in response to a series of written questions that she tabled.
  The current Government research and development programme reflects the change in emphasis from "production" projects, which formed the majority of expenditure in the early years and which have now transferred to industry, to a greater emphasis on disease and environmental work which is vital. The Government are funding work with the industry on alternatives to Aquagard to treat sea-lice infestation, and we have high hopes of the furunculosis vaccine which was developed by our scientists in Aberdeen.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the regulations covering the sending of smoked salmon through the post. I know that it is a matter of concern to her, and I can help her. The regulations have not been laid in Scotland, but following the representations that we have received, the English regulations will provide exemptions for smoked salmon being sent through the post. Research is currently being undertaken into the validity of the argument that it is necessary for smoked salmon to be sent in special containers which maintain a particular temperature. That particular difficulty has been averted and the Government were extremely grateful to the hon. Lady and to others for drawing it to our attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who I see is in his place, was especially helpful in drawing our attention to the difficulties that the industry would face.
  I assure the hon. Lady that, on the dumping issues, we shall continue to work in close co-operation with the industry. I understand that the Scottish Salmon Growers Association is currently collecting details of Norwegian trading activities and alleged breaches of the undertakings given. As soon as those have been received, we shall renew our contacts with the Commission and press to develop specific measures to restore stability in the EC market for salmon—and to do so without further delay. In the meantime, we are examining the options open to the Commission to safeguard the EC market.
  The future of the salmon farming industry is of great importance to the fragile economies of the north and west of Scotland, and the Government are well seized of the need for urgent and effective action to restore price stability in the European market. Achieving that stability will require action by the Commission and by the Norwegian authorities. We intend to work closely with the industry, and we shall make it abundantly clear to the Commission that we require action quickly.

  973
  The hon. Lady raised one further point about the policy on the provision of grants adopted by Highlands and Islands Enterprise towards particular small producers. That is not a matter that falls within my area of responsibility, but I am happy to give the hon. Lady an undertaking that I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to write to her tomorrow setting out the
  974
  position on the matter. I am sure that he will want to examine with Highlands and Islands Enterprise whether the hon. Lady's suggestions can be incorporated as part of its future policy.
  I hope that my remarks will reassure the hon. Lady that we are very much concerned about the problems that are arising from the dumping of salmon and that we will have no hesitation in working to ensure that they are resolved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the environmental assessment report on the proposed high-speed rail link; and if he will then publish it.

  Mr. Freeman
  The environmental assessment which British Rail has been carrying out of the safeguarded section between Cheriton and Upper Hailing may need revision, depending on the choice of a preferred route for the whole rail link. However, before embarking on the formal approval process for the rail link, British Rail intends to prepare and publish a full environmental statement for the complete route between the channel tunnel and London.

  Motorways (Litter)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has paid Warwickshire county council as its agent for clearing litter from the M6 in Warwickshire each year for the last five years.

  Mr. Chope
  Separate figures for litter clearance on the M6 in Warwickshire are not available. The amounts paid by the Department to Warwickshire county council for sweeping and cleansing, including litter clearance, on those stretches of the M6 in Warwickshire and the west midlands for which it is the Department's agents were:

  £

  1986–87

  28,665

  1987–88

  30,004

  1988–89

  1142,480

  1989–90

  97,194

  1990–91

  242,906

  1 Including £70,000 additional litter scavenges.

  2 Latest available figure.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has for ensuring value for money in payments made to his agents for clearing litter from motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  Agent authorities are required to expose litter clearing on motorways to competitive tendering in the same manner as their own highway work. Private sector agents let all this work by competiton.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for monitoring the application of the code of practice on litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  The application of the code to motorways is being monitored both by the Department of Transport and by its agents.

  Air Passenger Breathing Equipment
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Eurocae standard on passenger protective breathing equipment has now been published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Eurocae minimum operational performance specification for passenger protective breathing equipment (PPBE), document Eurocae ED-65, was approved for publication by the Eurocae Council on 30 April 1991. I understand that publication is expected by mid-July 1991.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on its policy on the use of smoke hoods by its staff when travelling by air.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am advised that the Civil Aviation Authority does not issue smoke hoods to its staff and has no policy concerning the use of smoke hoods by its staff when travelling by air. It is open to all individuals, including CAA staff, to buy a smoke hood for themselves if they so choose; but I understand that the smoke hoods currently on the market do not meet the CAA's specification for aircraft smoke hoods, being primarily designed for escape from fires in buildings.

  Planning Decisions, East London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce decisions on the extension of the runway at London City airport and the east London river crossing.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport expect to receive the inspector's report into the east London river crossing when he has completed it and to make decisions after they have considered it carefully. As regards London city airport, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) yesterday at col.393.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding London city airport planning application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have received a number of representations pressing for a speedy decision on the London city airport planning application.

  This decision is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson).

  Crash Cushions
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates the production of a British or equivalent European performance specification for roadside crash cushions, following the recent submission of a draft specification to the CEN 226 committee.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer Monday 24 June 1991]: Harmonised European standards covering terminology,

  417
  performance specification and impact testing procedures for vehicle safety restraint systems, including crash cushions, are now being prepared by working group 1 of CEN technical committee No. 226 ("Road Equipment").

  The current target date for the draft standards is December 1991 with the publication stage in late 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was discussed, and what agreements were reached, with other European Community ministers during his talks on 13 June with the ad hoc group on immigration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a question from my hon. Friend the member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 20 June 1991 at columns 242–43.

  Mr. Gordon Warren
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on when the review of the case of Mr. Gordon Warren will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the review has been completed and the matter is now under consideration by the commissioner.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase fines on airlines carrying asylum seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The level of the charge payable under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in respect of inadequately documented passengers is under review.

  Prisoners
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions prison inmates have been offered ex gratia payments if they would cease making allegations of improper treatment in prison and would undertake not to seek further publicity.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Payments are sometimes made, on legal advice in the normal course of litigation, in settlement of claims by prison inmates. In a few cases, the agreement to settle has been subject to an undertaking that the prisoner would not take any further legal proceedings on the claim or seek publicity about the terms of the settlement. Records are not kept of the number of cases in which "no publicity clauses" have been used, but they are believed to be rare, and their use is being reviewed.

  Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cancel the deportation notice issued against Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, allow him to 418
  remain in the United Kingdom with his wife and family, and release him from prison immediately; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The three advisers have now tendered their advice on Mr. Chahal's case. My right hon. Friend will give full and careful consideration to their recommendation and to all representations received on Mr. Chahal's behalf before deciding whether to make a deportation order. If it is decided to make a deportation order, Mr. Chahal will have a right of appeal against destination to the independent appellate authorities.

  Castington Youth Custody Centre
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed staff, other than night patrols and auxiliary officers, were in post at Castington youth custody centre when it commenced Fresh Start working in August 1987; and how many are currently in post.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of prison officers, including principal and senior officers and specialists, in post at Her Majesty's young offender institution Castington was 118 when it commenced "fresh start" working in August 1987. There are currently 136 officers in post.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional staff were due to be provided to Castington youth custody centre by April 1991 and April 1992, respectively; and what steps are being taken to meet their staffing requirements.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The target for the number of prison officers, including principal and senior officers and specialists, to be in post at Her Majesty's young offender institution Castington by 31 March 1991 was 136, an increase of three on the number of officers who were in post on 1 April 1990. This target was achieved. The current target staffing figure is 137 and during 1991–92 the area manager will be keeping this figure under review taking into account factors such as the work load of the establishment and the scope for achieving improvements in efficiency.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people are now imprisoned in Cardiff and Swansea prisons because no other appropriate accommodation is available to them; and how many young people are in prisons elsewhere in England and Wales for the same reason.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Friday 21 June, there were 61 males under the age of 21 at Swansea prison and 87 at Cardiff prison in remand centres which are separate from adult accommodation. Due to industrial action by prison officers at Cardiff, a further 45 young men were held in police cells in Gwent, South Wales and Avon and Somerset forces.

  On the same date, throughout England and Wales a total of 3,245 young men under the age of 21 who were remanded for further appearances or sentence by the courts were held in prison service establishments, of whom 1,188 were in local prisons.
  419
  Young female prisoners are not held in separate establishments and on 21 June there were a total of 108 young women in custody in prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Information on young persons in prison custody in other parts of the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Prison Service
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the latest available figures for the total numbers of people employed in the prison service broken down by(a) occupation and grade, (b) gender and (c) ethnic background;

  (2) what has been the percentage increase of (a) women and (b) ethnic minorities employed in the prison service between 1978 and the latest available figures broken down by occupation and grade.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: The available information is as follows:

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 3

  4

  2

  6

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  1

  Assistant Director

  6

  —

  6

  Grade 5

  8

  5

  13

  Governor 1

  39

  —

  39

  Grade 6

  17

  1

  18

  Governor 2

  63

  6

  69

  Grade 7

  85

  16

  101

  Governor 3

  96

  6

  102

  Governor 4

  289

  29

  318

  Governor 5

  370

  54

  424

  Governor 5 (works)

  52

  —

  52

  Governor 5 (catering)

  7

  —

  7

  Governor 5 (PE)

  8

  —

  8

  Governor 5 (hospital)

  12

  —

  12

  Principal Officer

  1,036

  36

  1,072

  Principal Officer (works)

  209

  1

  210

  Principal Officer (catering)

  47

  2

  49

  Principal Officer (PE)

  65

  1

  66

  Principal Officer (hospital)

  67

  —

  67

  Principal Officer (dog handler)

  2

  —

  2

  Principal Officer (instructor)

  7

  1

  8

  Senior Officer

  2,227

  83

  2,310

  SO (works)

  200

  1

  201

  SO (catering)

  92

  2

  94

  SO (PE)

  105

  5

  110

  SO (hospital)

  172

  1

  173

  SO (dog handler)

  20

  —

  20

  SO (instructor)

  42

  1

  53

  Prison Officer

  14,149

  1,341

  15,490

  Prison Officer (works)

  585

  7

  592

  Prison Officer (catering)

  360

  15

  375

  Prison Officer (PE)

  294

  16

  310

  Prison Officer (Hospital)

  626

  71

  697

  Prison Officer (Dog handler)

  332

  1

  333

  Prison Officer (Instructor)

  234

  4

  238

  Temporary Officer

  —

  25

  25

  Senior Executive Officer

  65

  13

  78

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  —

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  191

  118

  309

  Executive Officer

  277

  340

  617

  Administrative Officer

  560

  1,451

  2,011

  Administrative Assistant

  167

  585

  752

  Principal Medical Officer

  9

  3

  12

  Senior Medical Officer

  30

  4

  34

  Medical Officer

  71

  10

  81

  P/T Medical Officer

  111

  7

  118

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  115

  1

  116

  420

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  122

  2

  124

  Professional and Technical Officer

  58

  3

  61

  Senior Psychologist

  19

  23

  42

  Higher Psychologist

  2

  5

  7

  Psychologist

  12

  15

  27

  Psychological Assistant

  17

  19

  36

  Psychological Graduate Trainee

  —

  1

  1

  Chaplain General

  1

  —

  1

  Deputy Chaplain General

  1

  —

  1

  Assistant Chaplain General

  5

  —

  5

  Principal Roman Catholic Chaplain

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Roman Catholic Chaplain

  2

  —

  2

  Church of England Chaplain

  95

  1

  96

  P/T Church of England Chaplain

  23

  3

  26

  Roman Catholic Chaplain

  12

  —

  12

  P/T Roman/Catholic Chaplain

  84

  5

  89

  Chief Education Officer

  1

  —

  1

  Senior Principal Nursing Sister

  1

  —

  1

  Principal Nursing Sister

  —

  4

  4

  Senior Nursing Sister

  1

  22

  23

  Nursing Sister

  3

  78

  81

  Nursing Officer

  —

  5

  5

  Senior Enrolled Nurse

  —

  6

  6

  Enrolled Nurse

  5

  48

  53

  Sister (Midwife)

  —

  2

  2

  Nurse (Occupational Health)

  —

  1

  1

  Nursing Auxiliary

  —

  10

  10

  Head Pharmacist

  1

  —

  1

  Principal Pharmacist

  4

  4

  8

  Senior Pharmacist

  1

  —

  1

  Pharmacist

  —

  1

  1

  Staff Principal Pharmacist

  13

  —

  13

  Pharmacist Technician

  2

  13

  15

  Senior Farms and Gardens Officer

  2

  —

  2

  Farms and Gardens Officer

  4

  —

  4

  Farm Manager

  51

  —

  51

  Landscape Gardening Officer

  2

  —

  2

  Higher Instructional Officer

  30

  1

  31

  Instructional Officer

  970

  134

  1,104

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  7

  7

  Personal Secretary

  1

  150

  151

  Typing Manager

  —

  11

  11

  Typist

  —

  440

  440

  Auxiliary Officer

  1,052

  267

  1,319

  Night Patrol

  954

  82

  1,036

  Stores Officer grades

  19

  3

  22

  Storesperson

  448

  19

  467

  Assistant Storesperson

  136

  12

  148

  Support grades

  28

  206

  234

  Librarian

  —

  1

  1

  Tracer

  —

  1

  1

  Industrial staff

  2,744

  185

  2,929

  Total

  30,452

  6,056

  36,508

  Note: Figures including staff in the Directorate of Works and the Supply and Transport Branch, both of which perform some functions for other parts of the Home Office.

  A total of 16·6 per cent. of prison service staff are women. The proportion of female prison officers is 8·8 per cent., compared with 3·5 per cent. in 1978.

  Comparably detailed figures are not available in relation to ethnic background, because of an incomplete response by staff to voluntary monitoring, but it is estimated that fewer than 1 per cent. of the prison service unified grades are from the ethnic minorities. Efforts are being made to improve the response rate and to increase the number of members of the ethnic minorities recruited to the service.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to extend his policies to help homeless people in London and the South East to the rest of the country; and if he has any plans to make available grants to match money raised by local voluntary organisations to establish hotels for the homeless; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department is pursuing two initiatives to help homeless people in the particularly hard-pressed areas of London and the south-east: £96 million has been provided over three years to provide permanent and hostel accommodation and support for rough sleepers in central London; £300 million is available over two years to provide permanent housing for homeless families in London and the south-east. These special initiatives are additional to the Housing Corporations's special needs programme, which funds the provision of 3,000 places a year for homeless and other special needs. Under its hostels initiative the corporation has funded the provision of over 25,000 hostel places in the past 10 years. This year we have again doubled the amount available to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness to over £4·5 million.

  Caledonian Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given in the negotiations on the European Environment directive to the designation of areas of the ancient Caledonian forest as world heritage sites.

  Mr. Yeo
  Although the Secretary of State for the Environment takes the lead in matters concerning the world heritage convention, it is for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide which Scottish sites should be nominated for inclusion on the world heritage list. The draft EC directive on flora and fauna habitats lists in annex 1 the Caledonian forests as a type of habitat of Community interest.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there have been any shipments of hazardous waste to England for disposal that have not been reported under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has no information on this. Responsibility for enforcing the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations lies with disposal authorities. There is no requirement that they report any breaches of the regulations to my Department.

  Households
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the change in the numbers and proportions of households in shared occupation since 1981 in Greenwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham.
  422
  Mr. Yeo
  Up-to-date information on households in shared occupation in these areas will not be available until figures from the 1991 census of population are published next year.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the increase in the numbers of children in lone-parent households since 1981 in Greenwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham.

  Mr. Yeo
  Up-to-date information on the number of children in lone-parent households in these areas will not be available until results from the 1991 census of population are published next year. However, the Department's estimate of the numbers of lone-parent households, which are based on mid-year population estimates by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, are given in the following table.

  Lone-parent households

  Increase

  Mid 1981

  Mid 1989

  Increase

  Thousands

  Thousands

  thousands

  Per cent.

  Greenwich

  8·3

  10·6

  2·3

  28

  Wandsworth

  12·0

  15·1

  3·1

  26

  Lewisham

  10·6

  13·0

  2·4

  23

  East London Planning Decisions
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the reports of the inspectors considering the proposed extension of the runway at London City airport and the proposed east London river crossing; and when he expects to make decisions on these matters.

  Mr. Yeo
  As regards London city airport, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on Monday 24 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson),Official Report, column 393.

  As regards the east London river crossing, I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport expect to receive the inspector's report when he has completed it, and to make decisions on it after we have considered all the relevant matters carefully.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now ready to publish a timetable for legislation on waste disposal on land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today placed in the Library copies of our target timetable for implementation of legislation on waste disposal on land. This covers part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and now substantially completes our implementation plans for the Act as well as for the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. It should allow the local authorities sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements; I shall consult the local authority associations as to whether there are any detailed problems.

  This legislation brings a complete overhaul of the regulation of waste management. It provides opportunities

  423
  and responsibilities for all those concerned with waste management to contribute to a better environment for tomorrow.

  As I told the Select Committee on the Environment on 17 May, we are considering whether HMIP might be given responsibility for waste regulation as suggested in paragraph 18·17 of the Environment White Paper. Whatever the outcome, we need to make progress on the framework of the new regulatory system.

  The proposed timetable for implementing the new regulatory system is as follows:

  Waste Disposal Legislation Implementation Timetable

  Target Date

  Task

  Summer 1991

  Lay regulations and issue circular on the registration of waste carriers and seizure of vehicles. Waste regulatory authority powers to seize vehicles used for fly tipping come into effect.

  Consult on draft regulations to implement a duty of care of waste producers and holders.

  November 1991

  Issue circular and code of practice giving guidance on compliance with the duty of care. Lay regulations implementing duty of care.

  April 1992

  Duty of care regulations and provisions on the registered carrying of waste come into effect.

  Early summer 1992

  Consult of regulations and statutory guidance for the licensing of waste disposal.

  Summer 1992

  Consult on a scheme of charges for licensing.

  December 1992

  Lay regulations, announce charging scheme and statutory guidance, issue circular on licensing.

  April 1993

  Licensing regulations and charging scheme come into effect.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a further statement on the compensation he is giving to local authorities who release service personnel serving in the Gulf from their poll tax registration;

  (2) if he will make a statement on refunds from the Ministry of Defence to his Department in relation to service men returning from the Gulf.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 24 June 1991]: This Department issued further advice to local authorities on the community charge treatment of people serving in the Gulf and the reimbursement scheme on 16 May. A copy of this advice has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Gipsy sites in Wales on 16 January 1991

  Location

  Authorised

  Unauthorised

  Local authority

  Private

  CLWYD

  1

  2

  4

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  —

  (i) Deeside Industrial Park

  (ii) Dirty Mile, Buckley

  Colwyn

  —

  —

  —

  Delyn

  —

  (i) Milfords, Tyn yr Morfa, Gronant

  —

  (ii) Dee Banks, Bagillt

  Glyndwr

  —

  —

  —

WALES

  Travellers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the proposed itinerants' camp at the Gresford-Pulford bypass to meet residents to discuss plans to establish an itinerants' camp; and what representations he has received on this matter.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The proposal has been referred to my right hon. Friend for determination. It would not therefore be appropriate for him to visit the site or meet the local residents. They will however have the opportunity at the inspector's discretion, to express their views at the public local inquiry to be held on 16 July.

  My right hon. Friend has received 27 representations, one of which included a petition of 770 signatures and 22 letters, all opposed to the proposals.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers in full time employment with seven years experience are earning(a) £10,000 to £12,000, (b) £12,000 to £14,000, (c) £14,000 to £16,000, (d) £16,000 to £18,000, (e) £18,000 to £20,000, (f) £20,000 to £22,000, (g) £22,000 to £24,000 and (h) £24,000 to £26,000 per annum, or the nearest convenient salary breakpoints.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of teachers in full-time employment in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Wales with seven years' experience as at 31 March 1988 is given in the following table. Information for more recent years is not yet available.

  £ per annum

  Number1

  10,000–12,000

  400

  12,000–14,000

  141

  14,000–16,000

  89

  Over 16,000

  13

  TOTAL

  643

  1 Includes teachers with completed service of seven but less than eight years at 31 March 1988.

  Travellers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many existing sites there are; and in what locations there are itinerant camps in each of the counties of Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested, which has been provided by local planning authorities in Wales, is given in the following tables:
  425

  Location

  Authorised

  Unauthorised

  Local authority

  Private

  Rhuddlan

  —

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  Ruthin Road, Wrexham

  —

  (iii) Croesnewydd Road, Wrexham

  (iv) Alyn Waters Park, Llay

  DYFED

  6

  2

  6

  Carmarthen

  —

  —

  (i) A482 Cwmann Junction

  (ii) Old Alltycnap Road, Johnstown

  (iii) Cillefwr Industrial Estate (WDA land)

  Cerèdigion

  —

  —

  (iv) Layby, Ffostrasol

  (v) Quarry Villa, Gorsoch

  Dinefwr

  —

  (i) Pontrhyd y Bishell, Cwmgwili

  —

  (ii) Thornhill, Cwmgwili

  Lianelli

  (i) Morfa

  —

  —

  Preseli

  (ii) Under the Hills, Haverfordwest

  —

  —

  (iii) Withybush, Haverfordwest

  South Pembrokeshire

  (iv) Waterloo, Pembroke Dock

  —

  (vi) Kingswood Industrial site, Pembroke Dock

  Kingsmoor Common, Kilgetty

  Catshole Quarry

  GWENT

  2

  —

  4

  Blaenau Gwent

  (i) Cwmcrachen, Nantyglo

  —

  —

  Islwyn

  —

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  —

  —

  —

  Newport

  —

  —

  (i) Coldra, Newport

  (ii)Broad St. Common, Nash

  Torfaen

  (ii) Shepherds Hill, Pontypool

  —

  Upper Race, Pontypool (upper)

  (iv) Upper Race, Pontypool (lower)

  GWYNEDD

  1

  1

  —

  Aberconwy

  —

  —

  —

  Arfon

  Llandegai

  Bethesda

  —

  Dwyfor

  —

  —

  —

  Meirionnydd

  —

  —

  —

  Ynys Môn

  —

  —

  —

  MID GLAMORGAN

  1

  —

  2

  Cynon Valley

  —

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Glynmil, Merthyr

  —

  (i) Heolgerrig Road, Merthyr

  (ii) Cwmbargoed Road

  Ogwr

  —

  —

  —

  Rhondda

  —

  —

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  —

  —

  —

  Taff Ely

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  1

  —

  1

  Brecknock

  —

  —

  A40 layby near Sennybridge

  Montgomery

  Withybeds

  —

  —

  Radnor

  —

  —

  —

  SOUTH GLAMORGAN

  2

  —

  3

  Cardiff

  (i) Rover Way

  —

  (i) Turner's Yard, Grangetown

  (ii) Shirenewton

  (ii) Brindley Road, Leckwith

  (iii) Spring Meadow, Lamby Way

  Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  WEST GLAMORGAN

  3

  —

  14

  Lliw Valley

  —

  —

  (i) Rear of Alltywerin Road, Pontdardawe

  Neath

  (i) Briton Ferry Industrial Estate

  —

  (ii) Briton Ferry, Industrial Estate

  (iii) Site adjacent to above

  Port Talbot

  (ii) Caegarw, Margam

  —

  —

  426 427

  Location

  Authorised

  Unauthorised

  Local authority

  Private

  Swansea

  (iii) Pantyblawd

  —

  (iv) Jersey Road, Bonymaen

  (v) Morris Bros. Depot, Bonymaen

  (vi) Morris Bros. Depot (rear), Bonymaen

  (vii) Waunarlwydd

  (viii) Ffordd Cynone, Fforestfach

  (ix) Smiths Crisps, Fforestfach

  (x) Enterprise Zone, Fforestfach

  (xi) Near Hilton Hotel, Morrision, Enterprise Zone

  (xii) Slip road, Morganite, Enterprise Zone

  (xiii) Above official Pantyblawd site

  (xiv) Below official Pantyblawd site

  WALES

  17

  5

  34

  Education (Special Needs)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the last 10 years, and for each local education authority area in Wales, the number of statements of special educational need issued, separately distinguishing between primary and secondary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of children for whom statements of special educational need were made for the first time are given in the following table. Information on the number of new statements issued is not available by sector nor for years prior to 1986.

  Calendar year

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  377

  187

  213

  264

  318

  Dyfed

  160

  104

  121

  193

  225

  Gwent

  272

  235

  463

  338

  402

  Gwynedd

  80

  70

  99

  133

  130

  Mid Glamorgan

  537

  575

  643

  543

  490

  Powys

  17

  16

  30

  78

  120

  South Glamorgan

  217

  201

  174

  243

  184

  West Glamorgan

  274

  234

  304

  307

  358

  £ thousands

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  INSET

  ESG

  INSET

  ESG

  INSET

  ESG

  Clwyd

  26·7

  16·9

  95·9

  54·5

  195·6

  57·1

  Dyfed

  38·9

  17·3

  128·6

  56·1

  246·7

  58·8

  Gwent

  19·6

  17·1

  200·2

  55·3

  452·0

  57·9

  Gwynedd

  56·3

  15·7

  124·6

  49·2

  192·3

  51·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  30·1

  18·3

  153·6

  48·8

  310·4

  63·7

  Powys

  12·8

  14·4

  65·5

  43·4

  143·5

  45·5

  South Glamorgan

  20·2

  16·1

  138·1

  50·9

  229·0

  53·3

  West Glamorgan

  18·6

  16·2

  93·5

  51·3

  206·5

  53·7

  WJEC

  —

  28·0

  —

  88·5

  —

  92·7

  TOTAL

  223·2

  160·0

  1,000·0

  498·0

  1,976·0

  534·2

  INSET—In-service training grant.

  ESG—Education support grant.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified teachers of Welsh at (i) primary and (ii) secondary level there were in(a) 1988 and (b) the latest date available; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of qualified Welsh teachers at primary and secondary schools is available from a range of tables presented in the 1987
  428
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the most recently available date and for each local education authority, the number of applications for statements of special educational need that are still pending; and if he will identify the mean, median and mode of waiting times for those applications.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent by each local education authority in Wales in each year since 1989 on teacher training courses for Welsh in the national curriculum

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The total amount which local education authorities spend on training for Welsh language teaching is not collected centrally. However, we have approved the following levels of expenditure for specific grants in support of local education authority training of teachers in Welsh.

  primary school staffing survey and the 1989 secondary school staffing survey, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  (i) Primary level

  Information about teachers who teach Welsh as a subject is not held centrally but the number of primary school teachers with a qualification in Welsh is as follows:
  429

  Subject of qualification1

  Number of teachers

  Welsh

  2,300

  Teaching Welsh as a second language

  400

  1 Main/subsidiary/related subject qualification.

  (ii) Secondary level

  In secondary schools the qualifications of teachers who teach Welsh as a subject are as follows:

  Subject

  Main/subsidiary subject1 per cent.

  No qualification per cent.

  Number of teachers

  Welsh as a first language

  83·1

  16·9

  300

  Welsh as a second language

  69·9

  30·1

  600

  1 Main/subsidiary/related subject qualification.

  In order to increase the supply of teachers of the language in secondary schools, Welsh has been added to the list of shortage subjects for which a bursary of £1,500 is paid to students on initial teacher training courses. As part of the monitoring of the national curriculum, schools will be supplying the Department with information about the number of qualified teachers capable of teaching Welsh in the classroom. The Department is also shortly to consult with interested groups on a limited survey of staff in primary schools in 1992.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Alex Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will carry out an epidemiological survey into the incidence of myalgic encephalomyelitis in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is not a clearly defined disease. Diagnosis rests upon identification of a cluster of symptoms for which there is no diagnostic test. The views of doctors vary widely about diagnosis and treatment, there could be no agreed case definition, and it would thus not be practicable to collect data for an epidemiological study.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the time it will take before the radioactive products from the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl will be reduced to a level to permit normal hill farming to resume.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is not possible to estimate how long radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident will require those hill farms within the restricted area in Wales to remain subject to controls on the sale and movement of their sheep. Our "mark and release" arrangements and associated compensation payments are designed to ensure minimum disruption to normal farming practices.

  Following an intensive monitoring programme my right hon. Friend was able to announce in January this year the lifting of controls from an area near Harlech in Gwynedd. We are continuing with our monitoring and assessment programmes in the remaining restricted area with a view to lifting controls as soon as it is possible to do so without comprising food safety.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate for 1991–92(a) the level of median weekly earnings for all full-time adult employees and (b) median hourly earnings for part-time employees.

  Mr. Jackson
  The results of the NES 1991 survey will begin to be published on 26 September 1991 and publication will be complete by the end of this year. The estimates called for in the question are, therefore, not yet available.

  Company Debts
  Mr. Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to require all registered companies in Britain to meet their debts within six weeks of those debts being invoiced.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The existing legal framework already provides avenues to pursue commercial debt. Rather than add to the burden of legislation, much can be achieved to speed up payments by the education of both suppliers and providers. To this end, the Government will be launching, later this year, a revision of the booklet for suppliers, "Prompt Payment Please", and a new booklet aimed at larger purchasing organisations.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  International Tropical Timber Organisation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that the United Kingdom Government only approves activities of the International Tropical Timber Organisation which incorporate strict environmental safeguards.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following the International Tropical Timber Organisation's bi-annual meeting in Quito—28 May to 7 June 1991—independent consultants will be appointed to draft a manual on project preparation for the International Tropical Timber Organisation. The consultant's terms of reference will include making proposals to take full account of environmental impacts of projects. The British Government called for and fully support these and other reforms in the International Tropical Timber Organisation's project cycle.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the capital disregard for housing benefit would be if it had been uprated in real terms since 1988.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Based on a rise in the retail prices index of 25·8 per cent. between April 1988 and April 1991, the level at or below which capital is disregarded would now be £3,774.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of restoring to its real term 1988 value the £3,000 capital disregard for housing benefit.
  431
  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available estimates suggest that the cost in 1991–92 would be around £20 million.Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986, 1987 and 1988 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of changing the rules on tariff income on capital disregards for housing benefit to assume £1 of income from every £500 above the lower limit; and if he has any plans to do so.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available estimates suggest that the cost in 1991–92 would be around £60 million. We have no plans to change the rules in housing benefit or any of the other income-related benefits.Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986, 1987 and 1988 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the dates and areas in the United Kingdom in which the temperature averaged 0 deg C. or below for a period of seven days between 1 November 1990 and 30 April 1991.

  Net income at which entitlement to community charge benefit ceases

  Average Community charge

  Average Weekly Charge

  Maximum 80 per cent. Benefit

  Single Under 25

  Single Over 25

  Pensioner Couple 60–74

  Pensioner Couple 75–79

  Pensioner Couple 80

  Single Parent Child U/11

  Couple 2 Children U/11

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  England

  214·00

  4·09

  3·27

  57·98

  66·48

  126·81

  129·26

  132·11

  117·83

  150·56

  Scotland

  241·00

  4·61

  3·69

  60·73

  69·23

  132·32

  134·77

  137·62

  120·58

  156·07

  Wales

  92·00

  1·76

  1·41

  45·53

  54·03

  101·92

  104·37

  107·22

  105 38

  125·67

  Notes:

  1. The average community charge figures for England, Scotland and Wales take account of the £140 reduction in charge levels and also of the effect of the Community Charge Reduction Schemes (CCRS).

  2. The effect of the Community Charge Reduction Schemes (CCRS) on the average community charges for England, Scotland and Wales is based on Budget estimates of projected CCRS spending and not on actual subsidy returns, since these are not yet available.

  3. An average community charge figure taking account of CCRS is currently not available for inner London. This is because the Budget estimates of CCRS spending are "modelled" on an England wide basis. A figure will become available once subsidy returns are analysed.

  4. The average community charge figure for England takes account of charge substitution.

  Local Authority Housing (Transfers)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether residents of former local authority part III homes, which are transferred to the private or voluntary sectors, are eligible for the higher levels of income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Local authorities in England and Wales have a duty under the National Assistance Act 1948 to arrange for the provision of residential accommodation for those in need. They can exercise this by providing accommodation in their own homes or by arranging accommodation in an independent home. In either case, the local authority meets the full cost of the accommodation and care. Similar arrangements apply in Scotland.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health, for Scotland and for Wales, and I are fully committed to the principles of community care as outlined in the White Paper "Caring for People" (Cm. 849) and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. These include encouraging local authorities to act as enablers rather than providers and to promote and stimulate the development of the independent and voluntary sectors in the provision of care.
  432
  Mr. Scott
  Information on weather station seven-day mean temperatures is held in the Library for the period 1 November 1990 to 11 April 1991. Information after 11 April is not available. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the lion. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey,Official Report, 1 May 1991, columns 249–50, if he will publish a similar table showing the net income at which community charge benefit runs out taking account of the community charge reduction scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  We are aware, however, that some local authorities may have sought to dispose of some or all of their residential homes to the private or voluntary sector in order to enable the residents to qualify under present regulations for the higher level of income support and so to reduce financial support by the local authority. While the Government favour a mixed economy in the provision of care, the balance between voluntary, private and public ownership should be determined by the long-term needs of those needing care rather than by short-term financial considerations.

  We therefore intend to introduce as soon as possible amending regulations regarding entitlement to income support in such cases. They will make it clear that the benefit position for existing residents who continue to receive residential care under arrangements made by their local authority remains unchanged by a transfer of ownership.

  I understand that at the same time as these regulations come into force, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health, for Scotland and for Wales also intend to issue directions to local authorities to make clear the status of residents in a home which is transferred to private ownership by a local authority.
  433
  The draft regulations that I have outlined will shortly be considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is our intention that they will take effect at the earliest possible date.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the goods and services which he assesses correspond with the European Community's social or cultural objectives so as to make them eligible for a reduced or zero rate of VAT should the Council of Ministers' proposals to approximate rates of VAT applied by members of the Community be adopted.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  On Friday 21 June I placed in the Library my letter of 19 June to the honourable Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to which was attached a note summarising the previous proposals for the approximation of indirect taxes and the compromise proposals to be presented by the Luxembourg Presidency to ECOFIN on 24 June and an annex giving full details of the Presidency proposals.

  These attachments include the list of essential products and goods and services "which correspond to social or cultural policy objectives" which was agreed as a basis for discussion at ECOFIN on 18 March.

  However, the list itself is to be defined more closely, and it is not therefore possible to give a list of the items which might fall under it.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has received from European Community Finance Ministers for the closer approximation of VAT rates and excise duties from January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 24 June, at column 374.

  Tax-exempt Special Savings Accounts
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the take-up of TESSAs so far.

  Mr. Maude
  TESSA has made a highly successful start. In its first three months, to 31 March this year, over 2 million people invested more than £5 billion in TESSAs.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, with regard to the uniform business rate, for each local authority in England and Wales for the financial year 1990–91,(a) the number of appeals that were lodged against its level, (b) the number of appeals that have been heard, separately distinguishing the successful and unsuccessful, (c) the number of appeals that have not yet been heard, (d) the shortest time in days that elapsed between the lodging of an appeal and the decision, (e) the longest time in days that elapsed between
  434
  the lodging of an appeal and the decision and (f) the longest time in days to date between the lodging of an appeal and the actual hearing which is yet to take place.

  Mr. Maples
  The information required could not be provided in the format requested without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  Nationally some 705,000 appeals had been received by 31 May 1991. About 45,000 of these have been settled—256 at hearings. The arrangements and timing of appeal hearings are the responsibility of the valuation and community tribunal, part of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of takeovers by overseas companies in the United Kingdom for the latest convenient period: and what was the corresponding figure for overseas takeovers by United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Maples
  The latest information was published in CSO Business Bulletin 23/91, "Cross-border Acquisitions and Mergers" (Fourth Quarter 1990). Information up to the first quarter 1991 will be published on 28 June.

  Monetary Policy
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to relax monetary policy; and what representations he has had to the effect that it is currently over-tight.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on monetary policy. Interest rates will continue to be set at the level needed to keep sterling within its ERM bands and to bear down on inflation.

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects that the results of the family expenditure survey for 1990 will be available.

  Mr. Maples
  It is expected that the report on the 1990 Family Expenditure Survey will be published in November 1991.

  Building Industry
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the construction and building industry regarding the recession and high interest rates.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Luxembourg on 24 June. I represented the United Kingdom.
  435
  Following the meetings on 3 June and 10 June, the Council again discussed the presidency's proposals for the future of VAT and excise duties in the single market. Agreement was reached, subject to Parliament's views, on a set of Council conclusions. The main points are as follows.

  On VAT, all member states declared that they will apply a standard VAT rate of 15 per cent. or more from 1 January 1993. The other member states said that this political declaration should be translated into a directive. I made it clear that the United Kingdom does not believe that a directive is necessary. Statements were made in the minutes of the Council, reflecting these points of view. I also reiterated that the Government have no present intention of making any change to the current United Kingdom rate of 17·5 per cent.

  Agreement was also reached on the key aspects of the VAT regime which will enable fiscal frontiers to be abolished after 1992.

  There was acceptance in principle of a move at the end of 1996 to the origin system, under which the VAT rate applied to goods and services is that of the country in which they are produced, rather than where they are sold; but this would require a unanimous decision by the Council.

  The agreement provides for the retention of all United Kingdom zero rates during the period before any move to the origin system, without prejudice to what happens thereafter.

  It was also agreed that member states should have the option of applying one or two reduced rates, not lower than 5 per cent. The United Kindom Government have no present intention of introducing reduced rates.

  On excises, agreement was reached on specific minimum rates for petrol, derv, heavy fuel oil, beer and cigarettes. It was agreed that these would be reflected in a directive in due course. The rates agreed are shown in the table.

  Excise Duties: Minimum rates in ECUS

  Minimum rate agreed (ecus)

  Leaded petrol(1,000 litres)

  337

  Unleaded petrol (1,000 litres)

  287

  Diesel (1,000 litres)

  245

  Heavy fuel oil (1,000 kg)

  13

  Cigarettes (specific plus ad valorem duties, but excluding VAT)

  57 per cent. of retail price (including tax) of cigarettes in the most popular price category1

  Beer (hl of end product)

  21·87

  1 Specific duty element to be between 5 and 55 per cent. of total duty.

  2 Per degree of alcohol.

  None of these requires any change in United Kingdom rates of excise duty.

  A provisional agreement was reached on a zero rate for wine, heating kerosene and heating gas oil, pending a further report from the Commission on whether a satisfactory control system could be operated in the absence of a positive rate for these products.

  Agreement was also reached that rules will be devised to distinguish between commercial and private alcohol and tobacco transactions, which will include minimum indicative levels above which the transactions will be taken
  436
  to mean, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they are of a commercial nature. A directive to cover these will be brought forward to accompany the directive on minimum rates of excise duties.

  There was no agreement on a minimum rate for spirits. With a nil rate proposed for wine, the proposed rate for spirits would have worsened the current discrimination against, for example, Scotch whisky exports. I argued strongly that this was not acceptable, and secured agreement that the Commission's report should be extended to cover possible distortions in the drinks market. The minimum rate for spirits was therefore left to be decided later on the basis of that report.

  I believe that this is a very good agreement for both the United Kingdom and the Community. For the United Kingdom it fully safeguards our zero rates; it will not require us to change any of our tax rates; it will not prevent future Governments and Parliaments from taking a different view about VAT if they want to; and it shows quite clearly that our Community partners have recognised our concerns. For the Community it provides Governments and businesses with the assurances needed to plan for the abolition of all fiscal frontiers from 1 January 1993.

  Full details of the Council conclusions will be deposited in the Library of the House as soon as they are received.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers (Advice)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's scale of charges to farmers seeking advice or assistance.

  Mr. Curry
  Advice to farmers and growers from the Department is provided principally by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. There is no generalised scale of charges. Contracts and services are largely tailored to the needs of individual clients and priced accordingly. A published price list would not be appropriate.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his review of the set-aside scheme; and if he will make a statement on his proposals for one-year set-aside.

  Mr. Curry
  A review of the EC five-year set-aside scheme is due to be carried out by the Commission before 1993. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) for details of the one-year set-aside scheme—Official Report, 18 June 1991, c. 125.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the time period it will take before the radioactive products from ithe accident at Chernobyl will be reduced to a level to permit the return of normal hill farming in the areas affected.

  Mr. Curry
  We were able to reduce the size of the Cumbria post-Chernobyl restricted area at the beginning of this year. Monitoring and research continue with a view
  437
  to making further reductions just as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising the safety of the food chain.

  It is not possible to say when the last of the restrictions will be lifted. However, the "mark and release" and associated compensation arrangements are designed to impose the minimum possible disruption of normal farming practices.

HEALTH

  Psychiatry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority(a) the increase or (b) the decrease in hospital bed provision for old age psychiatry for the 12 months ended 31 March.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested in respect of NHS hospitals is given in the table. Health authorities and other statutory agencies also support substantial numbers of elderly mentally ill people in private nursing and residential homes. Further details about NHS bed availability are contained in the Department's annual publication "Summary of Bed Availability", copies of which are available in the Library. March 1990 is the latest date for which this information is held centrally. Details of the number of patients in private nursing and residential homes who are receiving support from the public sector are not collected centrally.

  Average number of beds available daily in mental illness wards designated for elderly patients

  Year ending March

  Region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Percentage change1

  Northern

  2,057

  2,105

  +2

  Yorkshire

  2,051

  1,802

  -12

  Trent

  2,631

  2,523

  -4

  East Anglian

  1,048

  992

  -5

  North West Thames

  2,454

  2,304

  -6

  North East Thames

  1,963

  1,962

  —

  South East Thames

  2,113

  1,959

  -7

  South West Thames

  1,091

  1,087

  —

  Wessex

  1,337

  1,336

  —

  Oxford

  754

  761

  +1

  South Western

  1,544

  1,528

  -1

  West Midlands

  2,357

  2,348

  -0·4

  Mersey

  1,693

  1,448

  -14

  North Western

  2,162

  2,126

  -2

  Special Health Authorities

  31

  32

  —

  England

  25,287

  24,313

  -4

  Source: KH03/SM12.

  1 No change.

  Long-stay Patients
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the current balance of moneys held by hospitals on behalf of long-stay patients; what advice he intends to give to health authorities to ensure that current practice in handling these moneys will be adopted by directly managed units and by national health service trusts; and if he will outline the reasons for the changes in accumulated balances over recent years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The balance at 31 March 1991 was estimated at £63·4 million, this being the first significant 438
  decrease in balances which had previously risen from £66·1 million in 1988 to £67·8 million in 1990. The Department proposes to write to health authorities and NHS trusts to ensure that both directly managed units and NHS trusts observe good practice and take steps to secure further reduction in the level of the balances. The recent reduction in the level of accumulated balances is attributed to action taken by the NHS management executive in October 1990.

  Core Services
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will treat the provision of obstetric services and emergency casualty services as core services to be provided by NHS trust hospitals;

  (2) if he will list those core services to be provided by NHS trust hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not the Government's policy to designate such services centrally. District health authorities are responsible for assessing the health needs of their local population and contracting for health services. NHS trusts largely depend on these contracts for their income. Thus it is unlikely that an NHS trust would refuse to provide a service for which there was a local demand. If such a situation did arise, involving a service which needed to be provided locally, and which could not be provided elsewhere, that trust would be directed to provide the designated service.

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters and other representations he has received regarding direct payments by local authorities to severely disabled people to make their own personal assistance arrangements.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a small number of representations regarding direct payments by local authorities.

  Polyscythaemia
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is any evidence of connections between the disease polyscythaemia and the nuclear industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is not aware of any epidemiological studies which suggest a link between Polycythaemia rubra vera and the nuclear industry.

  Children's Care
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were in care in each Inner London borough in 1981 and at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows numbers of children in care in 1981 and in 1990, the latest date for which figures are generally available. Where figures are not available for these years, the most recent year's return has been quoted and the year of the return shown in brackets.

  Data for 1990 are provisional.
  439

  Numbers of Children in care at 31 March—Inner London boroughs

  Inner London

  1981 Numbers in care

  1990 Numbers in care

  Camden

  379

  338 (1988)

  Greenwich

  567

  387 (1989)

  Hackney

  1,008

  759 (1987)

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  596

  237

  Islington

  769 (1979)

  769 (1979)

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  454

  199

  Lambeth

  1,337

  670

  Lewisham

  877

  587 (1985)

  Southwark

  1,148

  654 (1988)

  Tower Hamlets

  915 (1980)

  390

  Wandsworth

  997

  421

  City of Westminster

  537

  261

  City of London

  8

  4

  Research Ethics Committees
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will issue guidance on the membership and duties of research ethics committees.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We hope to issue this guidance shortly.

  Census
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the enumeration of the population of Great Britain in the 1991 census.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Registrar General for England and Wales and the Registrar General for Scotland have reported to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that, thanks to a good response from the public and good work by census field staff, the enumeration has gone well over the country as a whole. Initially, census staff were not able to contact around 410,000 households, mainly in city areas; but by the end of May many households had responded to a request to post in their forms to the local census manager and only some 160,000 cases remained unresolved, representing about 0·8 per cent. of all households. Action to reduce this number is continuing, including sending a further request to around 10,000 relevant households in those census districts with the highest proportions of households from whom a form has not yet been received.

  A preliminary count of the population present on census day, 21 April, in each local authority district will be published in July in preliminary reports for England and Wales and for Scotland.

  RHA Chairmen
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement about the appointment of regional health authority chairmen from 1 August.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The terms of office of two of the 14 regional health authority chairmen expire on 31 July 1991. I have made one new appointment and one reappointment. The new chairman of the South East Thames regional health authority is Mr. Peter Barker presently chairman of the Lewisham and North Southwark health authority. He has been appointed for three years and succeeds Sir Peter Baldwin who has served with distinction since 1983.
  440
  Sir Colin Walker, chairman of the East Anglian regional health authority, has accepted my invitation to serve for a further term of four years.

  Local Authority Homes (Transfers)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the local authorities' continuing responsibilities for residents of former local authority part III homes which are transferred to the private or voluntary sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced today, the Government, while wishing to encourage a mixed economy in the provision of care, are taking steps to clarify the status of residents in homes transferred to the private or voluntary sector by local authorities. Residents in a home at the time of transfer will continue to be the responsibility of the local authority, as long as they remain in the home.

  After consulting local authority interests I intend to issue directions under section 21(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948 and under paragraph 2 of schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 to make it clear that the status of residents in a home which is transferred to private ownership by a local authority will remain unchanged by the transfer, in that the full cost of the accommodation and care will continue to be the responsibility of the local authority which placed them there subject to the relevant charging provisions. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland intend to issue similar directions.

  It is our intention that the directions will take effect at the same time as the regulations announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by his Department in funding research on myalgic encephalomyelitis since 15 October 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is not directly funding any research on myalgic encephalomyelitis at present, but the Medical Research Council is funding a study at the Institute of Psychiatry which is to investigate chronic fatigue, another term used for ME, in general practitioners' attenders. The MRC and the Department are always willing to consider sympathetically soundly based research proposals in competition with other applications.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis by way of special dietary supplement is available on the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Treatment in individual cases is a matter for the clinician who is treating the patient. Dietary supplements are not normally prescribed under the national health service, but certain nutritional products can be prescribed where necessary for the treatment of a condition.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued by the chief medical officers to individuals living in close proximity to flowering crops of oil seed rape.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No such guidance is issued, and there are no plans to do so. Treatment for allergy is a matter for discussion between the patient and his or her clinician.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any evidence of potentially adverse effects on the health of individuals who live or work in the vicinity of flowering crops of oil seed rape during the months of May and June.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Some individuals may be allergic to the pollen and other products of oil seed rape, as they are to other crops and plants. There is no conclusive evidence of increases in allergic conditions in vicinities where this crop is cultivated.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report any occupational health studies current, planned or in progress to determine whether flowering crops of oil seed rape cause adverse health effects on those who live or work near fields planted with the crop.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have given financial support for a project based at Aberdeen university examining the possible effects on public health which might be associated with oil seed rape. The results of this study will not be known for some time.

  Insulin
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) of 23 May,Official Report, columns 595–6, when he expects discussions about the supply of insulin injectors to be completed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I cannot give an estimate of when the present discussions on making pen systems and needles available on prescription will be completed. The pricing and cost implications of various systems and other technical matters need to be resolved before a decision can be reached.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations he has invited to comment on the Green Paper, "The Health of the Nation."

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  More than 7,000 copies of "The Health of the Nation" have been distributed as part of the consultation process. NHS management and staff, the health professions, patients' organisations, the independent health care sector, employers' and employees' organisations and local authorities have been invited to comment. The views of some 200 voluntary organisations have also been sought.

  Registered Homes Act
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to disqualify any person whose registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984 has been cancelled from being registered under the Act.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so. There are various grounds on which registration in respect of a home may be cancelled. They include not only the fitness of the person carrying on the home, but also the adequacy of the accommodation or facilities provided, and of any staffing arrangements. It does not necessarily follow that a person whose registration has been cancelled will never again be fit to run a home of any size or type. The earlier cancellation of registration would, however, be one of the factors which a registration authority would want to take into account when considering whether any later application for registration should be granted.

  Food Premises
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list all the organisations that responded to the consultation concerning the draft regulations on the registration of food premises under the Food Safety Act 1990; and which organisations were in favour;

  (2) if he will identify the main issues of concern raised by organisations consulted about the registration of food premises under the Food Safety Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A list of those who responded to the consultation exercise has been placed in the Library. The issue which caused most comment was which premises should be covered by the regulations.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he can identify the different categories of food premises it is intended that local authorities will be obliged to register under the Food Safety Act 1990; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give estimates for the number of premises likely to be identified in each category of premises that will be registered under the Food Safety Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The draft regulations propose that premises used for a food business for five or more consecutive days, or for eight or more days in any four consecutive weeks, should be registered. They propose an exemption for two main groups of premises; for those already registered or licensed under food legislation and those which local authority officers would not need to include in their regular inspection programmes. Information on the number of premises in each category is not available centrally.

  NHS Spending (Cornwall)
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much expenditure on the national health service has increased in real and cash terms since May 1979 in the Cornwall health authority area and the East Cornwall overlap part of the Plymouth health area; and what are the figures when expressed as expenditure per head of population.
  443
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 10 June 1991]: The annual accounts of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority and those of its predecessor area health authority record total revenue expenditure of £29·11 million (cash) for 1978–79 and £98·58 million cash for 1989–90. Those figures represent increases of 238·7 per cent. in cash terms and 44·7 per cent. in real terms, measured at 1989–90 prices.

  Expressed as average expenditure per head of resident population the figures equate to £70 (cash) per head for 1978–79 and £212 (cash) per head for 1989–90 representing cash and real-terms increases of 202·9 per cent. and 29·3 per cent., respectively.

  Expenditure data for part of health districts are not collected centrally and prior to 1 April 1982 the Plymouth health authority's predecessor health district was included in the larger Devon area health authority. However, for Devon as a whole the annual accounts of the relevant health authorities record total revenue expenditure averaging £89 (cash) per head of resident population for 1978–79 and £271 (cash) for 1989–90 representing cash and real-terms increases of 204·5 per cent. and 30·3 per cent.

  Figures of expenditure per head of resident population tend to vary between individual authorities reflecting patterns of local service provision and the fact that people travel across authority boundaries for treatment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a date has yet been set for a debate in the United Nations on the resolution on Burma which was co-sponsored by the United Kingdom last November; and what the motion includes on trade sanctions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The resolution is expected to be reconsidered in the course of debate at the 46th United National General Assembly in New York this autumn. The General Assembly works through a pre-set agenda rather than setting precise dates for each debate. The resolution does not refer to trade sanctions.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the European Community has taken in response to the violation of human and political rights in Burma.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The EC suspended all bilateral aid to Burma in 1988. EC countries also refrain from selling military equipment to Burma, and are discussing our proposal for a formal embargo.

  Frequent representations have been made to the Burmese: this year EC statements were issued on 4 January and 27 May, and the joint declaration from the EC-ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on 30–31 May included a reference to Burma.

  Soviet Research Ship
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons for banning the Soviet research ship Akademick Boris Petrov from British waters.
  444
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Certain elements of the research programme were unacceptable, particularly regarding research in United Kingdom internal waters and in areas where our defence and security interests may be affected.

  Environmental Modification Techniques
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet the United Nations Secretary General to discuss the strengthening of the 1977 United Nations convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to meet the United Nations Secretary General to discuss the 1977 United Nations convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to press for an early review conference on the 1977 United Nations convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom will be sending representatives in a personal capacity to the Canadian conference of experts on the use of the environment as a weapon of war on 10–12 July. This meeting is likely to discuss, inter alia, the 1977 UN convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to propose the establishment of a consultative committee under the 1977 United Nations convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques to investigate the environmental destruction in the Gulf region.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no such plans.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with other signatory states of the 1977 United Nations convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, concerning the possibilities of strengthening the regulations of the convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no such consultations. UK experts will attend, in a personal capacity, the forthcoming Canadian conference of experts on the use of the environment as a weapon of war which we expect is likely to discuss, inter alia, the 1977 UN convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

  Kurds
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what military equipment will be deployed by the United Nations forces to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq.
  445
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UN security guards will be equipped to carry out their mandate.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees of protection have been provided by Her Majesty's Government to the Kurdish population of northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made it clear publicly and to the Kurdish leadership that the deployment of allied forces in northern Iraq was intended as a temporary measure to meet an urgent and overwhelming humanitarian need. We have also made clear that it is our intention to withdraw our forces from Iraq in conditions which will encourage those living in the areas of northern Iraq at present under the control of allied forces to remain.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees of protection were offered by Her Majesty's Government to Kurdish refugees to encourage them to come down from the mountainous regions of northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Allied forces were deployed to northern Iraq to encourage the refugees to come down from the mountains to places where humanitarian relief could be provided effectively and in safety. The operation has succeeded in that objective.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has as to the presence of Iraqi Government agents in the camps of the Kurdish people currently under the protection of United Kingdom forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of reports that Iraqi Government agents may be present in the area of northern Iraq presently controlled by the allied forces.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many military personnel will comprise the United Nations force envisaged for the protection of the Kurds in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations intends to deploy by mid-July 500 security guards throughout Iraq to complement the UN relief effort.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment of the likelihood of the return of the Kurds to the mountainous areas of northern Iraq once United Kingdom and United States forces have withdrawn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We intend that the withdrawal of the allied forces should be completed in conditions which will enable those living in the area at present controlled by allied forces to remain.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances have been received by his Department from the Iraqi authorities that further military action will not be conducted against the Kurdish population after United Kingdom and United States forces have withdrawn from northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and other members of the Security Council have made clear to Iraq the serious consequences of a renewal of its repression of its civilian population. We expect Iraq to continue to comply with Security Council resolution 688.
  446
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to offer individual guarantees of protection to Kurds who have assisted United Kingdom forces during the course of their presence in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is our intention that the allied forces should withdraw from Iraq in conditions which will encourage those living in the area at present under the control of allied forces to remain.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the information provided by Kurdish refugees to United Kingdom armed forces during their presence in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We take full account of all information reaching us on the situation in Iraq.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the prevention of further military action by the Iraqi armed forced against its Kurdish population.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Security Council resolution 688 calls on Iraq to end its repression of its civilian population. We expect Iraq to continue to comply with that resolution. We have made clear to Iraq the serious consequences of a repression of its civilian population.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of his policy on what guarantees of protection will be provided by Her Majesty's Government to the Kurdish population of northern Iraq once United Kingdom forces have been withdrawn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is our intention that allied forces should withdraw from Iraq in conditions which will encourage those living in the area of northern Iraq at present controlled by allied forces to remain.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the deployment of United Kingdom forces to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The deployment of allied forces to establish safe havens in northern Iraq was always intended as a temporary measure to meet an urgent and overwhelming humanitarian need. Latest reports show that the immediate humanitarian need has been largely met. Those forces whose task is complete are being withdrawn. But no date has been fixed for the complete withdrawal of allied forces which we intend should take place in conditions which will encourage those living in the area now controlled by allied forces to remain.

  Iraq
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the future safety of Iraqi refugees living in camps outside the safe havens.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We expect Iraq to continue to comply with Security Council resolution 688, which calls for an end to Iraq's repression of its civilian population. We would take the gravest view of any renewal of systematic repression.
  447
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the present level of food stocks in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 15 May the UN published a comprehensive report on the situation in Iraq. This report is available in the Library of the House. The United Nations Secretary-General's executive delegate, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, will lead a multi-agency team to Iraq to reassess the situation in early July.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the potential risks of epidemics of serious diseases in Iraq during the summer.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross that diseases related to drinking water have increased in recent weeks. The ICRC is therefore distributing purified water to vulnerable groups throughout Iraq.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the condition in Iraq of (i) the food distribution system, (ii) the supply of drinking water, (iii) sewerage and (iv) irrigation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 15 May the United Nations published a comprehensive report on the situation in Iraq. This is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the likelihood of famine in Iraq during the summer months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Reports from northern Iraq indicate that this year's harvest will be significantly better than last year's. Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan will report on the situation in the rest of the country when he visits Iraq in July.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the objectives of the United Nations force in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations guard's mandate is to protect United Nations personnel, assets and operations and to report any significant incidents.

  EC Regulations
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about United Kingdom policy towards the proposals that European Community member states not complying with the directives or regulations are to be subject to fines; and whether this proposal has been discussed by EC foreign ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In the intergovernmental conference on political union the United Kingdom has put forward a proposal which would allow the European Court of Justice to impose a financial penalty on a member state which failed to comply with an earlier judgment of the European Court of Justice. This proposal was discussed by EC Foreign Ministers at the IGC ministerial meeting on 17 June.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the percentage of Hong Kong citizens entitled to register to vote at present on the Hong Kong electoral roll; and whether there are any plans to increase it.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A total of 1,855,443 names have been included in the current final register of electors, representing a registration rate of 50·2 per cent.

  Consideration will be given to improving the registration arrangements in the overall review of the electoral system of Hong Kong to be conducted by the Hong Kong Government after the September election to the Legislative Council.

ENERGY

  Mersey Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to make a decision on the next stage of funding for the Mersey barrage and its associated design and study programme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The current phase of the studies is due for completion in July. A decision on work will depend on the assessment of the results of the current phase.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning his decision-making timetable and other aspects of public funding for the Mersey barrage.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations on a variety of aspects of work on the proposed Mersey barrage system.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the target of cutting energy consumption in Government Departments by 15 per cent. over five years relates to(a) energy expenditure in money terms, (b) energy expenditure in real terms or (c) energy use in fuel value terms.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The target of the energy efficiency campaign on the Government estate is to achieve a 15 per cent. reduction in weather-corrected energy consumption per unit of floor area, converted to expenditure using standard fuel prices. Using standard fuel prices eliminates the effect of changing fuel prices; and introducing floor area helps to eliminate the distorting effect of the changing size of Departments' estates.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 117–18, if he will give for (a) 1987–88, ,(v) 1988–89, (c) 1989–90 and (d) 1991–92 estimates, the total costs of electricity privatisation, breaking down the figures for each year into (i) underwriting costs, (ii) selling and broking commissions, (iii) receiving bank costs, (iv) marketing, (v) advisers' fees and (vi) other costs.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Total expenditure on electricity privatisation was as follows:
  449

  Year

  £ million (VAT inclusive)

  1987–88

  0·8

  1988–89

  5·5

  1989–90

  12·5

  Prior to 1990–91 there was no expenditure on items (i) to (iv) inclusive and only £0·2 million on item (vi) in 1989–90. For 1991–92 the Department has sought provision, through the supply estimates, for £116·7 million. Expenditure in 1991–92 is still the subject of commercial negotiation and it would be inappropriate to give further details at this time.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what factors account for the difference in the total underwriting costs given in his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 117–18, and the sum of the costs given in his answers of 28 November 1990, Official Report, column 416, and 25 April, Official Report, column 498.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The principal reason for the difference is that, following a re-classification, overseas underwriting is now included under the category "Selling and Broking Commissions". In addition, the underwriting costs referred to in my reply of 18 June also included the lead underwriting costs of £0·4 million on which information was not sought in the question of 28 November 1990.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 117–18, if he will break down the underwriting total of £51·5 million into (a) United Kingdom primary underwriting for the regional electricity companies, (b) United Kingdom sub-underwriting for the regional electricity companies, (c) overseas underwriting for the regional electricity companies, (d) United Kingdom sub-underwriting for National Power and PowerGen and (e) overseas underwriting for National Power and PowerGen.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A breakdown of the £51·5 million previously reported is as follows:

  £ million

  Regional electricity companies United Kingdom primary underwriting:

  6·7

  United Kingdom sub-underwriting:

  29·5

  United Kingdom lead underwriting

  0·4

  National Power and PowerGen United Kingdom sub-underwriting

  14·9

  Sub-total

  51·5

  Regional electricity companies Overseas commissions

  13·3

  National Power and PowerGen Overseas commissions

  6·0

  Total

  70·8

  Uranium Mines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have offered the assistance of experts to the Governments of(a) Hungary, (b) Czechoslovakia
  450
  and (c) Yugoslavia in the technical clean-up and restoration of (i) formerly used and (ii) currently operating uranium mines.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Neither my Department nor the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has made any formal offers of such assistance, though the AEA has had informal discussions with Czechoslovakia.

  Biomass Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make an assessment of the opportunities existing for United Kingdom based agro-energy research institutes and organisations for the development of biomass energy development in Hungary.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department has no plans at present to make such an assessment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditing Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which auditing firms against which the Government are currently engaged in litigation have supplied his Department's inspectors at any time since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  None as far as I am aware.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to abolish the audit requirements for two-shareholder small family-owned limited companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Financial Reporting Review Panel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases he has referred to the financial reporting review panel.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Auditing Practices Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make it his policy to place in the Library a copy of all documents obtained by his representative on the Auditing Practices Board;

  (2) whether he will propose legislation under which it will be an offence for the Auditing Standards Board not to provide information to a Member of the House which it provides to auditing firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  No doubt the Auditing Practices Board will bear in mind the hon. Member's interest when deciding its policy on access to its papers.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to the number of directives aimed at the creation of a single market within the European Community which have been enacted in the national legislatures of each member state and subsequently implemented; and what percentage of the total number of directives this represents in each case.
  451
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Commission's sixth report to the Council and European Parliament was presented to the

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Measures not implemented

  Measures implemented

  Derogations

  Not applicable

  Percentage implemented1

  Denmark

  12

  107

  0

  7

  90

  France

  18

  103

  0

  5

  86

  United Kingdom

  20

  99

  6

  84

  Portugal

  25

  96

  3

  2

  80

  Germany

  25

  95

  0

  6

  80

  Greece

  29

  87

  5

  5

  77

  Belgium

  31

  89

  0

  6

  75

  Netherlands

  34

  86

  0

  6

  73

  Luxembourg

  37

  81

  0

  8

  71

  Spain

  38

  83

  2

  3

  70

  Ireland

  44

  74

  7

  65

  Italy

  69

  52

  0

  5

  45

  1 Includes columns 3 and 4.

  Burma
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Burma currently receives export credit guarantees.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Guarantees for medium and long-term credits in connection with exports from the United Kingdom to Burma have not been available from ECGD since September 1988. Guarantees are, however, available for short-term credits normally secured by irrevocable letters of credit.

  Co-operatives
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what United Kingdom organisations his Department has consulted on the proposal for a European statute on co-operatives, mutuals and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Redwood
  The European statute proposed by the European Commission on co-operatives, mutuals and voluntary organisations is still at draft stage. However, a large number of organisations in the United Kingdom are already aware of it. Should a formal proposal emerge from the Commission, the Government will consult widely among interested organisations, as is the normal practice.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

  The Prime Minister
  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.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if, at his recent meeting with Indonesia's Minister for Research, J B Habibie, the question of the illegal occupation of East Timor was discussed; and if he will make a statement.
  452
  Internal Market Council on 18 June. The report shows that out of 126 measures due in force on 31 May 1991 member states have the following record:

  The Prime Minister
  East Timor was not discussed. The Indonesian authorities are aware of our views on East Timor.

  Injured Grenadiers
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 151, when he expects to complete his examination of the case for making an ex gratia payment to the guardsmen injured at the Batus range on 7 July 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  As I have already indicated the proper grounds for paying compensation is on the basis of legal liability.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation of hon. Members to discuss the case of Guardsmen Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 June 1991]: No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) earlier today.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an inter-departmental review of the public health implications of planting crops of oil seed rape near central populations.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office announced in the House on 8 February 1990 at columns 1125–32 that financial support had been offered for a project based at Aberdeen university examining the possible effects on public health which might be associated with oil seed rape. I see no reason for further action at this stage.

  Co-operatives
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to co-ordinate Department's views on the proposed European statute on co-operatives, mutuals and voluntary organisations.

  The Prime Minister
  The European statute proposed by the European Commission on co-operatives, mutuals and voluntary organisations is still at draft stage. Given the wide coverage of the statute, a number of Departments have an interest. There are continuing inter departmental contracts at official level to co-ordinate views as necessary.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has made any changes to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 June 1991, c. 235]: The changes I have made will take effect from Friday 28 June.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the total number of city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In addition to the seven CTCs already running, a further six will be opening in September this year. I recently announced that CTCs will also be built in Bristol and Derby. These will bring the total number to 15. I am considering the prospects of getting plans for further CTCs under way and I am looking at a number of other interesting ways in which the benefits of CTCs might be spread through the education service.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the total cost to public funds of his city technology college policy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To 31 March 1991, the total cost to public funds of the city technology college programme was £103·9 million, including some £12 million in recurrent costs. Current public expenditure plans provide for a total of 250·7 million to be spent on the programme to the end of financial year 1993–94, including both capital and recurrent costs. These figures are net of the private sector contribution, which will represent at least 20 per cent. of the capital cost of the programme.

  Truancy
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the current daily level of truancy among schoolchildren.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is clear from evidence collected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and others that truancy constitutes a major problem in some schools. Our proposals on school attendance will stimulate all schools to give a higher priority to attendance and require figures to be published.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on changes to standard assessment tasks.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on standard assessment tasks and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I continue to receive and welcome the views of a wide range 454
  of people involved in the recent testing of seven-year-olds. All such representations feed directly into the wider evaluation now under way, and help to inform the development of the tests to be used in 1992.

  School Transport
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding amendments to existing legislation affecting school transport.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend regularly receives representations suggesting various interpretations and amendments to the law on school transport.

  Schools Amalgamation, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek a report of the views of parents of children attending schools in Wandsworth that Wandsworth council is seeking to amalgamate, before deciding on the council's proposals.

  Mr. Eggar
  If the council wishes to amalgamate some of its schools, it is required to publish proposals under section 12 of the 1980 Act. Parents of children attending schools affected by such proposals will have the opportunity to make their views known during the two-month objection period following publication. My right hon. and learned Friend will take those objections into account in making his decisions on proposals which come before him.

  Sixth-form Colleges
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the response to his proposals for the future of sixth-form colleges.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The initial response has been encouraging. Many college principals have indicated that they welcome the opportunity to exercise greater control over their own affairs.

  Secondary Schools
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to change secondary school organisation.

  Mr. Fallon
  The organisation of secondary schools is dealt with in the Education Acts 1980 and 1988. My right hon. and learned Friend has already announced the Government's plans to restructure provision for the 16 to 19 age range, including sixth-form colleges. These are set out in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century". We shall keep the need for other changes under review.

  Teacher Appraisal
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure teacher appraisal is introduced throughout the school system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to introduce regulations later this summer to require local
  455
  education authorities and the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to arrange for the appraisal of all teachers starting in September 1991.

  Reading (Teacher Training)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will establish an inquiry into the way teachers are trained to teach reading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 23 April 1991,Official Report, columns 891–92.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering on the role of local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering regarding the role of the local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have announced proposals for transferring further education colleges and sixth-form colleges out of local authority control. I have also made it clear that I expect grant-maintained status to become over time the natural organisational model for most schools. These changes will have a significant impact on the role of education authorities, transferring responsibility for day-to-day management to individual schools and colleges.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A total of 200 schools have now voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status. Of these, 155 schools have so far published proposals for grant-maintained status. We have approved 88, rejected 13 and have yet to decide the remaining 54.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the aims of the policy relating to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Grant-maintained schools policy aims to increase parental choice, to make schools more responsive to local needs, to enable resources to be more effectively used for the benefit of pupils and to foster higher educational standards.

  Expenditure Statistics
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average expenditure per pupil at primary and secondary level in 1979; and what is the latest available figure.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1978–79, net institutional expenditure per pupil was £365 in nursery and primary schools and 456
  £530 in secondary schools. At 1988–89 prices this represents some £805 and £1,165 respectively. In 1988–89, the latest year for which information is available, the equivalent figures are £1,100 per nursery and primary pupil and £1,695 per secondary pupil.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to encourage schools to purchase private services to deal with special educational needs; and if this includes purchase of the hospital psychologist service for educational psychology.

  Mr. Fallon
  Where schools have delegated budgets under local management of schools they are free to purchase services from anywhere and will be looking to ensure that the services they receive provide value for money and are effective.

  Nuclear Physics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the nuclear physics section of the laboratories in the 1990s, recently published by the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The recently published report "The Laboratories in the 1990s" was prepared for the SERC in July 1990. The section on nuclear physics describes the plans for support of the subject, as they then stood, by the council's nuclear physics board. These plans have, however, now been overtaken by SERC's major review of its forward commitments.

  A-levels
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of(a) A-levels and (b) the proposed ordinary and advanced diplomas.

  Mr. Eggar
  The White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st century", published last month, makes clear the Government's commitment to maintaining A-levels and the standards they represent. Formal consultation will begin shortly on the new system of ordinary and advanced diplomas.

  Women Teachers
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the proportion of women in the teaching profession was for the years 1979, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  Women teachers as a percentage of qualified teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England for the years requested are shownin the table.

  Per cent.

  1979

  60

  1985

  61

  1990

  65

  Inner London
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take powers to enable himself to become involved in the problems of inner London education authorities if such a request is made to him by one third of the elected councillors.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend already has powers to direct any local education authority to operate reasonably and to carry out its statutory responsibilities; and in addition has the power to approve the management structure of, and staff appointments to, the inner London education authorities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had, when, and with whom regarding the incineration of toxic and hazardous wastes in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  At a meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference on 31 January 1991, I exchanged views on this and other environmental issues with the Minister for the Environment in the Irish Republic, Mr. Flynn. I have also discussed with the management of Du Pont (UK) Ltd., their proposal for a hazardous waste incinerator and have visited the company's site at Maydown, County Londonderry.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is intended that plastic and throwaway paper items can be disposed of in the proposed incinerator at Maydown, County Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  The incinerator proposed by Du Pont (UK) Ltd. would not be intended for the incineration of general municipal waste. It would be a specialist facility designed to dispose of certain industrial wastes produced in the chemical and allied industries by a process known as high temperature incineration.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to monitor the stack emissions of the proposed incinerator at Maydown, County Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  The alkali and radiochemical inspectorate of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland would be responsible for ensuring that the emissions from the stack of any such incinerator, once started, were monitored for compliance with the standards prescribed by the Department. In addition to its own direct monitoring of emissions, the inspectorate would audit the routine in-house monitoring undertaken by the operator.

  Health Service
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the perinatal mortality rate in each of the last 10 years at(a) Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast, (b) Belfast City hospital, (c) Mater hospital, Belfast and (d) Ulster hospital;

  (2) what was the mortality rate for women in each of the last 10 years in the obstetric units at (a) Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast, (b) Belfast City hospital, (c) Mater hospital, Belfast and (d) Ulster hospital.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held centrally, but it should be noted that the perinatal mortality rate for the whole of Northern Ireland has fallen sharply over the past decade from a level of 15·6 in 1980—some 17 per cent. higher than in Great Britain—to 8·2 in 1989 when the rate for England and Wales was 8·3. Despite the improvements the rate still varies significantly within Northern Ireland between socio-economic classes and geographical areas.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deliveries were recorded in each year since 1989 in the obstetric unit of the Ulster hospital.

  Mr. Hanley
  The deliveries, including live and still births, recorded were:

  Year

  Deliveries

  1989

  1923

  1990

  1929

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the time period it will take before the radioactive products from the Chernobyl accident will be reduced to a level to permit the full use of agricultural land in the province.

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been no change in the use of agricultural land as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident.

  There is a slow fall in the levels of radioactivity in sheep from the restricted areas. Radiocaesium remains available for uptake by plants in the affected upland area due to the absence in the soil of minerals which would render the radiocaesium unavailable to plants.

  It is not possible to predict how long restrictions on movement and slaughter of sheep from these areas will remain in place. Monitoring of sheep continues and restrictions will continue to be lifted when the safety of the food chain can be assured.

  Extradition
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the persons who have been extradited for terrorist offences since 1980(a) from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland; and (b) from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, giving the year in which the extradition occured and indicating the outcome of the case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:
  459

  Extradition from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland

  Person

  Year

  Outcome

  Dominic McGlinchey

  1984

  Convictions quashed by Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

  James A. G. Shannon

  1984

  Convictions quashed by Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

  John McFarland Fletcher

  1987

  Convicted in 1988 for charges relating to possession of firearms.

  Gerard M. Harte

  1988

  Extradited in August 1988 and convicted for a series of offences in December 1988.

  Robert P. Russell

  1988

  Conviction for attempted murder quashed by Court of Appeal. Served sentence for convictions relating to escape from Her Majesty's Prison Maze.

  Paul Anthony Kane

  1989

  Extradited and convicted for offences relating to escape from Her Majesty's Prison Maze.

  Note: These dates are the years on which they were physically extradited not the date on which their extradition was ordered.

  Extradition from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland

  Person

  Year

  Outcome

  Dominic McGlinchey

  1985

  Convicted of offences committed in the Republic of Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the financial adjustment fixed by each charging local authority in Scotland for 1991–92 to be paid by each charge payer as a result of the failure, anticipated or actual, of all charge payers to pay charges lawfully demanded; and what were the comparable figures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, I understand that a number of authorities included an additional sum in their 1991–92 community charge to compensate for shortfall of income caused by non-collection in 1989–90 and 1990–91. These include Lothian (£48) and Strathclyde (£42). I am not aware of any comparable addition to the 1990–91 charges.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 415–16, what is the Scottish average rate of local income tax required to replace the budget income from the poll tax in 1991–92, including rebates and after receipt of community charge grant.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The rate is 6·0 pence in the pound.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table of Scotland's share of United Kingdom gross domestic product per head of population excluding the continental shelf for each year since 1961.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The table gives the information requested for each year since 1971, the earliest year for which this information is available on a consistent basis.

  Year

  Scottish gross domestic product1 per head (UK 3= 100)

  1971

  93·7

  1972

  93·5

  1973

  95·3

  460

  Year

  Scottish gross domestic product1 per head (UK 3= 100)

  1974

  95·8

  1975

  96·8

  1976

  98·3

  1977

  97·0

  1978

  94·7

  1979

  94·6

  1980

  94·2

  1981

  96·3

  1982

  97·1

  1983

  97·.4

  1984

  96·0

  1985

  95·5

  1986

  95·0

  1987

  94·0

  1988

  93·9

  21989

  93·2

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  1 Income-based measure of GDP at factor cost, current prices.

  2 Provisional estimate.

  3 United Kingdom gross domestic product excluding continental shelf.

  Crofting
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of refusals under the crofter buildings grant and loan scheme in the years 1988 and 1989 to applicants living in council houses, on the grounds that the applicant is already reasonably accommodated within working distance of the croft.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No applicants were refused assistance under the crofters building grants and loans scheme in 1988 and 1989 on the grounds stated.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set a timetable for consultation on and reform of the legislation in Scotland regarding tree preservation orders.
  461
  Mr. Lang
  I hope to issue in the autumn a consultation paper making proposals for improving the present system of tree preservation in Scotland, for implementation when a legislative opportunity is available.

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what provisions regional councils are empowered to make payments to severely disabled people to make their own personal assistance arrangements.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, local authorities may make payments to severely disabled people only in an emergency. Such payments must reduce the need for social work assistance in other forms.

  Cancer Screening
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards shortening the waiting time for cervical smear tests results as proposed in his statement of 3 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards have made significant progress. All but one health board—Grampian—have achieved, or bettered, the 14-day target for reporting results which I set in December 1990. Grampian are reporting results in 17 days, a considerable improvement on the position in 1990. The board is continuing to look at ways of further improving its turnaround time.

  I am pleased that all but one board have achieved what was, for many, a stretching target and I applaud the dedication and commitment of staff in boards who have made these improvements. I am glad that many women in Scotland are now having to wait a much shorter period for the results of their tests.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the time it will take before the radioactive products from the accident at Chernobyl will be reduced to a level to permit the return to normal hill farming.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to offer a reliable estimate of the time by which radioactivity levels in all sheep in the Scottish restricted areas will have fallen below the Government's action level.

  Only a very small proportion of hill farms have been subject to controls on sheep movements, and the administration of these controls is designed to ensure the minimum disruption to normal farming practices on restricted farms. Research and monitoring of radioactivity levels in sheep on restricted farms continues, with the aim of releasing the remaining restricted farms when this can be done without compromising the safety of the food chain.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 6 June,Official Report, columns 654–5, if he will list the items included in the figure of £148,000 spend on energy efficiency in 1990–91.
  462
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: The figure of £148,000 includes the following items:

  £

  Draughtproofing (including renewal of windows)

  54,000

  Relamping

  31,000

  Survey and design fees

  30,000

  Lighting control system

  11,500

  Heating control improvements including boiler overhaul

  18,000

  Upgrading of electrical equipment

  2,000

  Power Factor Correction

  1,500

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1), pursuant to the answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 221, when and why information on energy consumption and expenditure in the form referred to in his answer of 10 May 1990, Official Report, column 214, ceased to be available for 1989–90;

  (2) when he will be able to provide 1990–91 figures on (a) energy expenditure and (b) energy consumption in units to update those given for 1989–90 in the answers of 10 May 1990, Official Report, column 214.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: I regret that the energy consumption figures for 1989–90 given to the hon. Gentleman on 10 May 1990 were based on information which has subsequently been found to be incomplete and inaccurate. Information in the form requested for the period prior to 1 April 1990 is therefore not available.

  The Scottish Office assumed direct responsibility for maintaining these records from 1 April 1990 and I shall be writing shortly to the hon. Gentleman with details for 1990–91.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Broadcasting of Proceedings
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for cabling to be provided so that the broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings will be available throughout the Palace of Westminster and the precincts.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In its fourth report of last Session on "Computer Services for Members" (HC 614), the Services Committee recommended that steps should be taken towards the installation of a single high-capacity cable network in the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster and the outbuildings capable of carrying terrestrial, cable and satellite television signals as well as a full range of information technology services. I am hoping to be able to arrange a debate on that report in the near future. It will be for the House to decide at an appropriate moment whether the services transmitted over such a cable network should include a feed of proceedings in either or both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that the proposed reduction in the strength of the Parachute Regiment will
  463
  not prevent the officers and non-commissioned officers of this regiment from having a balanced and worthwhile career structure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Consultation within the Army on the future structure of the regiments and corps is now underway. The need to maintain balanced and worthwhile career structures will be taken fully into account.

  Victory Parade
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the estimated costs of the Gulf war victory parade on 21 June.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The welcome home parade and reception which took place last Friday was generously hosted by the Lord Mayor and corporation of the City of London who met the principal costs of the event, including those of the lunch to which all those marching were invited.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the memorandum of understanding presently being negotiated between British Aerospace and the Indonesian Government for the supply of upgraded Hawk aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our practice to comment on defence exports to specific countries.

  Rapier Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for 10 rapier 2000 surface-to-air missiles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I do not recognise the order to which the hon. Member refers.

  Aviation Support Ship
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for an aviation support ship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We are committed to maintaining an amphibious capability in the longer term, and plan to order an aviation support ship to provide dedicated helicopter support for our forces. The timing of the order has yet to be decided.

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for a multi-functional air-to-air launcher rail for the Sea Harrier FRS 2 aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No decision has yet been taken on the timing of this order.

  Main Battle Tanks
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is considering as part of "Options for Change" the equipping of territorial units with main battle tanks.
  464
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place orders for his British Army to acquire the Longbow Apache helicopter; and how many aircraft will be ordered.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The British Army's future requirement for attack helicopters is currently under review and a number of options, including the Apache, are being studied. We do not expect to make a decision on the choice of helicopter, or the size of any order, in the immediate future.

  Hercules Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the replacement of the Hercules aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We plan to replace the Hercules early in the next decade.

  Batus Firing Range
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list, with dates, of all United Kingdom and other units who were authorised to fire live 76 mm HESH rounds on the Batus live firing range between January 1984 and January 1986.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Available records do not contain a comprehensive list of units which fired 76 mm HESH rounds at Batus during the period in question.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the relevant documents showing the number of blind 76 mm HESH rounds fired, logged but unlocated and uncleared lying outside designated impact areas on the Suffield, Batus training area for the period January 1984 to January 1986.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All 76 mm HESH blinds reported at Batus during the period were destroyed by ammunition technicians. However, the essence of training at Batus is the ability to fire and manoeuvre within the whole of a large, live-firing area and it would not necessarily be obvious that a round had failed to explode.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the board of inquiry into the Grenadier accident at Batus of 7 July 1989 was(a) ordered to investigate and (b) took any evidence as to how an unexploded round lay uncleared on the Batus range before 7 July 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The board of inquiry was asked to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the accident to the three guardsmen. As part of their investigations the board examined the procedures at Batus for reporting and clearing unexploded rounds.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the convening order for the Army boa rd of inquiry into events of 7 July 1989 on the Batus range required investigation into the question as to why a round remained uncleared outside an impact area on the Batus live firing range.
  465
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The convening order directed the board of inquriy to consider all the circumstances that contributed to the accident on 7 July 1989.

  The Gulf
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 127, what is his Department's assessment as to the consequences for water supply, public health and food distribution of the damage to Iraqi conventional power stations by coalition bombing during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has conducted no such assessment, although the former United Nations Under-Secretary General Ahtisaari produced a report on the situation in Iraq after the conflict following his visit to that country in March 1991. It is believed that Iraq continues to suffer power shortages and that, as a consequence, some areas have reduced water supply.

  Grenadier Guardsmen (Accident)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray were requested to give evidence before the board of inquiry into the circumstances which led to their serious injuries in July 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The board of inquiry did not take evidence directly from the three Guardsmen. When the board was convened at Batus the soldiers had been returned to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. The board did, however, consider the transcript of an interview with LCpl Ray at Medicine Hat City hospital, Canada.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what informal undertakings were given after the serious injuries affecting Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray in July 1989 that compensation would be paid to them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are aware of none. If any such undertakings were given, they were without authorisation.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what terms of reference the board of inquiry was set up that inquired into the cases of Guardsmen Hicks, Povey and Ray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The board of inquiry was asked to investigate all the circumstances and record all the evidence relevant to its inquiries. In particular, the board was asked to establish the cause of the accident; how it occurred; whether the soldiers were on duty; whether any person involved, wilfully or by neglect, contravened any recognised orders, procedures or drills; whether a mechanical fault or failure contributed to the accident; whether there was any lack of supervision or other matters which required rectification, the medical attention available, what action, if any, was necessary to prevent a recurrence; whether the accident was correctly reported in line with the Batus Range standing orders; and any other matter which the President of the board considered 466
  relevant. The inquiry was also asked with recording what action had been taken, or would be taken, to prevent a recurrence and to make recommendations to that end.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been received from senior officers in the Grenadier Guards urging that compensation be paid to Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  One such representation has been received.

  Fairford Air Tattoo
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official status has been granted to the Fairford international air tattoo as a Gulf salute; and if he will explain the procedure by which such official status is designated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None; events organised by non-governmental organisations, such as the international air tattoo, do not have official status.

  Training Exercises (Accidents)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the last five years the individual ex-gratia payments made to service personel for injuries received while on training exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following is a list of ex-gratia payments made to date (24 May 1991) for training incidents which occurred between 8 December 1986 and 15 May 1987.

  £9,500

  £4,000

  £45,000

  £3,500

  £15,000

  £116,000

  £675,000

  £3,017

  All these incidents involved MOD negligence.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government has provided training for the forces of the Cambodian resistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  From 1983 until 1989 Her Majesty's Government provided training to the armed forces of the Cambodian non-communist resistance, that is the Khmer People's National Liberation armed forces and the Armee Nationale Sihanoukienne. The purpose was to strengthen the position of those forces in relation to the more powerful forces of the Khmer Rouge and in their struggle against the Vietnamese imposed regime in Phnom Penh. There has never been and will never be any British assistance or support, military or otherwise, for the Khmer Rouge. Since 1989 Her Majesty's Government have not been involved in any way in training, equipping or supplying the forces of any of the Cambodian parties. In accordance with normal practice no further details about this training or any information about the nature of this training will be given.

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

Lord Judd
Frank Ashcroft Judd, Esquire, having been created Baron Judd, of Portsea in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jacques and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
Lord Hollick
Clive Richard Hollick, Esquire, having been created Baron Hollick, of Notting Hill in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Pitt of Hampstead and the Baroness Blackstone, and made the solemn Affirmation.

The Commonwealth: Human Rights
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect that human rights will appear on the agenda of the next meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we shall encourage discussion of good government, including human rights, at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Will he accept that human rights should be just as important in the Commonwealth as they have been over the years in Europe under the Helsinki and CSCE agreements?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I go further and say that human rights are important the world over.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House what practical steps the Government will take to curb human rights' abuses in the Commonwealth and whether the steps will be described in a policy presented at the conference in Harare in October?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are funding a residential course in human rights law at Essex University specifically for the small Commonwealth states. Last year we helped to fund a seminar in Banjul. In this financial year we are planning to spend a substantial sum, currently £28 million, bilaterally from the aid programme on positive measures to promote human rights and good government. I can go further: a moment ago my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced that the target for next year, 1992–93, will be £50 million.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Earl quite rightly said that human rights are important the world over—I think that those were his words. Can he say whether we are continuing our help and our aid to the Kurdish people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, unfortunately the Kurds are not in the Commonwealth.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I warmly applaud what my noble friend said he is doing. Can he tell us how many takers there were for his human rights course in Banjul?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, alas, I cannot. However, I shall write to the noble Lord and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, agree that one human right is the right to live? Can he tell the House whether at the Harare conference any initiative will be taken by the British Government to bring succour to members of the Commonwealth like Malawi and many others who are at present on the verge of starvation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well the amount of aid that we are giving to Africa to help in the difficult situation there. However, as he is aware, the agenda for the Harare meeting has not yet been finalised. Much depends on discussions with the Commonwealth Secretary General.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will approve the measures announced by the noble Earl in respect of human rights education. However, will the Government do all that they can in Britain to improve respect for human rights, as an example to the Commonwealth?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall continue our excellent standards.

St. Mark's Hospital, London
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are plans to close St. Mark's Hospital in the City Road, London, without establishing an alternative postgraduate teaching hospital specialising in diseases of the intestine, colon and rectum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, there is widespread recognition of the valuable specialist services and postgraduate training provided by the clinicians at St. Mark's. There are no plans to close St. Mark's but all parties are agreed about the need to relocate these services. It is also recognised that essential support service needs are best provided within a major hospital. In the Department of Health we welcome the continuing constructive dialogue

487
taking place between the region, City and Hackney District Health Authority and senior clinicians at St. Mark's.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that it is unwise to close a national centre of excellence which serves patients from all over the country who have serious, dangerous and difficult conditions? The hospital trains senior registrars from all over the country. Will the Minister urgently consider setting up a committee to look into the special needs of such specialised hospitals before any decisions are taken?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, medical technology has become increasingly sophisticated. The problems associated with being a specialist hospital on a separate site have therefore increased. Although St. Mark's provides a wide range of high quality specialist support services, it lacks some facilities. I understand those facilities will be available at the proposed new site. However, no final decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I strongly support the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that this hospital and its facilities should be saved. I have personal knowledge of the hospital. If the term "centre of excellence" had not been invented, it would be most appropriate to invent that term to describe the work that the hospital has carried out over many years. Its research facilities are excellent. As a result, bowel cancer, if operated upon in time, is no longer the killer it was. The work of Cuthbert Dukes and Basil Morson has been enormously important in this area. Does the Minister really believe that such facilities can be offered and such research carried out in two or three wards of Bart's Hospital with limited operating facilities? Will the Minister confirm that because of the uncertainty that exists, St. Mark's is having to refuse grants from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund to carry on invaluable research, particularly its research into the hereditary aspects of cancer of the colon? All of this work will be lost if St. Mark's is to be given only two or three wards in a big general hospital.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already said that we recognise that St. Mark's offers valuable specialist services. There are no plans to close St. Mark's. No final decisions have been taken, but in the event of the district health authority deciding to implement any substantial change in services, which could include relocation, it will be required to consult with the community health council. Thereafter, there is the possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State. We shall take account in the ongoing discussions of any offers of financial help from whatever source made to the hospital.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on these Benches fully understand that it is impossible to provide the highest standards of excellence in every specialty of medicine in every hospital in every part of the country? It is therefore essential that in certain narrow specialties, high standards of service should be provided in one
488
hospital. Is it not a fact that this hospital is unique in Britain, and perhaps even in Europe, in concentrating on diseases of the large bowel, the colon and the rectum and in training surgeons and nurses in the treatment and management of those conditions? The hospital takes patients from all over Britain, not just from Greater London. Is it not also a fact that if the hospital is merged into another, there is a danger that the high standard of excellence I have referred to will be diluted and that we will lose from the National Health Service a centre of excellence?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if we were not aware of the dangers of such a relocation before, we certainly are now. Discussions have taken place over several years about the benefits of relocating facilities for this specialty within a multi-specialty acute hospital. Discussions have taken into account the need to ensure access to a full range of support services, the need to reduce overheads associated with operating on a second site, and the need to tackle the conditions of the present site.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a few years ago the conditions at St. Mark's were quite deplorable? I speak from personal experience. It is therefore very much to be welcomed that a new site with better accommodation and better support facilities is to be found.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There is a need to do something about the facilities on the present site. There is a need to relocate those facilities. Every consideration is being given to the need to ensure that the identity of St. Mark's and the important work it carries out are preserved.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the Minister has agreed that this important hospital is a centre of specialisation, teaching, training and research in colon practology. Does she not also agree that the hospital is a major national and indeed international resource? Will she ensure that its crucial importance as a national and indeed international referral, research and training centre in this field will be impressed upon the City and Hackney health authority? If the facilities of St. Mark's were to be transferred to the site of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, will the Minister endeavour to ensure that St. Mark's identity is preserved and its viability assured as a centre not just of high quality patient care but also of postgraduate training and research?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that both the district and the regional health authorities are well aware of the special nature of the services provided at St. Mark's. We believe that because this specialist treatment is so well known and recognised, St. Mark's will continue to attract patients and, as a result of the National Health Service reforms, the income will follow.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I hope that the Minister has been impressed by the breadth of concern expressed about the hospital. Does she accept that that concern is felt even more strongly by those who work at St. Mark's and whose future over the past few

489
years has been so uncertain? Does she further accept that a great deal would be lost by merging this fine hospital, with its specialisation, into a separate hospital?
Is the Minister aware of any proposals for a relocation within Bart's? The majority of the staff say such a relocation would be totally unsatisfactory and would not protect the identity of the hospital. The finance that has been mentioned for such a relocation is totally inadequate.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not accept that the identity of St. Mark's need be lost on relocation. After all, mere bricks and mortar, however well loved, are not the foundation on which the well-earned reputation of St. Mark's has been built. It is built on its history of excellent patient care, training and research. I am quite sure that that tradition will continue wherever the hospital is located.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister wish to comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley? Far from dragging on, the matter is extremely urgent. It is a matter of weeks before a decision will be taken and in the interim the hospital has had to refuse a major research grant, which is very damaging to the image of the health service as a whole.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have said that no final decisions have been taken and that discussions as to the preferred option are continuing. The proposals are under consideration by the regional health authority as part of its review of the region's capital programme. I understand that the results of those deliberations are due in July.
Baroness David: My Lords, have the Universities Funding Council and the Medical Research Council been consulted about this matter? If the hospital is to be relocated, will there be the same facilities for postgraduate visitors from overseas? I understand that last year there were 660 postgraduate visitors from 42 countries.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the well-deserved reputation of St. Mark's is such that it will inevitably attract income, including, I hope, income from overseas.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, as it is common ground that St. Mark's is a unique centre of excellence with a worldwide reputation and that those surgeons, physicians and scientists whose practice and research currently sustain that reputation fear the consequences of loss of identity if the hospital is to be moved, will the Minister give an assurance that no hasty disruption will be imposed upon the centre in advance of discussion of the proper conditions for safeguarding its future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I see no reason why there should be any hastiness about any changes and relocation. As I said, the regional health authority's plans are due out in July. There are various procedures which can be followed if any exception is taken to the authority's plans. However, in view of the extended
490
discussions which have taken place, we hope that everyone's interests will have been taken adequately into account.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not succeeded in removing the disquiet which exists in the minds of most noble Lords on all sides of the House. Against that background, will she give the House an assurance that she will talk to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the feeling in this House with a view to ensuring that St. Mark's, with its present expertise, is not closed until a similar hospital is built in another location, but not as an attachment to another major hospital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should have thought that I had been able to give adequate reassurance in the course of this Question. However, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend all that has been said today.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at one time we had problems, which went back into history, concerning regional specialties and that in the end it was decided that no district could carry the cost and that the RHA should fund them? In the case of St. Mark's, it is not a regional but a national specialty. Should the Department of Health not make it a special health authority and fund it centrally?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, under our reforms we offer the possibility that in the case of services which continue to attract patients, as a national resource of this kind can, the income will follow.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, finally, if St. Bartholomew's becomes a trust, will there be any assurance that St. Mark's, if lodged there, could not be shut?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have to take it as read that all such considerations are being taken into account by the interested parties in their discussions.

ECOFIN Meeting: Confidentiality
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the confidentiality rule applicable to all meetings of the Council of Ministers applied to the ECOFIN meeting in Luxembourg on 10th June 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, meetings of the Council of Ministers are not open to the public but the outcome of discussions is reported to Parliament. For the outcome of the meeting of ECOFIN on 10th June I refer noble Lords to the Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th June.
Lord Bruce Donington: My Lords, that is all very well, but is the noble Lord aware that, according to press reports which appeared on the day following the

491
meeting of ECOFIN on 10th June, the French Finance Minister and, for some obscure reason, the Budget Commissioner presumed to give partial accounts of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Council? That is hardly consistent with the secrecy which is alleged to apply to all proceedings. In those circumstances would it not be best, in the interests of democracy both in Europe and in the United Kingdom, if the press were in future invited to the Council of Ministers in order that they and the world can see exactly what happens behind closed doors?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the press are not allowed in meetings of the Council of Ministers. I have heard of no proposals that there should be a change to that procedure. However, I shall look into the press reports to which the noble Lord referred to see whether it would appear that there has been a breach of confidentiality. If there has been, it is reprehensible and should be taken up appropriately.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is it possible for my noble friend to update the House on ECOFIN's current position on the proposed minimum excise duty on alcoholic drinks? Is it the case, as reported in today's press, that the Chancellor has taken a strong line? Has he made it plain that proposals which would result in an increase of 40 per cent. on the price of a bottle of Scotch whisky in many member states while wine would continue to attract a very low duty or even a zero rate of duty will devastate the Scotch whisky industry in its major markets? Will the Government stick to their guns on that issue, bearing in mind the implications for jobs in Scotland and the balance of payments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the meeting of ECOFIN yesterday we agreed a set of minimum rates which would apply to indirect taxes from 1993. In the case of spirits we argued strongly that the rates proposed were discriminatory and would have an adverse effect on one of our main exports. The Commission has been asked to report further on that whole issue. In the meantime the rate for wine is only provisional. EC ministers agreed to defer the decision on the minimum rate for spirits.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if ever there was a question which was wide of the Question on the Order Paper, the noble Baroness's was. However, I found the answer extraordinarily interesting but I shall not follow up the point.
In relation to the Question which is on the Order Paper, is not the situation rather bizarre? Am I not right in saying that the meetings are confidential but that any Minister can give a briefing on what happens? Therefore there is competition between Ministers to say what they think has happened. It is not just a matter of democracy but also of efficiency. Should there not be some access, preferably by the press or someone else, so that it was clear what happened, as much for the sake of our Ministers as any other? The present position is very strange indeed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps the present situation is not satisfactory but that is how the situation has always been handled by the Council of Ministers. As I said in my original Answer, of course Ministers give press briefings following meetings. In our case a full account is given to Parliament, normally in the form of a Written Answer shortly afterwards.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that confidentiality at meetings of the Council of Ministers has long been observed about as rigorously as it sometimes was at Cabinet meetings in Sir Bernard Ingham's golden days? Is he also aware that there is no great reason why those meetings should take place in an atmosphere of bogus privacy? The problem at issue is that there are already far too many people in the room—between 200 and 300. Nonetheless, does the noble Lord agree that it would be sensible that the meetings should be regarded as being in the public domain and that one or two people should be able to report what happened?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a suggestion, but to give an answer now as to whether I thought that it was a good idea would not be a good idea for me.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, a proposal was put forward at those meetings to raise substantially the duty on spirits and lower the duty on wine to the competitive advantage of our European friends?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we argued strongly against the proposed rates on spirits. I take issue with the noble Lord opposite. The question refers to ECOFIN. The matter was discussed at ECOFIN only yesterday and on 10th June.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord not to take issue with me because, if that question is not wide of the Order Paper, I am perfectly prepared to ask a number of technical questions on VAT which I am sure would waste your Lordships' time. Although we obviously accept that the Minister cannot answer the question, we are approaching a period when major decisions will be taken both in that council and in the Council of Ministers. Would it not be a good idea to convey the view of your Lordships' House to the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister that this might be a moment to break free, precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, and let us have some objective reporting of what goes on? After all, it will affect the whole future of our country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I accept that major decisions are taken both in ECOFIN and in other councils. That has been so for many years, although decisions taken formerly were perhaps not as important as they are now. I shall certainly pass on the views of the noble Lord and of one or two other noble Lords, but I cannot promise that there will be any change in the procedures.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I must preserve the interests of the noble Lord who has tabled the next Question.

Power Station Desulphurisation: Costs
3.23 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will subsidise power stations such as Drax which are fitting flue gas desulphurisation units, bearing in mind the inevitable loss of efficiency and increase in cost of electricity generated thereby.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the costs of fitting and running flue gas desulphurisation units, necessary to comply with the emission limits placed on the generators, should properly be met by the companies concerned. That obligation was recognised in the capital structures with which the generators entered the private sector.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply. I am as green as the next man, but is he aware that the cost of fitting the FGD equipment at Drax power station is £658 million, and that it will make the power station 2 per cent. less efficient? Might there not be a case therefore for regarding Drax as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation? Might that not have the added benefit of encouraging other coal-fired power stations to clean up their acts?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am aware of the considerable costs of FGD and of the efficiency results. I must tell my noble friend that I do not think it would be appropriate to include a coal-fired station in the non-fossil fuel obligation. It would run counter to the, objective of encouraging non-fossil fuel generation with all its attendant environmental benefits. The industry does not need such incentives. It is obliged to comply with emission limits as set out under the national plan which in turn implements the large combustion plants directive.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the original programme for desulphurisation of those power stations including Drax, which was set in motion under the Conservative Government and the CEGB when the electricity industry was still in the public sector, is being adhered to, or whether there has been a diminution in or abandonment of the programme since privatisation to the detriment of us all?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, my Lords, there has been a diminution, and for very good reasons. A figure of 12 gigawatts was the early estimate made by the CEGB of what we needed to meet the requirements of the large combustion plants directive by FGD alone. However, the reality of competition brought about by privatisation obliged the generators to find the most economic means of achieving SO2 reductions. In addition, the scope developed to build combined-cycle gas turbine power stations which emit virtually no SO2 and roughly half of the CO2
494
equivalent of coal-fired power stations. It was a mistake to think that to go from 12 gigawatts to 8 gigawatts would necessarily reduce SO2 emissions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the importance of the desulphurisation process and of its high cost, will the noble Lord indicate whether the Government are stimulating industry to undertake research and development which will bring down the cost of the process?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the generators were always aware of the costs—both capital costs and revenue costs—that would result. It is up to the industry to develop that technology.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply that the Government will not subsidise the installation of gas desulphurisation plant at Drax is welcome? However, does he agree that the Question this day is most insensitive bearing in mind that the chairman of National Power has been awarded an increase of 59 per cent. in his salary and that the electricity industry was sold to private investors at knock-down prices in order—this was apparently one of the reasons—to install that equipment for the betterment of mankind?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, both those questions are wide of the Order Paper.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to confirm his first Answer. Am I right in thinking that the costs of desulphurisation have already been included in the capital structure of the new generating bodies and therefore what is happening here, whatever else it does, should not lead to any increase in the price of electricity to the consumer? Is there no way that the producers could argue along those lines?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what incentive there is for other power stations to install desulphurising equipment when, if they do nothing, they are much better placed for the bids and are more likely to be used?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are now rules under the national plan to meet with the directive.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the House moves into Committee, perhaps I may point out that the Opposition Dispatch Box appears to be decorated

495
with pale pink ribbon. Is that some kind of political statement or has someone given a present to the Opposition?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Class 1A contributions]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("18,000") and insert ("10,000").
The noble Lord said: I am advised on this amendment by the CBI which tells me that its members oppose the Government's proposals to impose liability on employers for national insurance contributions on company cars and fuel. In particular, the Bill will add over £400 million to employers' costs at a time of recession; it discourages the motor industry by unfairly penalising the company car; and it fails to distinguish between cars used as business tools and those given as perks.
The present banding system does not reflect the real boundaries between cars that are provided as a perk and those that are provided as tools of the trade. While the 2,500 mile threshold (mentioned in the paragraph immediately below the one to be amended by my amendment) is acceptable, the 18,000 mile threshold is far too high. The Government's figures, provided by a Ministry of Transport survey in 1975–76, suggest that the average business mileage is around 10,000 miles a year. That figure is supported by business from practical experience. It is for that reason that I seek to amend the Bill and replace the figure of 18,000 by 10,000 in the relevant subsection.
An 18,000 mile threshold is obviously inequitable. It will hit hardest those companies which are already suffering most in the recession. Examples are small companies and construction companies which will have sales and other personnel who need to visit sites and firms within inner cities and high density population areas and who therefore do not cover a high annual mileage.
I understand from the CBI that this has been a fairly long-standing battle with successive governments. From all my experience in industry and at present, it seems to me that 18,000 miles as a mark of a business journey is much too high and quite out of line with practical experience. No doubt there are some people who travel long distances in unpopulated areas but in this country they are the exception. Certainly it is not right to have such a high figure. I trust therefore that the Government will be extremely sympathetic and will agree to my amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. During the Second Reading of this Bill I made it clear that on these Benches we did not oppose what the Government intended in principle but that we had a number of points to raise. We were concerned that it would be very difficult—this point
496
was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—to distinguish between people who had a car simply as a perk, as part payment, and people who needed to use a car in the course of their business. In particular I drew attention to people employed as sales representatives in an area such as London, where it would be difficult to assert that 18,000 miles a year represented a reasonable marker. It is possible to use one's car entirely for business in London and do very substantially less than 18,000 miles a year.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is valid. Ten thousand miles a year is the recommended figure and the CBI has already drawn attention to that figure as normal for business use. Therefore I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude to this matter and will be prepared to make this small concession and accept the amendment.
Lord Banks: I too should like to support this amendment. I do so for the reasons that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I also mentioned this point in the course of my Second Reading speech. I thought that the figure of 18,000 was too high. I still adhere to that position and therefore support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: On Second Reading I ventured to suggest that the whole Bill would have an adverse effect on industrial costs at the very moment when it was necessary above all to keep costs down. This amendment would have the effect at least of reducing quite substantially the damage which the Bill otherwise would do. As the noble Baroness opposite said, there are many hard-working people who use their cars for work over the relatively short distances involved in, say, the Greater London area or other metropolitan areas in this country. After all, it is possible to travel quite short distances between a large number of customers or clients or people with whom one is concerned industrially and be unlikely to come anywhere near the figure of 18,000. That figure may not be reached unless one is operating mainly in the open country where distances between places are longer.
Therefore it seems to me that my noble friend has done a very good service not only to this Chamber but to the Government in proposing an amendment which will quite substantially reduce the damage which otherwise the Bill would do. I am sure that whatever views this Chamber normally takes about the opinions of the CBI, it is realised that on this kind of issue the CBI speaks with the authority of experience. I should certainly be most disappointed should my noble friend not be prepared to adopt a flexible and reasonable attitude on this amendment.
Lord Carter: There is a point arising from the remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken regarding the costs of employers. The last time that there was an assessment of the National Insurance Fund, as the noble Lord will know, it was felt able to reduce employers' contributions from 10.45 per cent. to 10.4 per cent. at the higher rate—a reduction of 0.05

497
per cent.—and have a reduction of 0.4 per cent. on the lower rates. This Bill adds £610 million to the National Insurance Fund. In fact it reverses the action and takes back all the cut in employers' contributions. I ask the noble Lord when he replies to tell the Committee whether the previous assessment was wrong.
One should remember that that was all part of the deal on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. I remind the noble Lord of what he said on the Second Reading of that Bill:
"Nevertheless, side by side with that package of SSP changes, the Government propose to make substantial reductions in employers' national insurance contributions liability. Although those reductions extend across the whole spectrum of national insurance contributions, they have been particularly weighted to help smaller employers".—[Official Report, 11/12/90; col. 392]
What has changed?
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He knows perfectly well that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to consider the state of the fund each year. He looks at the outgoings and then has to consider at what levels national insurance contributions can be levied. As a result, at the time of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill my right honourable friend was able to make such a reduction. On this occasion, he is seeking for completely different reasons to increase the contributions made by employers because it is only fair and equitable that they should make contributions on benefits that are paid in kind rather than in cash. Therefore, when he next comes to review the state of the fund he will find that there might or might not be extra resources available to enable him to make changes to other levels. Obviously I cannot predict the outcome of his consideration. My right honourable friend has to consider each year the state of the fund and then fix contributions accordingly.
I understand perfectly well what lies behind my noble friend's amendment. I well understand the disquiet that has been expressed from all sides of the House. However, I believe that the amendment is based on a false premise. On page 2 of the Bill subsection (4) sets out the basic provision for charging Class 1A national insurance contributions on the cash equivalent of the benefit of the car to the earner. Paragraph (i) of subsection (6) (b)—which is the paragraph that my noble friend seeks to amend—deals only with special cases where the employer does not have the necessary information about business miles. In that case the benefit will be deemed to be chargeable at the higher rate.
I have to say that I am not sure of the effect that my noble friend's amendment would have. Certainly it will not have the effect that he desires; namely, to reduce by 50 per cent. the national insurance contributions chargeable on those who drive 10,000 business miles as opposed to the 18,000 miles proposed. If my noble friend wishes to do that he would have to seek amendment to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which subsection (4) ties into. Nevertheless I understand the concerns that he has put forward. Although the amendment is totally
498
and utterly defective and achieves nothing whatsoever so far as I can understand, I should deal with some of the anxieties that my noble friend mentioned.
It might help if I explain that the present system already gives special treatment to the heavy business user. Where business mileage is substantial—18,000 miles or more a year—the main scale charge is halved. Taken together with the 50 per cent. addition for cars with little or no business mileage, employers of very heavy business users pay one third of the charge faced by those whose company cars are used very little for business, i.e. the perk car, those below 2,500 business miles. Given the substantial average private mileage of cars which are heavily used for business, it is clear that this reduced charge is not an excessive measure of the value of the private use. For example, cars used for business mileage over 10,000 miles a year are frequently used also for large amounts of private mileage. Figures from the National Travel Survey, from which my noble friend quoted, show that employees in the middle band—2,500 to 18,000 business miles—average over 11,000 private miles a year. There is no evidence that this private usage reduces in any way where the business mileage moves into the highest band—18,000 miles or more.
I believe that that is sufficient reason for showing that the intention behind the amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the amendment is defective in what it seeks to achieve. If he wished to make such amendment it should be to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I hold up, just—I am hardly strong enough—the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I am advised that it is the biggest Act that has passed through Parliament. By its nature I imagine that we did not have a hand in it. Perhaps we did not have a chance to consider it.
I appreciate what my noble friend said about my amendment not achieving what I set out to achieve. I am glad that he understands what it seeks to achieve. At a late stage of framing the amendment I was on the telephone to the CBI and its lawyers. They could not put the wording right because it is terribly difficult to amend the Act, let alone the Bill before us.
I take the points my noble friend has made. I hope to return with an amendment at the next stage of the Bill which achieves what I seek. However, at this stage it has been useful to have had the matter aired. I am grateful to Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber who supported the amendment. I am sure that they supported the principle even though the CBI and I recognise that the amendment as presently worded does not achieve what is required. I hope that at the next stage we shall bring forward a more perfect amendment.
It would have been even nicer if my noble friend, having understood the aims of the amendment, had said that he would bring forward a government amendment. That would have been even more helpful. It is a serious point. It might be important to have a Report stage in order for that to be achieved. I believe

499
that it is being suggested that we shall go straight to Third Reading if none of the amendments is accepted by the Committee. Without a Report stage, if I were to put down an amendment at the next stage of the Bill, there would not be time for my noble friend, having considered my amendment, to bring forward an amendment of his own at Third Reading. Perhaps he can comment on that.
Lord Henley: I said that I understood what my noble friend sought to do; I gave no commitment that I supported it. I then set out why I thought the intentions behind the amendment were misguided. I am certainly not prepared to offer the help that he seeks.
Lord Mottistone: I do not suggest such help at this stage, but when we have put forward an amendment that is not faulty, perhaps my noble friend will have a different view.
I do not wish to prolong this debate or to offend the doggie people. However, let us not forget that we picked on 10,000 miles because that is what a government report in the mid-1970s stated as the average business mileage. I am sure that it will be roughly that figure. It might be 11,000 or 9,000, but we base the mileage on the Government's own figure. Although my noble friend may be against the amendment because of what one might call the money side of his job, from the point of view of keeping business going we must make fair provision. Having said that rather firmly—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, with reference to a Report stage, I have been assured this morning by the authorities of the House that there will be a Report stage.
Lord Mottistone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, leave out lines 26 to 30.
The noble Lord said: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 3 since it raises the same point. Like my noble friend, I am anxious not to cause the dogs to bark in vain for too long.
Both amendments deal with what appear to be Henry VIII clauses; that is, provisions in a statute under which that statute can be amended, not by another statute but simply by regulation or order made by Ministers. Members of the Committee will recall that we had considerable discussion on the matter on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. I am sorry to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in his place today because he is the acknowledged authority on a subject on which I am no more than a toiling amateur. I understand that these provisions are both measures of that kind.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that one had to have such provision because one
500
could not otherwise adjust the current legislation to some forthcoming legislation. I pointed out that the forthcoming legislation could perfectly well be used to make the necessary adaptation in the ordinary way by way of statute. The only answer that my noble friend gave is one with which, frankly, I disagree. He stated in the Official Report of last Friday at col. 858 that one could not use a Finance Bill to amend a national insurance Bill. With respect, that is absolute nonsense. One could perfectly well put a provision in a Finance Bill for amending other statutes. All one has to do is to provide that the Title of the Bill is wide enough to permit that. If that is the only objection, with great respect to my noble friend, it is a wholly bogus one.
The proper, sensible and civilised way to deal with the matter would be to drop these provisions in the Bill and announce that whatever amendments are needed to bring the Bill into line with a future Bill which we have not yet seen will be contained in that future Bill.
Lord Renton: I had hoped and believed that I had added my name to these two amendments. But the piece of paper on which I did so, and which I put into the appropriate box in one of the offices, does not appear to have reached those who make such matters effective. However, I support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in what he said, and add a very few words.
Henry VIII clauses are obviously prima facie undesirable. In my opinion the only time when it is justifiable to make changes in a statute by regulation is when the circumstances are changing, perhaps with inflation. The amounts then mentioned in the statute may have to be changed without troubling Parliament with re-laying a Bill and going through the whole palaver when it is obviously necessary that the change should be made to keep pace with inflation. That is clear enough and it is a point that one concedes.
However, as my noble friend has pointed out, that is not the circumstance which now exists. The proposed amendments are undesirable because they amend previous statutes which are in themselves most complicated. There will be no opportunity to amend the regulations. We must take them or leave them and hope that we have got it right when, by recourse to the Library, we see how the previous statutes which are so complicated have been amended. That is not a satisfactory way of amending legislation; nor is it a satisfactory use of regulations. Therefore I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Elton: I join the discussion with hesitation. First, I do not like joining issue with two such senior legislators as my two noble friends. Secondly, I do not like to limit in any way the restriction of the use of what we have come to call Henry VIII clauses. However, my noble friend Lord Renton has said that there are circumstances in which such clauses may be justifiable. He gave an example of the change in economic circumstances which could clearly be indexed. That is another way of saying that the power should be useful when there is a limiting factor clear for all to see which operates upon it.

501
I regard a true Henry VIII clause to be one which gives the Secretary of State or other Minister the power to act regardless of outside circumstances. As regards the first amendment—that which I am addressing—the outside circumstances consist of precedent legislation. Not merely is there a circumstance controlling the Minister, but that circum stance is an expression of the will of Parliament, albeit the other place.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that it would be possible to provide for this power to be exercised in an amendment to the Finance Bill in question—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend has misunderstood me. I did not say that it would allow for the power to be exercised; I said that any necessary amendment in this Bill could be effected in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. That is an entirely different point.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend but the consideration that I have in mind still applies. It is for the Minister to tell me whether I am right and it is for him to answer the point. I suspect that if one were to widen the Long Title of the Finance Bill to the extent of permitting this Bill to be altered, one would extend it to include almost every other statute on the statute book. I am glad to be reassured by the Minister that the urgent shaking of the heads of my two noble friends on the Treasury Bench below me is right. The only point that I wish to leave with the Committee is that this is an exercise in the use of what we have come to call Henry VIII clauses under limited circumstances, flowing from a conscious act of the other place.
Lord Cockfield: All I shall say is that there is a longstanding resolution of this Chamber relating to "tacking".
Lord Mottistone: An important point about the amendments is that during the past year I have detected that not only has business been faced with a recession but also with a lack of consultation. I remember that during our discussions on the Social Security Bill that issue was much to the fore as between the relevant department (that of the Minister) and the CBI. When business is under pressure it is not good for systems of legislation to be available which can preclude consultation with interested parties. I am against the kind of powers which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter seeks to erase from the Bill. Apart from the general principle of Henry VIII systems, I should object to providing a way in which departments can slip through measures without consultation. There is too much of a tendency to do that and I do not know why it exists. I do not know why the Department of Social Security believes that the fact that British business is under great strain does not matter and that the wealth of the country, upon which it depends for doing its job, is threatened. I do not know why the department takes that view but it appeals to have done so, at least for the past 12 months. It would be better if the department did not seek these extra powers in order to continue its unpleasant practices.
Lord Carter: The Committee will be familiar with the argument against Henry VIII clauses, but repetition does not reduce the cogency of the argument. Not only do we have government by regulation in the Bill but in Amendment No. 5 there is a de facto retrospection. We have seen a great many such provisions in recent Bills. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill was governed by a Henry VIII clause, although Members of the Committee improved the Bill in that respect, and the provision appeared in the Child Support Bill.
We on these Benches are pleased to support the amendment. We believe that the Government should come back and justify their policies. The fact that the power in Clause 1(7) is related to another Act is not sufficient reason to give the Government wide-ranging powers to amend legislation as they see fit.
Lord Henley: As my noble friend explained on Second Reading and has repeated today, the purpose of the two amendments is to remove from the Bill a provision which he contends enables the Government to amend provisions once they have been enacted by statutory instrument. The first question that we must address is: are they Henry VIII clauses? Secondly, if that is the case are they justified? As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Elton, such clauses are justified on certain occasions and I intend to deal with that matter in time.
As regards the first question, I said on Second Reading that I did not accept that Clause 1(7) was a Henry VIII clause. On subsequent reflection I am now prepared to accept that in its widest possible definition it could be interpreted as such. Therefore I shall in time argue that it is a justifiable Henry VIII clause.
I do not accept that to be the case in respect of Clause 2(2), which is the subject of my noble friend's second amendment. The provision does not give power to amend primary legislation but merely to modify its effect in certain rare cases. If we accept that subsection (7) is a Henry VIII clause—albeit a very little Henry VIII clause —the second question is whether that is justifiable. For the interest and possibly the amusement of my noble friend I shall begin by citing a precedent from the National Insurance Act 1959 which was passed when he was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. My noble friend will know that the Act gave the Minister powers to amend it by means of delegated executive powers. I refer to Section 1(2) which enabled my noble friend who was then Minister to amend the rates shown in that section by delegated powers.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the answer given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 19th March in reply to a question tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton. In that answer my noble and learned friend explained that the exercise of powers under secondary legislation to amend Acts of Parliament can on occasion be a useful means of effecting consequential amendments or repeals of an entirely subsidiary character without the need to require Parliament to consider yet further primary legislation. He confirmed that the Government would continue to propose such powers where they seemed appropriate.

503
I believe that we should have close regard to that important statement of policy by my noble and learned friend in discussing these amendments. The Government see no need to proscribe provisions of this sort in Bills. They can on occasion serve as a useful means of implementing consequential amendments without requiring Parliament to consider further primary legislation. Secondly, there is no general rule that such provisions should specify affirmative resolution. It is a matter of judgment as to whether there are more important matters for parliamentary attention.
On that basis, I believe that it was perfectly proper to make the provision that appears in the Bill at lines 26 to 30 on page 3. And, as I explained on Second Reading, the powers can only be exercised following an amendment to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Moreover, this is no blank cheque that the Secretary of State is being given: the content of any regulations is confined to matters which are necessary or expedient in consequence of any alteration to Sections 157 or 158 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 or Schedule 6 to that Act.
It may help the Committee if I explain in more detail the circumstances in which we envisage using the power to make such regulations. We would not need to invoke the provision whenever the scale rates—the cash equivalents of the benefit of a car or fuel referred to earlier in Clause 1 of the Bill—are altered, as they may be each year as a result of the Budget. So if next year the scale rates for cars and fuel were altered from their present values, set out in Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the cross-references in our provisions would mean that they would refer to the amended provisions without further legislation. If, on the other hand, some amendment was made to Sections 157 and 158 of, or Schedule 6 to, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which was not immediately capable of working in our provisions, then we would need to amend by regulation.
It is not easy to describe such circumstances because, of course, I am having to guess at possible future change. However, perhaps I may be rather more specific as to the circumstances in which we may need to make an amendment by regulation. One instance would relate to the mileage thresholds of 2,500 and 18,000 miles which are incorporated in the text of the Bill at subsection (6). If those figures were altered by the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, I am advised that because they are not cross-referenced, the Bill's provisions would need amendment so as to have similar effect. In such circumstances we would make regulations to amend the figures. That would be the extent of our secondary legislation. I hope that my noble friend will agree that it would be wholly disproportionate to require that that should be done by means of social security primary legislation or by means of widening the scope of any future Finance Bill so as to cover those points.
That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Elton when he asked whether the scope of the Bill could be widened. I am advised that if that was done,
504
one would dramatically increase one's problems as regards the management of the Bill and that that would not be the right line to follow. I suggest that in those circumstances it would be a questionable use of Parliament's time to require it to consider a further set of consequential changes in primary legislation where the principle of the change has already received consideration in this Bill. I hope therefore that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and not proceed with that being discussed with it: first, because the second amendment is not the Henry VIII clause which he thinks it is; and, secondly, because, even if the first amendment relates to a Henry VIII clause, in the circumstances of its use it would be justifiable.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that the Minister has now acknowledged that which he refused to acknowledge on Second Reading; namely, that it would be perfectly possible to do what the Government want by embodying the provision in the subsequent legislation and that the only pity from the Government's point of view was that widening the scope of the legislation—and he delicately did not go further—would allow more amendments to be tabled which would be highly inconvenient for Ministers conducting the Bill.
I am glad also that the Minister acknowledges that the provision contained in subsection (7), dealt with by the first of the amendments, is in the colloquial sense a Henry VIII clause and that that is beyond dispute. As I understand his argument, it is much like the lady who produced an illegitimate child and argued that it did not matter because it was only a little one. That was my noble friend's line of argument.
Lord Henley: I believe that my noble friend is slightly unfair. I was arguing that although it may be argued that it is a Henry VIII clause, it is justifiable in the circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, but my noble friend will recall, or Hansard will remind him if he does not recall it now, that he was arguing that it was small in scope. That is the point of the fairly light-hearted reference which I gave.
I cannot pretend that I find the position satisfactory. However, it is useful that the Committee has had the opportunity, which I hope it will always take, of challenging such clauses. I do not propose to delay the proceedings in connection with the little one by seeking to divide the Committee. A useful purpose has been served by discussing this matter and by making it clear to the Government that similar clauses will always be discussed. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Computation, collection and recovery]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement, financial provision and extent]:
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("Contributions") and insert ("Employers' Contributions").
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to assist the Government by securing that the Title of the Bill reflects what the Bill does. That may seem a rather revolutionary view in certain circles. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsman would be horrified at the idea. Some of their recent work suggests that the contrary is often their intention.
The Bill imposes a contribution solely on employers. Therefore, it is quite distinct from the normal run of social security contributions Bills which impose liability both on employers and employed. It is more accurately described in the words of my amendment than it is in the Title of the Bill. One can search the Bill with great zeal before finding any direct benefit conferred by it on any person in the social security or national insurance systems. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I do not accept what my noble friend says. I am amused that he believes that he is assisting the Government. Should my noble friend wish to refer to employers' contributions, it would not be appropriate to refer to them in the Title. The liability to pay Class 1 A contributions is on,
"persons is liable to pay the secondary Class 1 contributions or certain other persons".
My noble friend accepts, I am sure, that that would make a rather long-winded Title and that it would be better to follow the precedents of social security contributions legislation of 1981 and 1982.
Lord Carter: I know that it is unlikely, but if the Government decided to make changes as regards employees' contributions in that respect, will it be possible, under the Bill as drafted, to do so by the regulations which we discussed on the last amendment?
Lord Henley: I am not aware that we could do that under the Bill as drafted. As I explained on Second Reading, we did not consider it right to include employees' contributions because about half the people who benefit from the use of company cars are above the upper earnings limit. The administrative details and the problems of levying the relatively small amounts of money on the others would not make it worth while.
Lord Carter: That is not the point. I was not referring to the justification but to the technicality. Would the Government be able to do it in the Bill by regulation?
Lord Henley: I am not aware that we could. The noble Lord will know that Class 1A contributions will be purely for the employer. I do not believe we could extend them by regulation to the employees.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to waste more time on this relatively unimportant matter. The Government may have good reasons for misdescribing their legislation in respect of this specific Bill. The less the Bill is understood by the country, perhaps the better for the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("1991") and insert ("1992").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 concerns a more substantial matter and relates to the fact that, whether or not the Minister likes it, the additional charge being imposed by the Bill is retrospective in effect. As he quite properly pointed out at Second Reading, it demands payment at the end of the current financial year. However, the liability is being accumulated from the beginning of the financial year, which is two-and-a-half months ago. In doing that it is no defence to say, as my noble friend said several times at Second Reading, "It is in the Budget and the Budget applies to the year ahead".
First, with great respect, it was not in the Budget. It was announced in the Budget Speech and it was announced that there would be legislation to impose it. That does not put it in the Budget. The point made by my noble friend at column 859 appears to omit that, whereas Budget provisions come into force at once, they do so because of the Budget resolutions. On the day of the Budget, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat down, resolutions are carried which put those tax changes into effect generally from six o'clock that afternoon. I believe that that is the normal procedure. On an occasion when tax on whisky was to be increased, I recall going into a bar at five minutes before six and as a result obtaining my drink distinctly more cheaply than I would have done 10 minutes later.
The tax savings contained in the Budget are operated by Budget resolutions which maintain the legal background to the tax until the Finance Bill has caught up with them and received Royal Assent. That is the procedure. In this case there was no Budget resolution. Although it is taxation—that fact is one of the reasons that make it more difficult for the Committee to deal with it satisfactorily, which I acknowledge at once—in fact there was not and could not be any Budget resolution. The Bill is not yet law. It may perhaps never become law, we do not know. However, the liability has been imposed on the citizen since the beginning of April. That is as plain an example of the enactment of retrospective taxation as one can imagine. It cannot be overcome by saying airily and several times, as did my noble friend, "It was in the Budget". It was not legally in the Budget; it was simply forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a proposed piece of legislation in the course of what was, if I may say so, an admirable Budget Speech. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have nothing to say in regard to the amendment. I was rather intrigued by my noble friend's point regarding what is a "Budget". What is a Budget if it is not the Budget Speech? I have never felt that the Budget had to be printed in some form to be identified, and that the Budget Speech was something quite different. On that narrow point I shall be interested for any explanation from my noble friend concerning my doubts. I should have thought that the Budget was the Budget Speech and not simply a forecast.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: To help my noble friend, the Budget Speech, like any other speech—including that of my noble friend—does not have any actual legislative effect. What has legislative effect are the Budget resolutions which are carried after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat down in another place. The tax changes it is desired to put into effect at once are authorised and remain authorised until the Finance Bill becomes an Act by those resolutions. The point I was seeking to make—I am sorry it was not made clear to my noble friend—is that, whereas that was true of the tax changes in the Budget, it was not true of these provisions.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: I do not wish to enter into the metaphysical argument raised by my noble friends but perhaps I may say that the case put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is a great deal stronger than he made it out to be. The tax increases which take effect immediately are only those covered by the provisional collection of taxes Act, as amended. Where taxes are not covered by the provisional collection of taxes Act, they normally take effect from a later date; that is, the date of the passing of the Act or 5th August. That is true, for example, of capital taxes. Therefore, if one is provident enough to remain in existence until after 5th August, one escapes any increase in the capital taxes which may otherwise be charged. Normally the right course is for an increase in a tax of this kind to operate on the passing of the Bill and not as from an earlier date.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was Financial Secretary to the Treasury for four years and Chief Secretary to the Treasury for two years. When he gives us the benefit of his experience it must be taken seriously.
My noble friend mentioned the question of retrospection. I too would dare to improve on what he said in regard to that one point by reminding the Committee that, although retrospection in favour of the subject is regarded as a permissible legislative device, retrospection against the subject has always been frowned upon. This provision concerns retrospection against the interests of the subject and therefore it is wrongful retrospection.
Lord Boardman: I should like to speak, first, in support of the amendment and the argument put forward by my noble friend. I wish also to raise one other point which I hope the Minister will take into account. It concerns the size of the imposition, which I understand to be something over £600 million. That places a not inconsiderable burden on industry at the present time. When industry is suffering from cash flow problems in the present economic climate, the worst that can be done is to introduce legislation which in many respects is retrospective and add that cash burden to its problems.
Lord Mottistone: I want to add to what my noble friend Lord Boardman said. But there is also a practical point for my noble friend to consider. When the Bill is enacted—which presumably will be within
508
the next month or so—four months will have elapsed since 1st April in which it will now be necessary for people to produce evidence of travel which they may not have collected last year because last year it was not necessary. One cannot expect small busy companies trying to survive in difficult circumstances that the Department of Social Security does not recognise, to collect information sufficient to apply the new legislation retrospectively. They may not have done so and may not possess it. Therefore, for all the reasons that have been given, it seems very wrong indeed. It is also wrong for the practical reason that if my noble friend is not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands, which would be the fairest thing to do, or to allow time to prepare for what has to be done, then at least, as suggested by one Member of the Committee, the measure should come into effect at the earliest opportunity; namely, when the Bill is passed. I hope that my noble friend will consider that.
Lord Carter: It may help the Minister to know that in principle the Opposition support the Bill. So far everyone who has spoken on his side of the Chamber has attacked it. I refer to the retrospective effect which is extremely important. It relates to the whole of the management of the National Insurance Fund. I remind the Committee that the net cost of rebates and incentives to opt out of SERPS is estimated at almost £6 billion. In addition, there is £1.8 billion from general taxation and for benefits which the National Insurance Fund cannot pay because of the SERPS rebates. There is a further £800 million on taxation by April 1993 in relation to extra tax relief. All that arises from that aspect of the National Insurance Fund alone. We now have this additional impost which is retrospective. We certainly support the principle of the Bill. The whole exercise seems to underline the mess which the Government have made in the management of the National Insurance Fund.
Lord Banks: I support the amendment. The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is solid. We should pay attention to what he says because of his great experience, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. My advice to the Committee is to support the amendment because retrospective legislation is involved.
Lord Henley: It will come as no surprise to the Committee and no surprise to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when I say that I cannot accept the amendment. It will also come as no surprise to my noble friend if I repeat what I said at Second Reading; namely, that the provisions of the Bill were part of the Budget package as a whole. My noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that that is no defence. I simply do not accept that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend so soon. He said it was passed in the Budget package as a whole. What does he mean that it was "passed", and when was that done?
Lord Henley: My noble friend should not put words into my mouth. I did not say that they were "passed" but that they were,
"part of the Budget package as a whole".

509
I intended to go on to say that that package of measures took into account the prospect of the extra income to the National Insurance Fund to the tune of about £610 million in 1992–93, based on a starting date of this year. In passing, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Boardman, that that reflects less than 0.02 per cent. of the overall labour costs of businesses. There are of course the corporation tax offsets which should be taken into account. As I explained at Second Reacting, the Bill addresses a deficiency in the current national insurance system, and it would not be right, having recognised such a deficiency, to allow it to continue for a further year. Nor can it be said that the Bill breaches any principle of retrospection; it is a Budget measure and such measures are usually introduced from the beginning of the tax year. The proposal to introduce the new contributions was, as my noble friend quite rightly said, announced in the course of the Budget Statement on 19th March.
I should also remind the Committee that the first payment of the new contributions will not be made by employers until mid-1992, unlike the tax on my noble friend's whisky. As I have explained, we are consulting with employers' representatives on the details of the collection and payment system for the new contributions. We will issue guidance to employers on what to do by the end of the year. That should ensure that they have time to make the necessary arrangements before the proposed payment date of June 1992. I take the points that my noble friend Lord Mottistone made about some employers possibly not having the necessary evidence. We shall take into account what evidence might be necessary this year as regards the number of business miles that employees have driven.
I must point out to my noble friend that employees themselves will have details of their business mileage. They are already taxed on their company cars and they need to keep those details themselves. I see no reason for employees not making those details available to employers. We sent out a mailshot to all employers explaining the position shortly after the Budget. Therefore, all employers will know what the position is. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: In answering my noble friend Lord Boardman, my noble friend said that the cost of £600 million would be 0.02 per cent. of the labour costs of the companies. He repeated that argument many times on individual points when the Social Security Bill went through this House. I hope that my noble friend is adding up all these items because a little more of this kind of legislation, particularly when it is retrospective, will mean that he will say that another 0.02 per cent. is involved. Someone will say that that adds up to 10 per cent.
Lord Henley: I said that it would be 0.02 per cent. of a business's overall costs. I did not go on to say that the net income to the Government will be somewhat less because there will be offsets. I also did not stress the other concessions to business in the Budget Statement which more than exceed £610 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I find my noble friend's emphasis on his suggestion that this is part of the Budget a little unsatisfactory. It is perfectly true that it was included in the Budget Speech. However, what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says does not have any legislative effect. As has been pointed out—although my noble friend has not dealt with the point—the provisions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to put into effect immediately following the Budget are the provisions which are carried in another place as part of the Budget resolutions on the same afternoon. They remain effective until the Finance Bill catches up with them.
There is nothing of that kind in this particular instance. I find my noble friend's attitude very unsatisfactory. He did not even mention one of the suggestions made by one of my noble friends that a possible compromise would be to make this a liability which arose as from the date of the Royal Assent to this particular measure which would at least cure it of retrospection. It is a very unsatisfactory position with which the Committee has been presented. I hope and believe that, now the Leader of the House is here, he will be taking the matter on board and considering whether the Committee should carry the burden of having been prepared to accept what most people regard as wholly unacceptable—that is to say, retrospective taxation. In the hope and belief that such consideration can be given before he next stage of the Bill, I do not wish to prejudice that consideration by noble Lords. I am pretty certain that the matter will arise again at Report stage. At the moment, and while consideration can still be given to the matter, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will be aware of the immediate background to the introduction of this Bill which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set out in his Statement to another place on 22nd May and which my noble friend Lord Reay repeated to your Lordships. In the past two months or so there have been a number of very serious attacks on people by dogs. But the most recent attacks have been of a different degree of seriousness and savagery to the great majority of incidents in which dogs bite people.
The vicious attacks by pit bull terriers on six year-old Rucksana Khan and on Mr. Frank Tempest, whose fearful disfigurement was seen by many on television and in the newspapers, and other savage attacks have all caused widespread concern among the public, who look to the Government and to the law for protection. I am sure that all of your Lordships will have admired the courage of Rucksana Khan and Mr.

511
Tempest in recovering from those attacks and in coping with the terrible injuries which they have received and would wish to join me in expressing our best wishes to them and to their families for the future.
The type of dog which was responsible for those attacks, the pit bull terrier, is one which was first introduced into this country in the mid-1970s. It is a cross-breed dog, it is bred for fighting, it is strong, it is impervious to pain and it is capable of exerting enormous pressure with its jaws. Experts have said that the only certain way to stop an attack by a determined pit bull terrier is with a mallet or with a gun. In many cases in this country, and in America, where the pit bull terrier has killed 34 people, it has proved impossible for full-grown adults to stop a pit bull terrier from its attack once it has started.
We all know that the British people are noted for their love of animals. Dogs in particular give pleasure and companionship to many of us, and some people instinctively feel that there is really no such thing as a bad dog; simply a bad owner. In this respect, the pit bull terrier is, I think, in a class apart from other dogs. No matter how well it is treated by its owner, the pit bull terrier can attack without warning. Many of these dogs have been well behaved and have played perfectly safely with children in the family home up to the point when they attack. That sort of unpredictability is in the nature of the pit bull terrier.
That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided that it was necessary to bring forward legislation as a matter of urgency in order to tackle the problem. The Bill also prohibits another fighting dog, the Japanese Tosa, which can apparently grow to a simply colossal size—I am told to the size of a donkey—and can weigh up to 17 stone. Fortunately, there is only one in this country at the moment—and you need two for procreation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl, but I know this dog. I am the only Member of this House who has been to see him and I am on friendly terms with him. I am giving your Lordships due warning that there is a champion for this one dog in Britain in me.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord has to say. I would merely offer him two words of advice: watch it!
When the Bill was debated in another place there was unanimous support for its aim, which is a simple one. It is to rid the country of the danger to the public which these fighting dogs represent. As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. It is supported by the major animal welfare organisations and by the veterinary bodies.
Clause 1 sets out a range of criminal offences which will apply to the pit bull terrier, to the Japanese Tosa and to any other fighting dogs which my right honourable friend may specify by order. The reference in Clause 1 to fighting dogs is an important one. It is intended to draw a distinction between dogs like the pit bull terrier and the Tosa which are dogs bred for fighting and other types of dog such as the Rottweiler
512
and the Dobermann which, although they might be potentially dangerous, are not in fact fighting dogs. There is, therefore, no suggestion that the Government would either wish, or indeed would be able, to use the Clause 1 powers to ban the ownership of the Rottweiler or Dobermann.
As I have said, the pit bull terrier is a cross-breed dog, bred and cross-bred with other types in order to increase its aggressiveness. The fact that it is a cross-breed, therefore, makes it difficult to define in law. There is as yet no scientific way, such as DNA testing, to define in law what is a pit bull terrier. Many experts are considering the question of the definition both in this country and in other European countries where they are considering similar legislation.
It is possible that in time a more precise scientific definition may emerge. Clause 1(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to refine the definition of any fighting dog, including the pit bull terrier, by order. At the moment the definition in the Bill is:
"any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
That is a description which is expressed in plain language that everyone can understand.
If the import of those two dogs had been banned at the time when they were introduced into this country, it is very likely that we should not be debating the Bill today. That makes it all the more important that the Government should have clear powers to ban the domestic ownership and import of any other new types of fighting dog which may emerge in the future. Clause 1(1) (c) gives the Secretary of State the power to take immediate action to ban such dogs by order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has powers in separate legislation to impose an import ban. We have used those powers already to ban further imports of the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa.
The criminal offences which will apply to the dogs which are specified in Clause 1 cover breeding them, selling or exchanging them, giving them away, advertising them, abandoning them or letting them stray. These offences will become law very soon after the Bill is enacted, by an order of the Secretary of State. From that time, Clause 1(2) (a) will make it a criminal offence to have a pit bull terrier or a Tosa in public without a muzzle and without a lead. That is a measure which will give protection to the public as soon as the Bill becomes law. Those who commit these offences will face tough penalties—a maximum of six months' imprisonment and a maximum fine of £2,000, which will rise to a maximum of £5,000 when the Criminal Justice Bill, which raises fine levels, becomes law.
Clause 1(3) also creates an offence of owning or keeping a prohibited dog. It is our intention to bring that offence into force some time after the other criminal offences in the Bill, at about the end of November. There will, therefore, be a period of some four months before actually owning or having custody of one of those dogs itself becomes a criminal offence. During that time the owner can decide to do one of two things: he can decide either to have his pit bull terrier put down voluntarily or he can seek to have it exempted.

513
The Government will provide an incentive for owners who wish to have their pit bull terrier put down. Clause 1(3) enables the Secretary of State to make by order a scheme to pay to owners a sum by way of compensation for the dog and its putting down. My right honourable friend is consulting the veterinary profession and animal welfare organisations about the precise level of the sum to be paid to each owner. The cost of putting a dog down varies from one part of the country to another. Many claim that pit bull terriers are valuable dogs and there is the suggestion that some change hands for large sums. Much of that value is based on their value as fighting dogs in the illegal and quite deplorable activity of dog fighting. It would be quite wrong for any sum which may be made available from public funds to reflect that sort of factor.
The best advice which we have suggests that the intrinsic value of the pit bull terrier is about £25. The sum which will be made available to cover compensation and destruction is likely to be some here in the region of £50. It will be payable by the Home Office when the owner produces a certificate or other proof from a veterinary surgeon that the dog is a pit bull terrier and that it has been put down.
My right honourable friend indicated, during the Second Reading of the Bill, that he would be consulting interested parties, including the police, the veterinary bodies and animal welfare organisations about an exemption scheme. Those discussions are now nearly complete, and my right honourable friend will publish the relevant order in draft form, together with details of how the scheme will work, very shortly.
Your Lordships might like to know what we propose that the pit bull owner, who wishes to retain his dog, should have to do under the scheme. The first thing which he will have to do is to obtain a form from the police, and leave with them his name and address.
He will then have to have his dog, male or female, neutered by a veterinary surgeon. The veterinary surgeon will also mark the dog. Neutering is not a means of rendering a dog safe. It is a means of ensuring that the animal cannot breed, and that the breed itself cannot continue.
The owner will also have to arrange for the dog to be covered by third party insurance. He will then have to provide proof of insurance and proof of neutering in order to obtain a certificate of exemption by which he will be allowed to keep the dog. There will need to be a central index of exempted dogs to which the police will have access in order to check the details of any deg which they seize or which is the subject of a complaint.
We have put the task of running this scheme out to tender to a number of organisations. We hope to announce the appointment of the successful organisation within the next few weeks. The invitations to tender which we have issued, stress the need for the organisation which runs the scheme to work closely with the police, the Home Office and the other agencies involved in ensuring that the exemption scheme works. The body which runs the scheme will also be responsible for issuing the certificate of exemption.
514
The owner who wishes to exempt his dog will have to meet the full cost of doing so himself. The cost of neutering by a veterinary surgeon varies according to the sex of the dog. Castrating a dog can cost about £80. Spaying a bitch can, I understand, cost in the region of £120. The cost of insurance is a matter for the owner to work out with his insurance company, but it will add to the cost.
The operating costs of the scheme, which will include a central index of exempted dogs, will be fully recoverable through the fee to be charged for the permit. The fee clearly cannot be determined finally until the final details are settled and the process of tendering is complete.
The exemption scheme contains a tough and costly set of requirements for the owner of these dogs to meet. Breaching any of the requirements will mean that the dog is no longer an exempted one and the owner commits the offence of possession in Clause 1(3). At all times the owner of the dog must keep it muzzled and on a lead.
During the proceedings on the Bill in another place, it was suggested that as an additional protection to the public no one under the age of 18 should be allowed to have charge of such a dog in public. Perhaps the age of 18 is a couple of years too high, but I can assure your Lordships that we would look sympathetically at any amendment which your Lordships might care to bring forward along these lines during the passage of the Bill.
At the end of November, the offence of possessing or having custody of a prohibited dog will come into force. Those who have not voluntarily had their dogs put down or who have not successfully had them exempted at that stage, will face a term of imprisonment of up to six months and/or a maximum fine of £2,000, which will rise to £5,000 when the Criminal Justice Bill is implemented. With this, as with any of the other Clause 1 offences, the onus will be on the accused to prove that his dog is not a pit bull terrier.
Some have suggested that the exemption scheme constitutes some sort of registration system. Perhaps I may say a word or two about dog registration. Those of us who listened to the debate on registration during the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill last year will know that it is a subject on which many of your Lordships have views, all of which are sincerely held and many of which are forcefully expressed.
The situation in which we find ourselves looking at this matter again today is very different from the position a year ago. The Dangerous Dogs Bill is itself a piece of legislation very different from the Environmental Protection Bill. It is aimed specifically at ridding the country of fighting dogs and at giving the public greater protection against dogs which are dangerous.
The question of dog registration needs to be seen in that context. We are not in any way persuaded that general dog registration would have helped to prevent any of the most serious dog attacks which have occurred recently. It is significant that another place rejected a dog registration amendment at Committee stage by 43 votes. That is a very much larger majority

515
than the slender margin of three votes by which the other place decided last year not to accept my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley's amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill.
The background is therefore different. I am sure that those of your Lordships who advocate registration will have their say. I shall look forward to hearing what they do have to say. But I hope that whatever differences there may be on this issue they will not prevent your Lordships from supporting this much needed Bill.
The Government recognise that the pit bull terrier is not the only type of dog which can attack, although I hope that I have explained to your Lordships that the power and the savagery with which it does so sets it apart from other types and breeds.
The sad truth, which all dog owners recognise, is that dogs of any type can snap and bite. Much depends on the control which the owner or keeper exercises over his or her dog. The consultation paper on the control of dogs which the Government issued last June put forward a number of proposals aimed at encouraging owners to control their dogs more responsibly.
Clause 3 of the Bill contains two important provisions applying to dogs of any type which were set out in the consultation paper and which attracted an encouraging measure of support. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 makes it a criminal offence for someone to permit a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place together with an aggravated offence when a dog then attacks someone and injures them.
The penalty for the offence is imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000, as the level of the fine will become. The penalty for the aggravated offence is two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
The criminal offence in Clause 3 is one which can apply to the owner of any dog. We hope that it will encourage owners to exercise greater responsibility for their dogs when the dogs are out of the house. At the same time we recognise that if a particular breed of dog is in the future responsible for a number of serious incidents to the point where it represents a serious danger to the public, there may be calls for all dogs of that particular breed to be subject to special restrictions. Clause 2 therefore provides a reserve power to impose restrictions in those circumstances. It would enable the Home Secretary to apply to named types of dogs the criminal offences in Clause 1(2)(d) and (e) of failing to muzzle and have on a lead and abandoning or allowing to stray. This would be done by order.
Imposing blanket conditions such as these on any of the recognised breeds of dogs would be a major step. The Government consider it necessary that before such a serious course of action is undertaken, there should be wide consultation.
Clause 2 therefore imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult widely with representatives of the veterinary profession, animal welfare organisations and bodies with particular knowledge of
516
dogs before making such an order. Before such an order was implemented, it would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
This is an important power to have in reserve if the provisions in the Bill, which are aimed at encouraging responsible ownership and control of dogs, prove not to be sufficient. The Government are not convinced however that there is a case at the present time for singling out any types of dogs for the uniform restrictions envisaged in Clause 2. Most postmen would regard as a greater problem certain dogs which are usually well known to them and which can come from any type or breed.
The Government think that it is important that members of the public, postmen and others, who have good cause to fear for their safety because of the threat which may be presented by a particular dog should be able to take action to tackle the problem. Clause 3(4) provides them with the means of doing so. It strengthens the power in the Dogs Act 1871 and enables any one, who considers that a dog is dangerous and that it is not kept under proper control, to apply to the court for an order to require its owner to keep it under control.
Two important changes from the power in the Dogs Act 1871 are that it enables the court to make an order whether or not a dog which is thought to be dangerous has actually caused injury to a person. It also enables the court to specify particular measures by which the dog should be controlled. The measures named in Clause 3(4)(b) are,
"muzzling, keeping on a lead",
and,
"excluding it from specified places".
The court would have the power to specify other measures if it was thought necessary.
The postman and the next door neighbour, whose work or whose relaxation were made a misery by a dog which snarled, nipped, scratched or escaped, would have the means to force its owner to stop it from doing so. The proposal was widely welcomed when it was put forward in the consultation paper issued last year.
Those are the major provisions of the Bill. It is a measure which has been brought forward quickly to meet both public and parliamentary concern about the attacks by fighting dogs which have been taking place. The provisions of the Bill will, I think, provide a tough and effective response to that problem. They give the public protection and they toughen the law against those who do not take care to control their dogs properly.
The Bill has been widely welcomed by another place, the animal welfare associations, the veterinary bodies and the general public. I hope that your Lordships will also support the Bill and ensure that it passes quickly into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.52 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I know that the House will understand if I start my speech by paying a tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I heard that he had gone to view the Japanese Tosa,

517
which is the only one in the country. I also heard that the dog was about the size of a small donkey. Your Lordships will no doubt understand the skill and determination and indeed the initiative of my noble friend in pursuing that confrontation. I then heard that the monster proved to be amiable. But, after that, I heard that it had left the country for France. Of course, I know not whether that was a result of my noble friend's confrontation with the dog or whether it was purely coincidental. However, I am quite sure that, if more Tosas come into the country, we should not rely upon my noble friend to ensure that they all leave the country and go to France.
The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill will know that the Opposition support it. We have seen too many vicious attacks, and even deaths, caused by the American pit hull terrier in this country. Therefore, to hinder the Bill now would, in our view, be to deny the public the protection they need. At the outset, perhaps I may make it perfectly clear to the House that we shall therefore give the Bill a fair wind. Having said that, the noble Earl will no doubt expect my next sentence to begin with the word "however"; indeed, it does.
However, while the Bill provides some answer to the problem of fighting dogs, we on these Benches, like the RSPCA and other interested groups, believe that the Government have asked themselves and have indeed answered the wrong question. The Government have failed in the Bill fully to address the problems of irresponsible dog ownership, and they could do so. Banning some dogs is a fair, short-term answer to the immediate problem. But I must say right at the outset that in our view the registering of all dogs would be a better solution to a problem which goes much wider than the question of fighting dogs.
I must also say that the Government's approach to and the consequent limitations of the Bill seem to smack more of a concentration on the headlines rather than producing a considered response to the views of experts in the field or the advice of Members of this House and of another place; or indeed of listening to, apparently, 92 per cent. of the population. According to the findings of a Harris poll published in the Observer on 16th June, 92 per cent. of the population would support a national dog registration scheme. I cannot avoid saying that in our view this is an opportunity which has been missed.
However, I am sure that I speak for Members on all sides of the House in joining the Minister in sending our sympathy to the victims of attacks by these dogs. The recent appalling cases of the young girl Rucksana Khan and Mr. Frank Tempest were preceded by earlier tragedies such as the death of Kelly Lynch. We must also not forget those who, while they have not actually been attacked, have had their lives terrorised by the pit bull terrier which may live next door, round the corner or indeed, usually, in the neighbouring park.
Not all such dogs are inevitably fierce and by no means are all owners of such dogs irresponsible. But many members of the public, and I am sure Members of this House, rightly fear meeting such unpredictable creatures in the street. As the noble Earl said in his
518
opening speech, it is the unpredictability of the dog which in some ways is the greatest problem. The short point, as the Minister said, is that the dogs have been bred for fighting and for aggression. As such, they are hardly in the same category as the family pet and, quite clearly, different legislation is needed to deal with them.
For that reason, we support the Government's aim to eliminate the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa from this country. The proposals in the Bill which provide for compensation for those who have their dog put down, and which allow certain exemptions for those who do not want to have their dog destroyed, are on the whole sensible and reasonable measures. We similarly welcome the powers to put down dogs which do not meet the exemptions and to imprison, fine or ban owners who contravene the new provisions. We also approve of those clauses of the Bill which provide for the muzzling and leashing of these and other dangerous dogs; and the strengthening of sanctions to deal with those who allow their dogs to be dangerously out of control in a public place.
So far, so good. However, the Government should not pretend that the public are only concerned about pit bull terriers. I do not believe that they are much concerned about the Japanese Tosa. Indeed, I do not think many of us have come across one yet as apparently there is only one in the country; that is, if it is still here. Their concern goes wider. If one talks to members of the public about the problem it is evident that Rottweilers and Dobermann pinschers are breeds about which people are worried. Moreover, despite the extraordinary growth in the ownership of what used to be called Alsatians, but which now I believe are commonly known as German shepherd dogs, people are still worried about the unpredictability which some of those dogs show.
One has to recognise at the outset that the Bill is a limited response to what is perceived as a limited problem. In our view, it does not go sufficiently far. Having said that, there may be one or two problems with the legislation. But I should like first to pay tribute to the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen; that is, those who work in that workhouse of the legislature which is not usually given the credit for which it is perhaps due. They have brought forward a definition of the dog covered by the Bill which I am bound to say I find extremely skilful. As I understand it, it is impossible to define a pit bull terrier. The breed is not known. Therefore, we have legislated not for the pit bull terrier but for,
"any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
The Home Secretary said in the debate on the Bill in another place—and indeed the noble Earl repeated it today—that the definition of,
"any dog of the type"
was,
"understandable to the lawyer and the layman". [Official Report, Commons, 10/6/91; co1.646.]
I regret that I do not entirely share his optimistic view; nor do I think it would be shared by any lawyer acting for an owner. How, for example, is one to distinguish between a "cross-breed", a "half-breed' or any other

519
permutation of "type"? This urgently needs clarification and we look forward to hearing the Government's clarification at a subsequent stage of the Bill. I should also say to the Government that reversing the onus of proof as to whether the dog is or is not of the,
"type known as the pit bull terrier".
(that is, not that it is a pit bull terrier but that it is of the "type") does not solve the problem of definition.
Secondly, there is no definition of owner in the Bill. With a proper registration scheme, that would be simple. The registered owner is the registered owner. In the absence of a registration scheme, who in a family is the owner of the dog? Is it the person who originally brought it in; the wife who perhaps looks after it for most of the time; the child who mostly takes it out; or, in the case of pit bull terriers, the "elderly teenager" or the youth in his early twenties who may not have bought the dog but who seems to have assumed control over it? There is a problem with definition. Although I understand and appreciate what the Government are trying to achieve, problems will arise with the Bill as presently drafted.
The Bill is far from faultlessly drafted. I do not blame the draftsman for that. I blame the speed with which the Government reacted and perhaps the not entirely coherent way in which they approached the problem. There are a number of amendments, some of which were denied discussion in the other place due to the Government's guillotine Motion, that we intend to table in this House.
We are also concerned that the Bill contains no provisions requiring all dogs to be kept in safe conditions. Clause 3 creates an offence of permitting a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. As I understand it, that provision applies to all dogs not just to fighting or dangerous dogs. I am not sure what permitting a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place means, unless it results in some kind of attack which, under this clause, is regarded as an aggravated offence. If the dog is running around a park yapping, I should not have thought that that was being dangerously out of control, but I know not. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, shaking his head. The Government need to clarify what they mean by that provision, and must ensure that the public know what they mean.
Firearms, when not in use, must still be kept in a safe place. We believe that provisions should be included to ensure that fighting dogs at least have to be kept securely to prevent their escape or theft. We should also like clarification of the definition of a "public place". Will the police have powers to act against dangerous dogs in tower blocks, maisonettes, and areas around them, and in back gardens? What will be the position of a dog—to use the words of the Bill—"dangerously out of control" in the owner's driveway, for example? Are the police entitled to enter and deal with a dog? Again, we find a lack of precision and clarity in the Bill with which we hope the Government can deal.
520
I turn to graver and weightier matters. There are several omissions in the Bill. A major omission is a wider scheme for third party insurance. The Government have included in the Bill provisions relating to the insurance of dangerous dogs which are not destroyed. I confess that we are puzzled as to why the Government did not extend the requirement to obtain insurance to "other specially dangerous dogs". We believe that there may be a case for extending third party insurance to all dogs. We shall in due course seek support for that suggestion from all sides of the House.
Insurance would at least provide some compensation for all those subject to attacks from dogs where the owner can be identified, as he could clearly be identified if there were a proper registration scheme. When an attack occurs and the owner cannot be identified, our view is that victims, especially after the Bill's passage, should be able to claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The inadequacies of the Bill extend also to its financial provisions. Local authorities' representatives are worried that the £250,000 which the Government have assessed it will cost to implement the Bill will not be enough even to locate and register the estimated 10,000 pit bull terriers in the country. We shall therefore seek assurances that local authorities will be fully compensated for enforcing the Bill.
Ultimately, the Bill is inadequate because it provides a partial solution only to the problem in this country. RSPCA figures show, for example, that out of 468 serious attacks recorded in the metropolitan area in 1990, 111 were caused by the American pit bull terrier. That means that 357 attacks were caused by dogs other than the pit bull terrier. They were caused by dozens of other breeds of dog, including many cross breeds. The problem caused by dangerous dogs will not be lessened until all dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for their animals' actions. I noticed that in almost the closing sentence of the Minister's speech he emphasised the importance of ensuring that all dog owners were made to feel responsible for the actions of their dogs. That is true, but a national dog registration scheme would be the most efficient way of focusing the minds of dog owners on those responsibilities.
The advantages of registering all dogs have been argued by my party and almost all animal welfare organisations for a number of years now. The House has a solid reputation for supporting such a scheme. The Government, however, still resist it. Clause 1(5) deals with the exceptions that the Government may be prepared to make to the overall provisions relating to pit bull terriers, and includes provisions requiring owners of pit bull terriers who apply for exemption and secure it, to register their dogs with the police. If that is not a dog registration scheme for fighting dogs, I confess that I hardly understand the English language.
The nub of the argument is that there can be no adequate control of dogs without a registration scheme which links the owner to the dog. Irrespective of breed, that is the way to take the majority of responsible dog owners along with the legislation. The

521
Government argue that pit hull terriers are in a class of their own because they are bred for fighting. That is true, and I accept it. However, in general a breed "type of dog" approach is the wrong way to proceed because many dogs are capable of inflicting severe injuries upon people. Ninety breeds of dog were involved in the 357 serious attacks in the Metropolitan area in 1990. That figure indicates that irresponsible ownership is a problem which needs tackling, and hence our support for a national dog registration scheme.
The Home Secretary has acknowledged that the permanent identification of the dog and certification of ownership are central to the Bill's effective enforcement. Those are the basic requirements of a dog registration scheme. It is unfortunately clear that the issue has become the victim of what I suppose I can tactfully call "political circumstances". Factors seem to be coming into play which militate against a favourable decision on a dog registration scheme in this House and in another place. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, nodding his head in apparent agreement. I am sorry that he agrees with me, having regard to what I have just had to say. I have to say to the noble Lord, and to other noble Lords who think like him, that were they to take a different view and agree that a dog registration scheme should be introduced in the Bill, as the noble Lord will be aware from what was said in another place on Second Reading and in Committee, that is something that we on this side of the House would view with favour.
The general public are keen to see a Bill enacted. This Bill is a serious, albeit inadequate, response by the Government. Its main provisions are to be welcomed, but it is a limited Bill, dealing with a limited situation. It will have a limited effect; and it is, frankly, second best.
We very much regret the fact that the Government have once again missed an opportunity to deal with the problem comprehensively and properly. As I said, we shall not impede the Bill's passage, but we shall urge the Government to monitor the situation closely, and we shall not hesitate to take every appropriate opportunity to press the case for dog registration.
5.10 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with almost everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The scope of the Bill is narrow, dealing with tragic events, or the protection of the public from the repetition of tragic events which were outlined by the noble Earl when he introduced the Bill. He told us clearly what it was about and its many provisions.
The Government are quite right to act. We support them in their actions so far as they go under all the circumstances concerning dogs today in this country. Nevertheless, the circumstances are extremely unsatisfactory. Very little accurate information is available about even the number of dogs in the country; figures of 3 million and 5 million are floated, but no one knows exactly. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, there is no registration scheme through which one can focus on this kind of information. How many dogs are
522
there? Who owns them? Where is the concentration to be found of dogs deemed to be dangerous? How do various types of owners look after their dogs? Do they look after them differently in one area compared with another?
All this information would follow naturally from a dog registration scheme. It would cost money. The Government have given as one of the reasons for not wanting such a scheme that it would be expensive. Another is that those people whom they wish to pursue for being irresponsible owners would not register. Here we find ourselves faced with a Bill which—admirable though it is—places quite hard conditions on owning the type of dog mentioned in it. We leave aside the Japanese dog for the moment because we shall probably hear more about it from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who seems to be the best informed person in the House.
I have spoken to various people about the pit bull terrier, including dog wardens. We, or rather the Government, are in trouble with the Bill because it involves identifying exactly what a pit bull terrier is. The dog warden to whom I spoke in the city of Bradford has been head of a warden scheme there which has been in existence for some years, since the middle 1970s. The warden has a staff of five but there is a severe problem. He tells me that even for an expert it is not easy to say with any certainty what is and what is not a pit bull terrier.
When the police are given the responsibility of seeing that the provisions of the Bill are carried out, they will find it extremely difficult. All their duties in connection with the Bill will be difficult and I cannot help feeling that it is unfair to load upon them yet another duty. It is not surprising that a few policemen to whom I have spoken about the proposed legislation become down in the mouth when they discuss it. Many of them are nervous of dogs; I am nervous of dogs.
As I walked into your Lordships' House this afternoon, I saw two charming ladies standing outside the House of Commons with a message to us on their clothing. They had a large Alsatian with them, and the message said, "This dog likes people". I treated it with some caution because the message could be interpreted in several ways. I started and took a step backwards and they said, "Oh, you needn't be afraid". They gave some advice which I will pass on to your Lordships: "If you are ever approached by a dog that looks dangerous or that may attack you, it is easy. All you do is to close your eyes, cross your arms and make a noise as though you were saying, "Oh, not again'". I pass that guidance on to your Lordships, but I would start low down the scale when trying out the advice, first with a Chihuahua and then working up.
These ladies were helpful; I moved them to the gate of the House of Lords so that they would meet other noble Lords coming in. The dog had a tattoo mark in its ear which interested me. The ladies said, "If an identification scheme is established, this is the way in which dogs should be identified. It is painless, easily read and it does not disappear". Apparently, the new technology which has been suggested involves a chip in the scruff of the neck of the dog, but the technology has not yet been perfected. They said, "If you know

523
anything about dogs, you will know that small objects such as that chip tend to travel round the dog". I did not know it but what may start in the scruff of the neck may end up anywhere. Clearly the tattoo is the best method of dealing with identification.
To return to the problems of the Bill, it seems to me that one of the most interesting aspects that arises is third party insurance. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and it is absolutely right that third party insurance should be taken out by the owners of dogs such as the pit bull terrier and the other dog which is mentioned in the Bill. Indeed, should not third party insurance be taken out by owners of many other kinds of dogs which are potentially a threat? I am told that many owners already do so and I inquired of the two good ladies whom I met at lunchtime whether the dog was insured. They said it was insured through a club. I was interested to know how an underwriter assessed the risk, I supposed that it was more on the status of the owner than the dog. They said that if one belongs to a reputable club, the underwriters take a view of the club and the rates are set accordingly. They are not excessively high. In this case for the Alsatian which likes people it was £9. That does not seem to me to be excessive. It did not seem to matter what kind of dog one insured—though presumably not a pit bull terrier—even including dogs sometimes deemed to be dangerous such as Alsatians and Rottweilers.
Perhaps Bradford is not a good example because it is an inner city area with many problems with crime and dogs—the two go together in that authority. In my discussions with the Bradford wardens, I was told that they handle about 5,000 dogs a year. The dogs are picked up and put in the pound and only 15 per cent. are returned to their original owners; 95 per cent. of those handled by the Bradford wardens have no identification whatever. They said that generally when a dog is involved in a problem in Bradford most people deny ownership. However, it is accepted that in a serious case such as the tragic ones mentioned today, it is usually possible to identify the owners fairly quickly. With minor cases the owners seem to vanish.
The wardens said that one of the problems in the Bradford area with dangerous dogs or ones that are the property of irresponsible owners is that they live on housing estates. I do not wish to imply that all people who live on housing estates are irresponsible dog owners. Clearly, the restrictions of living on a housing estate make dog ownership more difficult, particularly if the dog is large. The Bradford wardens told me that many dangerous dogs are bred in blocks of flats and the puppies are sold, passed on or given away to friends. Many of the puppies find their way into the dog pound after days or weeks.
One of the main difficulties which has not yet been mentioned is of owners of pit bull terriers anticipating the legislation. One warden said to me with certainty, "We have found 20 pit bull terriers which have been let loose. The owners don't want the problem of dealing with the provisions of the Bill, and we have had to collect the dogs". We asked what would happen if similar circumstances arose all over the country and
524
the dogs then bred with other dogs in the interim period before being picked up. He said, "Have you any idea of the implications regarding the strain which has been bred into the pit bull terrier?" As the noble Earl accurately told us, it is a cross-breed. I was asked what effect it would have on the population of dogs in a crowded area. That is another reason for initiating a dog registration scheme sooner or later to tighten up this state of affairs.
I return to the matter of the police having to implement the provisions of this Bill. That seems unsatisfactory when there are so many experts who could do the job. I believe that about half the local authorities in this country have some kind of dog warden scheme although some of those schemes may be inadequate due to cost restrictions. However, I do not believe any other authority has the five wardens that Bradford has. This matter is clearly not a job for the police. It is not fair to ask the police to acquaint themselves with the peculiarities of dealing with dogs, particularly dogs which have been badly handled or maltreated and have come from the kinds of background that have turned them into dangerous dogs. The noble Earl has explained the difference between a fighting dog and a dangerous dog. It is not fair to expect the police to handle these situations in addition to their normal duties. There are many qualified people who could implement a satisfactory scheme much quicker than is envisaged in the Bill.
I emphasise that—many noble Lords will probably repeat the same points in this debate—we on these Benches see no alternative to a dog registration scheme, however it is operated. Although the Bill deals admirably with fighting dogs that are bred to be aggressive—such dogs are often used for betting purposes—it does not deal with dogs such as Rottweilers. Those dogs are often perfectly good family pets. The warden in Bradford told me that sometimes Rottweilers are trained to be vicious to deter police making drug raids. That is a frightening thought.
The warden also told me that recently the police in Bradford were called out to deal with two Rottweilers which had escaped from a scrapyard that the dogs were guarding. I am told that is a normal use for dogs of that kind. When they escaped from the scrapyard, the dogs started terrorising some children on a nearby estate. Two units of policemen came and they tried to surround the dogs. However, the dogs became agitated and the police failed to corner them. The police then contacted a dog warden who came with his grasper. That is an implement with a noose on the end of it. The warden finally caught the dogs. The dogs, on examination, were found to weigh over 13 stone each. Such dogs that are used to guard property can cause untold havoc, if not disaster, if they escape. This Bill is fine so far as it goes; but the situation is still grave. I hope that the Government will come to their senses and agree to establish a registration scheme very soon.
5.23 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I draw the attention of noble Lords to my tie, which shows that I am a friend of Battersea Dogs Home. I like dogs. We are basically

525
discussing pit bull terriers. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the only way to control pit bull terriers was with a gun or a mallet. According to what I have read in the newspapers, one can hit a pit bull terrier as hard as one likes with a mallet, but if he has someone in his jaws he will not even feel the blow. According to one report I have read, the only sure way to make a pit bull terrier release its hold, apart from killing it, is to shove a hard, long and pointed object up its rectum. It will then release its grip and run off hurt. However, I do not think we wish to see people walking round with long, pointed walking sticks with that object in view.
I have said before in your Lordships' House that I see no earthly reason for keeping pit bull terriers. I received a letter from a lady enclosing a photograph of her husband and three little children with the family's pit bull terrier. She explained that the animal was the family's pet. I replied to the letter saying that I prayed that the pit bull terrier would never turn on her or her family. I repeat that I believe there is no reason to keep a pit bull terrier unless one intends to use it in dog fights. As far as I am aware, that practice is illegal in this country. There is no other reason for keeping a pit bull terrier.
The first two pit bull terriers to come to this country arrived in 1977. I do not know why they were ever let out of quarantine as it must have been obvious what kind of dogs they were. They were known to be fighting dogs. The sooner this country is rid of pit bull terriers, the better. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who said that out of 468 serious attacks recorded in the metropolitan area in 1990, 111 had been committed by pit bull terriers and 357 had been committed by other breeds. Of around 7,000 pit bull terriers in the whole country, probably only a small percentage are to be found in the Metropolitan Police area. The percentage of other breeds in that area is probably higher. Therefore we must take the statistics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a pinch of salt.
Reference has been made to the fact that some owners are not the right kind of people to keep certain dogs and do not provide the right environment for them. But I believe that if one puts any dog trained for a specific purpose in the wrong environment that dog will cause trouble. German shepherd dogs are basically guard dogs. If one puts a guard dog in a small flat he will become bad tempered and the chances are he will bite people. Even a collie which is bred for rounding up sheep can become bad tempered if it is taken out of its natural environment and kept in a small garden. At some stage that dog will become bad tempered.
I cannot speak for all breeds of dog but there are many instances of large dogs being kept in unsuitable surroundings. That is why many of those dogs become vicious. One reads in the newspapers that people who keep pit bull terriers keep them, first, because they think the dogs make them look macho and, secondly, as so-called guard dogs. Many people keep them to protect their drug and other interests. I repeat that we do not need this breed of dog.
526
A few years ago I took part in a Territorial Army annual camp on Salisbury Plain. Some 1,000 Z reservists went on the town in Salisbury and caused havoc. The following day the regular Territorial Army units set up patrols. As a sergeant I picked four or five of the toughest boys in the company. We met up with a police sergeant who was a dog handler. We had heard that that man and his dog had faced a crowd of drunken Z reservists, who had turned and would not go forward against that German shepherd. I asked the police sergeant, "Do you mind if I touch him?" He replied, "No, he won't take any notice. Go ahead". I put my hand down to let the dog sniff it and then patted him. He jumped up, put his paws on my shoulders and licked my face. I do not think that he did that because he thought I was a tasty meal.
Everyone should know that if one goes up to a large dog, especially a German shepherd, approaches it from behind and suddenly touches it, the dog may turn and snap, especially with young children. If one lets the dog know that one is there and puts out one's hand, it will sniff the hand and either turn away or stay. I had great fun with my son who, when he was a small boy, loved any animal. Because we lived in the country I had to make sure that when he saw a dog and wanted to talk to it he let it know that he was there.
I once went to a scrapyard just outside St. Albans. I wanted a part for one of my old crocks. There was no one around so I started walking through the yard. Suddenly one Alsatian came from one direction and another from a different direction. I stopped, stood absolutely still and then very slowly backed away until someone came. I explained what had happened. He said, "That's right, guv. They are trained to guard the yard but provided you don't go ahead they won't touch you". They were well trained dogs doing a useful job.
There are parts of the Bill which worry me. As I understand it, and perhaps the noble Earl will tell me if I am wrong when he replies, if one takes out one of these vicious dogs it has to be muzzled and on a lead. However, most of the pit bull terriers which have attacked people have jumped over or broken through a fence or gone out through a door which was left open. Therefore, young children will still be at risk because one cannot keep a dog on a lead and muzzled all the time.
They say that one cannot teach an old dog new tricks. One certainly can. I have done it. What one cannot do, at least in the short term, is change a dog's genes. A dog is bred for a particular purpose. The original purpose can be bred out of them but that cannot be done overnight. It takes several generations. I am told that in the case of pit bull terriers each generation is bred to be more vicious. That is frightening.
I am told by the noble Baroness who sits in front of me that in Sweden all dogs are registered. There are special areas in parks where dogs can run free, but those areas are contained in some way. That is sensible.
I should like to touch briefly on the question of registration. A national registration scheme may

527
involve an implant in the dog's neck. My noble friend Lord Falkland said that that can work its way to another part of the body. Perhaps the implant could be stitched so that it did not move around.
Such a scheme would be simple. If a dog had an implant, a computer reader could be passed over it or a tattoo could be read. If a dog did not have a tattoo and did not appear on the computer one would know that it had not been registered. Therefore that dog should be taken into custody, kept for so many hours or days and then destroyed.
I cannot see how telling people that they have to register and insure such dogs will help. It will not help at all. There must be registration and if there is to be registration there might as well be registration for all dogs involving a licence fee. Battersea Dogs Home knows all about strays. If a stray had a tattoo, that could be checked and the owner contacted. At present the home keeps dogs for a specified length of time and then, unfortunately, they have to be destroyed. Registration would stop all that.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, every June your Lordships' attention seems to turn to dogs. That will continue until such time as the Government decide to bring all the miscellaneous dog legislation together in a comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole dog problem.
The Government must realise that the great majority of citizens who perhaps a generation ago lived in the country now live in towns—perhaps in flats—and the keeping of a dog in those circumstances is a different problem. That point was made by the noble Earl. Moreover, as our society moves further and further away from the rural scene, our knowledge of animals becomes very remote. My question to my noble friend Lord Ferrers is, therefore, when will the Government bring forward a comprehensive dog Bill to deal with the problem? It was promised last year and was referred to by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in his opening remarks on this Bill (at col. 644 of the Official Report, Commons, of 10th June). Unfortunately, we do not have that piece of legislation before us today. We have a Bill which attempts to deal with a small, albeit sensational, part of the problem—the dangerous dog. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned that point, and I totally agree with him.
The Government have decided in principle to deal with just one part of the problem. I believe that it is our job as a revising Chamber to accept, albeit reluctantly, that the other place has decided that it wants only that. Therefore, we should try to ensure that the Bill works as well as possible and deal with the details as your Lordships think necessary. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it is clear that there are many details which need a great deal of attention.
I owe it to your Lordships to say a word about registration. I do not believe that it would help to try to do anything in this Bill. Indeed, I believe that it would hinder the long-term objective of having all
528
dogs registered to move an amendment to introduce registration in the Bill, even though I am convinced and always have been convinced that the dog problem as a whole will not be solved until we have a registration system that links all dogs to owners, not just dangerous dogs as is proposed by the Government in this Bill. Such a registration system, as noble Lords know, would provide the resources to police and the fee could fund a scheme to link dogs to their owners. It would also allow advice to be given to dog owners.
However, I reiterate that I do not believe that this is the time to try again to force the Commons to accept registration, and it would be a question of force. My main reason for that belief is that, even if your Lordships voted for registration, the Commons would reject the proposal again, probably by an even larger majority, not because they are individually against it on its merits but because dog registration has, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, sadly become a major government-opposed issue and as such is supported by the elected majority in the Commons. I hope that the majority of your Lordships will agree that it is wrong for us here to try to overrule any Government on a major issue. We are a revising Chamber and I happen to think that we do not do that too badly occasionally.
I would not support a registration amendment to the Bill for the reasons that I have just given. I suggest that some noble Lords might say that in this Bill it would border on a wrecking amendment. There is a time and a place for everything. This is not the Bill to deal with the registration of all dogs. I believe that to try to do so would prejudice the eventual hope of success in getting the Government to concede the registration issue, as I am confident they will have to in the end.
I am a fisherman and I believe that at the moment the Commons has hooked and lost the registration fish. It is now sulking at the bottom of the pool and any attempt by your Lordships to catch it at the moment would drive it even deeper. I hope that noble Lords will have patience. I hope that I shall have patience too for without doubt we shall catch it in due course. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a speedy passage to prevent further attacks by dangerous dogs.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the Bill affects not merely pit bull terriers but dangerous dogs generally, I thought that I might usefully make a brief contribution, as it were, from the grass roots.
A little while ago I was walking in a public place—a public lane near a farm on Dartmoor—when I was attacked by seven Irish wolfhounds simultaneously, thrown into the ditch among the grass roots and bitten through the leg. Those dogs were dangerously out of control in a public place. As it happened, a rather junior member of the farm staff arrived and called off the dogs, so I was able to withdraw in fairly good order as a case of walking wounded and I later had a number of stitches in my leg.
I hesitated to call the police until I was urged to do so by all the neighbours in the village, who said that

529
they had been terrorised by the Irish wolfhounds for some years but when any of them attempted to take legal action they had their car tyres slashed at night-time. I therefore decided to go ahead and was given two useful pieces of information by the police whom I contacted.
The first piece of advice was that under English law as it then existed—this was a few years ago—if a dog attacked a sheep, you could get an order from the court straight away to have it destroyed, but if, on the other hand, it attacked a mere human, you could not. You could only, in the first instance, obtain an order stating that it should be kept under proper control and only if it attacked another human—possibly oneself again—could you obtain an effective order.
Secondly, the police informed me that in order to go ahead at all it was necessary for me to identify the precise dog out of the seven that had inflicted the injury—I counted them correctly as seven—in the presence of the police, the owner of the dogs and the dogs themselves. I attempted to do that in the farmyard, insisting on being protected myself by the police car, although the police themselves much more gallantly stayed outside. When I identified, I believe correctly, the principal aggressor among the dogs which had inflicted the injury, the farmer, who was thought to be the owner of the whole Armada of those creatures, replied that he did not own that particular dog. On being further pressed by the police, one of whom incidentally was bitten at this point in the story, he alleged that the dog was owned by his wife. But some weeks later when the case was in court and after the doctor had given evidence that he had put four stitches in my leg that evening, the lady declared, presumably on oath, that her dog was only being friendly.
However, the affair ended reasonably happily. The court made the order and, when I returned to the area a year later, not wishing to be intimidated, I found to my surprise that that farmer and his wife had somehow disposed of the dogs. I ended the episode with considerable respect for the police and some respect for the court of law, which seemed to me to behave in a sensible fashion, but with rather less respect for the law, at least as it was reported to me.
I suppose that the legislation which gives greater protection from dogs to sheep than to mere humans was probably enacted by some Parliament of country landowners in the 19th century, or perhaps even in the 18th century for all I know. However, if the Bill ensures—and I am not yet certain that it does—that, for the purposes of the 21st century anyway, humans will at least be put on an equal footing with sheep in the matter of protection from dangerous dogs, I shall certainly give it my warm support and feel that my brief experience has perhaps not been wholly in vain.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, we are all agreed on the necessity of the Bill, particularly Clause 1, to deal with the problem of pit bull terriers. After all, there is a kind of subculture of people who keep those dogs purely for dog fighting or in order to create no-go areas in certain streets and backyards for their own
530
illegal activities. I am glad that, in introducing the Bill, my noble friend Lord Ferrers dealt with the problem of those few pit bull terriers that are genuine pets. I welcome the exemption scheme. Rather like the firearms legislation, under which you are licensed to have a lethal weapon, you will be licensed to be exempt from the law and your dog will be identified.
I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, when he said that identification should be by the good, well-tried and old-fashioned method that has stood the test of time over a hundred years; namely, tattooing in the dogs' ears. If they have no ears, they are fighting dogs and should not be kept as pets. I hope that my noble friend will resist any temptation to use other modern devices of identification, because they are not proven. Without wishing to sound a discordant note, I understand that the exemption scheme will be run by an outside authority. Many noble Lords would find it quite unacceptable that that authority should be the RSPCA.
The noble Earl went on to say that other parts of the Bill affect the owners of any dog. I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he believed the Bill was too limited in other ways. I want to be quite frank with the House and say that those of us who are interested in hounds, harriers and beagles are extremely worried about the other consequences of the Bill.
Clause 3 makes it a serious offence for a dog to be:
"dangerously out of control in a public place".
Clause 8(4) states that:
"a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control [if] there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury to any person, whether or not it actually does so".
Clause 8(2) of the Bill defines a public place in such a way as to include roads, streets, footpaths and bridleways. Private gardens and agricultural land are not included. So the postman going up the garden is not in fact covered. The penalties are extremely severe.
My concern is that the Bill should deal only with dangerous dogs which might attack people. But the offence appears to go much further. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a dog will cause injury to a person, an offence is committed, even if no injury is in fact caused.
Packs of hounds, harriers or beagles may run across a road. The huntsman, whipper-in and owner of the hounds could be prosecuted on the grounds that they could have caused injury had a car accident occurred. Obviously hunts make every effort to ensure that accidents do not happen on our roads but inevitably the occasional incident will occur. Last year there were well over a quarter of a million road accidents involving casualties, none of which was caused by hounds. If the worst were to happen, it is already an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to permit hounds to be on a public road and not under proper control. In fact all packs of hounds, harriers and beagles have the appropriate third party insurance to meet that problem.
But the new offence created in this Bill goes too far. No defence is provided. A huntsman might have made every conceivable effort to stop his hounds but if they cross the road in front of a car, an offence could still be committed. In the Bill no allowance is made for

531
what is happening in the countryside today and which must be faced. No allowance is made for interference with somebody else's control of his dog. The hunt saboteurs deliberately set out to take hounds out of the control of the huntsmen. There have been countless cases when they have blown horns and called hounds on to roads, causing the hounds to be run over and the risk of further accidents. Yet under the Bill the huntsman would be liable and the saboteurs would have committed no offence. That is completely unacceptable.
It should be made an offence—I shall certainly move an amendment at Committee stage on these lines—to interfere with somebody else's control of his dog. At present the provision is drawn too widely so that a dog may cause injury even if a dog never touches a victim or is never likely to. A person who inadvertently lets his dog stray on to a road commits an offence. In my opinion the Bill should only deal with dogs that are liable to attack people, in which case a dog would only be dangerously out of control if it were likely to injure or attack someone (not just "cause" an injury).
The problem is that as drafted an offence is committed whether or not injury is caused. That may be acceptable in the case of vicious dogs but it will leave hunts vulnerable to anti-hunting campaigners, who will undoubtedly claim that injury is likely to be caused on every occasion that hunts cross a road. During the past winter, packs of hounds, beagles and harriers met on 21,400 occasions throughout the country. Incidents on the road are rare but, to read the reports of the "antis", one would believe that hunts create a risk to road users every day. Those people must not be handed in this Bill a stick with which to beat us.
I endorse the Bill wholeheartedly but I hope to move amendments during Committee stage to cover the points I have mentioned. At this stage, despite those reservations, I feel that we should give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, we have been privileged to listen to many speakers expressing much researched information and heartfelt opinion. We have also been privileged to read Her Majesty's Government's attempts to take notice of public concern about dangerous dogs in the contents of the Dangerous Dogs Bill 1991.
Our next door neighbours, with whom we are to become more geopolitically entwined and more subject to their opinions and legislative agreements, suffer the same canine worries as we do, but have the added problem of rabies. How many Members of this House have had the opportunity to read the report of Mrs. Anita Pollock (a Member of the European Parliament) on a European system of dog registration or have seen the May 1990 review of the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare entitled Dog Population and Control in Europe? Both documents illustrate the urgent requirement to identify individual dogs and the individual dog owners. As has been said by previous
532
speakers, the onus is on the owner, the person responsible for the dog, as to how that canine is controlled and treated.
The reports also talk of the growth in the dog population over the past five years. It is estimated at about 10 per cent. in the 12 European Community countries. I ask noble Lords to link that figure and that thought with the European Community's ambition to eradicate rabies by 1992. That has now been recognised as not being feasible. Thankfully our stringent quarantine regulations have held the disease at bay—and, by the way, it can be carried by homo sapiens as well. But for how long will that last? Trade barriers are coming down and the Channel Tunnel will make access to this country easier and freer. The numerous ports and harbours that chisel into our island coast give every opportunity for diseased dogs and the diseased minds of lawbreakers to flout our legislation.
We should remember that fox rabies is endemic in Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg, that it can be transmitted to dogs and that the combined owned-dog population of those four countries is 14.5 million. And it is growing. In fact over the past five years it has increased by 15 per cent. On 10th June this year, Mr. Marlow, Member of Parliament for Northampton, North, spoke in the other place of his acute awareness of the disease-carrying potential of dogs. He has a son who is blind in one eye as a result of contact with a dog which had not been wormed properly.
We speak of dangerous dogs. Disease is dangerous. Ill disciplined ownership is dangerous. A confined, energetic dog of any breed can be dangerous. How many urban dog owners lock up their dog while they go out to work? They then return home, open the door and allow their "pet", their hound, to expend its energy and pent up adrenalin on the first individual who may interfere with its suddenly gained freedom. Noble Lords may consider the "guard dogs" cooped up inside during the past two stiflingly hot summers. Irritation is not the correct way to describe the behaviour of such animals.
Some breeds will display nervous aggression and fear of being cornered. They will snap at a playful baby, who is larger than a Chihuahua, if that infant plays unintentionally roughly with the "sweet, little puppy". The child will get its face bitten. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the parents—the dog's owners.
There is also the dog with direct, inbred aggression. The press—the media—have sensationally informed everyone, without necessarily sensitive thought for the traumatised victim or parents of the savaged child, about the horrifying behaviour of certain dogs. The public at large is undeniably interested—some grotesquely so.
The Dangerous Dogs Bill shows that a positive direction is being taken by Her Majesty's Government—although not before time. In another place on 26th October 1983 Mr. Marlow sought the leave of the House to establish a dog registration scheme. Dame Janet Fookes, Member of Parliament for Plymouth Drake, and other parties, have urged and beseeched

533
that some legislation be introduced to ensure that dog owners are aware of their responsibility when keeping an animal, a carnivore, of the canine breed.
The Bill seeks to encourage more district councils to have dog wardens to collect strays, to ensure that dogs are under control in public places, and to watch that the guard dog, the aggressive-natured dog, the genetically bred fighting dog, wears a muzzle. The Government have promised £250,000 to the district councils of England and Wales to compensate for the destruction of fighting dogs and to encourage correct wardening of the known population of owned dogs, which stands at 7.5 million, quite apart from the 500,000 estimated stray dogs. Those figures may be of use to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
I must argue with the noble Viscount on the identichip. Both my hounds have identichips. I am aware from many vets that the chips do not wander. I have to inform the House that my dogs do not like having their ears interfered with in the slightest, let alone having them tattooed.
We have 333 district councils in England and Wales. Therefore the contribution of £250,000 amounts to £750.75 per district council. Perhaps it would be of interest to hear what happens in some district councils in Devon. The City of Exeter has two wardens to cover its district population of 105,000, with about 21,000 dogs. It budgets £63,000 for the two wardens. Teignbridge District Council serves a population of 100,000. It has one warden and approximately 20,396 dogs. It has a budget of £30,000, £12,000 of which is the warden's wage packet. The City of Plymouth has four wardens to cover a population of 256,000, with approximately 51,200 dogs. It has a budget of £186,500.
Dog numbers cannot be accurate without a dog registration scheme or a census being taken. However, if adults over the age of 18 in this country number 39,222,700, and the dog population is about 8 million, the figure is 0.2 dogs per head. Hence my calculations.
No matter what opinion or views your Lordships may have of the Irish, it is interesting to note that the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is the only body in the European Community which trains dog wardens. I only wish that they could warden their mad dog terrorists as well!
Possibly the finest, most responsible, protective measure in the Dangerous Dogs Bill 1991 is for compulsory third party insurance relating to dogs. It has been mentioned by various noble Lords. Too many people have said, "No worry, my errant hound is covered under my home contents policy". What about the quarter of householders who do not have such a policy and yet possess a dog? According to the Association of British Insurers, there are 24 million licensed vehicles which use the roads. Another 12 million are not licensed, or are "stored". The Motor Insurance Bureau paid out £32 million in 1990 to 25,000 victims of untraced, uninsured motorists. Can Her Majesty's Government see any reason why a similar protection should not be given to the general public in this dog-loving nation when people or livestock are fatally wounded or incurably damaged by a dog whose owner has no insurance cover?
534
A breeder insurance company will give one £2 million third party insurance cover for up to 20 dogs if one pays an annual premium of £17.50. But it will not raise the premium for a pack of 20 pit bull terriers any higher than for a pack of poodles. Third party insurance of dogs would satisfy all dog fanciers, kennel clubs and dog associations. It would cover the child, adult, sheep and livestock mauled or destroyed by one or more of the rampant dogs. It would cover the minor and major road traffic accidents caused in urban and rural locations by dog chasing dog, dog chasing bitch, or dog chasing a play ball.
Third party insurance cover would increase the sense of responsibility of the owner of the dog. It would identify the breed of dog and the address of the owner. It would be of enormous help to the district councils, the police authorities and all affected parties. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I believe that we should support the Second Reading.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I intend to speak briefly partly because my noble friend Lord Kimball—by chance I happen to be sitting next to him—dealt with the major point that I wished to make, as I shall reveal.
We have a serious problem to worry us this day over what are properly described as dangerous dogs. I fear that with a superfluity of zeal we may be in danger of calling many dogs dangerous which are not. We all know which breeds are bred and trained to be aggressive. There have been serious attacks on adults and children in the past few months. Their terrible maim has been well publicised. The purpose of the Bill is to stop such attacks. The Bill refers to the neutering of such animals. In time we can end this totally unacceptable hazard. In the meantime the highest possible penalty for owners of dogs which attack people must be right.
I emphasise that I am entirely in favour of doing whatever possible to stop pit bull terriers and Rottweilers from attacking people. I include dogs which worry sheep in the general category of dangerous dogs. Much damage is done to flocks by uncontrolled dogs worrying and sometimes killing sheep.
Fortunately my own lifetime companions, Labradors, do not go in for such things nor, in my close experience of them, do foxhounds. For goodness sake do not let us make the error of inculpating them and their like for causing accidents to people unwittingly as can happen in, for instance, road accidents. Such incidents may occur. They have nothing to do with our debate yet such dogs could be included in the measures before us.
As regards the central issue, I need only touch upon what I had intended to say because the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has covered the matter so ably. It is not unusual for hunt saboteurs in their illegal activities to invite interference with hounds. If there is a purposeful interference and an accident takes place, the Master of Foxhounds is liable for the dog which caused the damage even though the incident was the

535
result of intentional provocation. I hope that the issue will be borne in mind during the Committee stage and that a safeguard can be introduced.
In recent years there have been too many instances of the kind of provocation that I have outlined. Yet gundogs, sheepdogs and foxhounds are trained to be civilised. For heaven's sake, let us amend the Bill in the light of the incontrovertible thoughts upon which I have briefly touched.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I too shall be brief. At this stage of the debate a great deal of what one wished to say has already been said. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he had received advice about what to do when confronted by a dog. When I lived on a farm I was given similar advice about what to do when confronted by a bull. The alternatives were to stare him in the eye or to lie on the ground in the hope that he would trample over me. I was only once confronted by a bull in a field but I waited until I was behind barbed wire before staring him in the eye. That seemed to work, because after a few minutes he snorted and went away.
It is all very well to give people advice but I ask why in the City of London is it necessary to be given advice about being confronted by dangerous dogs? People must be allowed to go about their business and pleasure whether in the city or the countryside. People are always more important than dogs and I should like that statement to be written in capital letters. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that people are even more important than badgers. That may come as a blow to him but I am more concerned about people.
We welcome the Bill which has been a long time coming. We shall try to amend it but we are glad that at last it has been introduced. Last week I picked up my local newspaper and read the headline which stated:
"Pit bulls 'used like weapons'".
The article described a vicious gang of youths who threatened to set a pit bull terrier on a man. They stabbed the man three times in the neck and then took his money. As a contrast the newspaper had another heading, which read:
"Meanwhile, the police horse savaged by a pit bull is back on duty".
That is the kind of incident to which we are being subjected. I talk to members of the police force a great deal. They have pointed out that the owners of such dogs are often criminals. When the police go to arrest them they are often threatened with a pit bull terrier. People are not allowed to use a gun, and rightly so, so why should they be allowed to retain something which is equally dangerous?
We all know that there are some estates—there is one in my borough, which shall remain nameless—where there are so many dangerous dogs that people will not go out at night. Why are people keeping such dogs? Often they do so out of greed; they breed the unfortunate creatures in the back of their flats and sell them for a high price. They do not keep the dogs because they love them. The owners have the dogs because they want to be seen to be macho—I hope
536
that no pit bull terriers are waiting for me when I go outside—and are not the kind of people who love dogs. Let us forget all that nonsense! I recently listened to a phone-in programme. A woman caller said: "My pit bull terrier is sitting on the rug with my two little children and he loves them". My heart went cold because the dog loves them only until he feels differently, when he will turn on them.
It took the terrible incident of the attack on a child to bring the matter to a head. However, for a long time several women's organisations with which I am proud to be connected have pressed for measures to be taken. That is one of the reasons why I am speaking in the debate today. In 1990 a particular organisation carried a resolution asking Her Majesty's Government to license and control the importation and breeding of aggressive dogs. The reply was interesting and came from Mr. Michael Harrison, Assistant Private Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that he still at that department—one has difficulty in keeping up. He stated:
"As you know, the importation of all dogs is strictly controlled"—
that was news to me because I had not realised it—
"but solely for the purpose of preventing rabies entering this country".
That is fine. One of my objections to the Channel tunnel is that I still say that we shall have rats coming down it and shall have to control them. Mr. Harrison continued:
"These statutory arrangements include the issuing of a licence for each animal imported".
This is the interesting part, because he then stated:
"Even if it were possible in principle to prohibit the importation of these dogs, which have been specifically bred for fighting, it seems unlikely because these are mostly indistinguishable from other strains of bull terrier".
That letter was written in 1990 but now in 1991 it appears that there is a distinction. I asked myself what has changed. Perhaps the Government have drawn the measure more widely.
I turn to the Bill. I shall not mention registration. I should love to do so but shall return to the matter. We were warned about mentioning it although I am not sure why. Clause 2 refers to "a public place". That is all very well but the incidents about which I have spoken when police go to a flat are not in a public place. Strictly speaking they occur on private property. Clause 3 states:
"out of control in a public place".
These dogs are out of control, full stop! Therefore we must think carefully about the matter.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Richard express anxiety about the Bill's drafting. We are doing his profession a good turn; there is another Bill from which the lawyers can make a great deal of money by arguing about what is aggressive. I plead with the Government to look at the matter carefully. If the provision is merely "in a public place" the owners will obtain a sharp lawyer to say, "But it was not in a public place. This dog was in the porch of the owner's flat".
We have heard about the postmen but not about the police who must face these wretched animals day after day. Some terrible incidents occur but are rarely

537
reported in the newspapers. In carrying out its difficult task our police force must confront some vicious criminals. For heaven's sake, surely it need not also be confronted by vicious dogs! The dogs about which we are talking do not enhance any situation. It would be far better if we did not import them, and perhaps that will be the next step. I congratulate the Government upon introducing the Bill, small as it is, because it is a step in the right direction.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, we should welcome the Dangerous Dogs Bill. It is principally concerned with fighting dogs and immediately that raises the question of why fighting dogs, such as pit bull terriers and Japanese Tosas, are identified and singled out in this legislation compared with other dogs which historically have committed acts similar to those for which pit bulls are now in the news. I believe it is because there is now strong evidence that the pit bull terrier—not a recognised breed in this country but it is recognised in the United States—is over represented in the population of dogs which are involved in attacks on humans.
For example, in a study carried out in the United States about five years ago, an analysis was made of 12 fatalities as a result of attacks by dogs in one year. Seven, of those were caused by pit bulls. That is an inordinately greater number than all the other breeds of dogs put together. Certainly in terms of non-fatal attacks by dogs 50 per cent. of the non-fatal attacks in one year were caused by pit bulls compared with all the other dog breeds. It may be of interest to know that 11 per cent. of those non-fatal attacks were caused by German shepherd dogs.
What may be relevant from those statistics from the United States and relevant to the age at which a pit bull may be owned, which the Minister dealt with briefly, is that a higher proportion of adolescents and adults (54 per cent.) are among the victims of pit bull terriers compared with any other breed in the USA. Therefore, it may well be that there is a case for limiting the age of ownership to individuals beyond the age of 16 years.
Fighting dogs have been established in this country and elsewhere for many centuries, all of which seem to trace ancestry from bulldogs and the days of bull baiting in the 17th and 18th centuries. The fighting dog became very popular in North America after the American Civil War.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the fighting dogs of the 19th century were disqualified from fighting or bull baiting if they exhibited aggression towards their owners or any other person. Therefore, they were trained very carefully. That long trail of breeding for fighting has had a profound effect on the genetic predisposition of those breeds. It is now known that they fight without provocation or without giving any warning sign. A dog normally gives a warning sign when it is about to attack someone—for example, the milkman or the coalman—by growling or barking. That is not so in the case of pit bulls. They
538
fight until exhausted or even to the death, and they have a high tolerance to pain. Once in the attack, they are neither biddable nor controllable.
The danger of the importation of pit bull terriers was recognised in the early 1970s when anxiety was voiced by several organisations about their importation both from the point of view of the illegal sport of dog fighting and also from their record of attacks on humans elsewhere. There are now some 10,000 pit bulls in this country and, I understand, one lone Japanese Tosa which is to be championed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, later this evening.
Not all pit bulls are dangerous to the extent that they need to be destroyed. The Bill makes allowances for such dogs and their owners by allowing a responsible owner to keep a pit bull for the rest of the dog's natural life provided that certain conditions are complied with; namely, muzzling and leashing in public, neutering, insurance and so on.
Eventually the pit bull will disappear provided that the law is strictly enforced. However, let us make no mistake about it, the so-called sport of dog fighting, which has been illegal for many years, is still practised in this country. That is why pit bulls were originally imported in the 1970s. Although it is illegal, it still takes place. The macho image referred to by my noble friend Lord Kimball still exists and it may become even more macho when the ownership of a pit bull becomes strictly controlled or illegal. Therefore, strict enforcement will be needed.
I hope that wide consultation will take place, as promised by the Minister, regarding the extension of the legislation to other dogs. I know that the British Veterinary Association is against singling out a particular breed. It believes that the way ahead is to target aggressive individuals rather than a particular breed.
The problems caused by dangerous dogs will be solved only when dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for the actions of their animals. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will consider the feasibility of licensing owners to possess a dog or dogs. A pack of hounds would be covered by that scheme. One would then licence a person to own a dog just as it is possible for a person to be licensed to own a gun or a car. Therefore, I hope that the Minister may consider a scheme which licenses the owner rather than the dog.
There is precedent for that—namely, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. In that case, an owner is licensed to own a dangerous animal but a dangerous dog is not included in that legislation.
Finally, I support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in his request to consider the feasibility of a comprehensive dog Bill. There are at least 20 pieces of legislation—if not more—pertaining to companion animals. I believe that it is time for a consolidation Bill to clarify what is a confused situation in that respect.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, as regards Clause 3. I do that not for the sake of hunting dogs but as regards a much more serious matter. The penalties contained in Clause 3 apply to situations in which dogs are

539
dangerously out of control. If one wishes to know what that means, it cannot be more clearly set out than it is in Clause 8(4) which states:
"For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there arc grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury to any person, whether or not it actually does so".
That is sensible in one way when one thinks of the dangers to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred. Protection must be given to individuals who are in the neighbourhood of a violent dog. However, the point of my observation is that that same phrase which I read out applies to police dogs, to service dogs and to dogs owned by security companies.
Let me return to the famous debate in the other place, which took 12 hours. The Home Secretary said that Clause 3:
"will be a powerful means of ensuring that the owners of all dogs, whatever the type, take proper steps to ensure that they are kept properly under control … The measure will apply to any dog and its owner".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/91; col. 652.]
It is quite clear, though it may not be intentional, that that applies to all police dogs.
What follows? If one studies the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee report on police dogs, it recognises that they can be trained—which takes three months with a three-week refresher course every year—and used to combat housebreaking, robberies,
burglaries, to search premises or locations, to find missing persons, to recover articles at the scene of a crime, to deal with rowdyism, to chase after fleeing criminals and to carry out general patrol and security duties. Noble Lords will see immediately that in almost every one of those cases the element of apprehension on the part of the criminal—the person fleeing—is essential. Therefore the handler of a police dog may be guilty of a criminal offence.
I shall give two examples. I said that the dogs are trained to locate criminals. In fact they are taught to do one of two things; either to chase and attack or to chase and stand off. In every case they give grounds to the criminal,
"for reasonable apprehension that the dog will cause injury … whether or not it actually does so".
The second example concerns dogs that are trained to deal effectively with small groups of hooligans. By chance I happened to see exactly that at Epsom station around 10 years ago when one man with his dog brought under control around 10 youths. Again, the dog gave,
"grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury … whether or not it actually does so".
Where does one go from here? Does it matter whether we abolish all police dogs? Of course it does; that is hardly worth arguing about. The Bill went through in the House of Commons in 12 hours. I suggest that discussions should take place with the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Police Dogs—I believe it is quartered at Imber Court, near Thames Ditton in Surrey. While police officers not on duty must comply with the Bill when taking their dogs into a public place, Clause 8(4) should be so interpreted that "dangerously out of control" should
540
not apply to police dogs or service dogs being used for operational duties such as preventing crime or arresting criminals.
It is not for me to suggest whether or not an amendment needs to be introduced into the Bill, or whether a provision can be combined in an order from the Secretary of State. But I make this point: however the matter is dealt with in the Bill there is a public relations angle. I happen to know that police dog handlers are extremely worried about the situation and are entitled to know where they stand. I feel also that the public must be kept fully informed for the sake of preserving an important element in the security of our country.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I warmly welcome the provisions in the Bill. I congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the swiftness with which he acted, and the Government on the urgency with which they pursued this course of action to avoid further tragedies caused by pit bull terriers. I am satisfied that it is a good remedy, as far as it goes.
I am not too concerned with the aficionados of pit bulls who claim that the requirements of the Bill will drive the breeding of pit bulls underground. I do not see how that can easily be achieved. Those responsible for enforcement, or indeed any member of the public, on seeing a pit bull in public, unmuzzled, unleashed and un-neutered, will note the obvious and report it. Penalties will have to be paid and the owner either forced to comply with the law or have the dog destroyed. Even pit bulls bred underground will have to come out eventually; they will be caught and the penalties imposed.
So far, so good. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Home Secretary in another place made clear and precisely defined what a "public area" is. On that occasion he said that he did not consider that a dog was confined if it was, for example, in front of a house when a postman called. I am still concerned about what may happen when a registered or licensed pit bull terrier, in its own home-confined area, unmuzzled, unleashed although neutered, as it is allowed to be, manages to escape either by overcoming the fence (which is not unknown), by attacking its owner (which is not unknown), or by escaping through a momentarily disregarded open door (which is also not unknown). All that is still possible. That is why I, who am second to none in my love of dogs—not even the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—was more comfortable with the Home Secretary's original edict which required all pit bulls to be destroyed, given the character and record of those dogs. I only hope that those experts and "interested parties" who pressed the Home Secretary to permit the reprieve of those dogs, will take full responsibility should the scenario that I described occur and a human life be lost or a human being maimed.
I accept that the safeguards in the Bill, including the insurance requirements, are a good first step. I say that because I should like to see the powers in Clause 2

541
enacted in relation to Rottweilers, German shepherds, and any other dog of a size, character and biting power that could constitute a menace to or harassment of the public. I refer especially to the reserve powers that may require such dogs to be muzzled in public places. Indeed, they should apply to any dog that constitutes a menace. Of course they would not apply to guard dogs as they would not be unleashed in public places. Nor would they apply to hounds. I accept the concerns expressed by a number of noble Lords in that regard.
It costs so little in time, money or discomfort to the dogs of the breeds I have described to muzzle them in public places. Such dogs can be unpredictable and they possess the power to get out of the control of reasonable human strength. It takes only moments for such logs to inflict the most horrifying injuries and even death to persons as well as to other smaller dogs. Such a small requirement could avert tragedy and untold suffering. It would also avoid the fright and harassment of both people and their dogs who are using the paths, countryside and indeed the roads outside their own homes, peacefully with their own pets but who never do so without the nagging fear of what may be lurking round the corner.
To those who urge registration I say this. When I am out at with my small dogs and I see a Rottweiler coming round the corner, I do not care whether or not it is registered; I do not care who the owner is or whether it has a tattoo in its ear; I want to see it muzzled. That is the difference. Those who do not wish to muzzle their potentially dangerous dogs in public either want their dogs to be able to bite somebody or want them to appear to be able to bite somebody. They are the psychopathic canine terrorists who use their dogs as weapons and deliberately aggravate their aggressive tendencies. There are also the "bad owners" referred to who do not exercise or feed their large dogs properly and who leave them shut up at home all day. People who do not possess adequate exercise facilities should not be allowed to keep dogs. But they are allowed to do so. That is why I believe that the public should be safeguarded against what are often the repercussions of their neglect.
So much for the bad owners. But in the past weeks since the Bill was mooted, we have heard a great deal from the good owners of pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherd dogs and others, about how well behaved, obedient, loving and lovable their particular softies are. They may be absolutely right, but they might just be wrong. Is this a chance that we should allow them to take with other people's lives for the sake of a little muzzle? The Home Secretary said in another place that to require a whole breed to be muzzled in public is a serious thing. I say it is a small thing when one thinks of the seriousness of the possible consequences of not doing so in the case of the very large and powerful dogs. I accept that any breed of dog can produce a bad dog just as the human race can produce a bad owner. But when the dog is small and without the tremendous strength and biting
542
power of the breeds I have mentioned, that small dog, however fierce, can be picked up, removed and controlled with reasonable ease and speed.
Having said all that, I do not believe that any dog, however small, should be allowed out or alone with a small child at any time. Many of your Lordships will recall that a few years ago a child was killed by two small Jack Russell dogs. It is foolish for parents to allow children to be alone with such dogs.
I now turn to the matter of enforcement. Concern has been expressed that the guidance of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be sought as to the consistency of penalties imposed in magistrates' courts under Clause 3. My own experience in relation to the Dogs Act 1871 regarding a fierce attack on my own, good, well-behaved Jack Russell by a vicious Weimaraner is not one to render me sanguine in that respect although I would like the Weimaraners to be among those dogs that are muzzled.
I understand that the problem about trying to get a dangerous dog put down under the 1871 Act is that if the magistrate fails to order that initially, legal precedent has made it difficult to obtain such an order when the dog offends for the second time. More important, even if the dog has killed a person, it takes time to get the case into the magistrates' court while the dog lives on. There is no automatic remedy available to the police. As I look at the provisions in the Bill that remedy is still missing. Even when the case gets to court, the magistrate may still choose not to rule that the dog be destroyed even though it may have killed a person. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will feel able to give the necessary guidance at a very early stage after the Bill is enacted.
Finally, I turn to the representations that have been made in this debate and in another place about registration. The Bill is about the control of dangerous dogs; registration is about avoiding straying and punishing ill-treatment. That is another matter, possibly worthy of your Lordships' consideration, but not in the context of the Bill. Even if I thought (which I do not) that registration was the answer to the problem it seeks to overcome, I would not be willing to interrupt or delay for one moment the passage of this very important Bill. It is an urgent Bill. I hope that it will eventually be extended. In the meantime it should deal quickly and effectively with a serious menace to the public, and I welcome it.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, say what he did about the present position of registration. I am glad that we are not to have, as the Commons did, a re-run of the registration debate on this Bill. Registration arose as an issue only when the dog licence fee was abolished. When I first made my report about dogs in society 18 years ago, that is when the debate began as far as I am concerned. We assumed then —and all subsequent discussion for

543
years afterwards also assumed—that the dog licence fee would continue. The question was how much it was to be.
One thought was that if the dog licence fee was too high it could result in cruelty to dogs, as owners might throw them out rather than pay the fee. I believe that I have mentioned once before that when I was in government from 1964 onwards, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Mr. Crossman, came to the Cabinet with a proposal to uprate all licences to bring them into line with the change in the value of money. The one exception was the dog licence fee. The reason was that he had been told by the RSPCA that if the fee was increased people would turn their dogs out onto the streets. The RSPCA was not going to get into the business of destroying those dogs. That is what deterred the Government at that time.
No one uprated the licence fee from that time. The attitude became languid and the amount of money collected did not pay for the cost of administration. Apathy surrounded the whole matter. The Conservative Government let the fee lapse.
Then registration became the issue. If we had a dog licence fee, which I believe we should, that would cover the registration. The licence fee was discontinued and that is why we began to hear so much about registration. However, registration without a fee brings into the minds of British people the danger that the register will be used to their disadvantage. Why do we have this inbred objection to an identity card? It is because we know what the Nazis did with them. We believe that if we disclose our names and addresses they may be used for some other purpose. If we had to carry a photograph and so forth, the same fears would arise. There are inbred feelings that a register may be an instrument of tyranny or arbitrary government.
I believed at the time of the earlier discussions on registration—and I still do—that registration is necessary, but not as a separate item in the dog agenda. We want registration when it is linked with something positive so that we know what it is for. If there is a purpose to registration we should have it, but not the other way round. We should not have a register first and then begin to make up our minds how we can profitably or unprofitably use it. I could not believe my ears when I heard that in another place on 10th June registration was spatchcocked into an attenuated debate on the Bill in order to give it a fresh airing and press the issue to a Division. That was lunacy. It seems that this of all times is not the moment when people will submit to enforced registration without asking what it is to be used for.
If any extension of the category of prohibited dogs was embarked on, it would mean a new round of identifying where they were. If there was a register which showed where they all were the police could find them by consulting the register. But a register could not be introduced in time to deal with the administration resulting from the Bill. Anyway, we have dropped the register from our discussions on the Bill, and that is satisfactory.
544
My next point is apropos the smaller moonbeam in the larger lunacy, the Japanese Tosa dog. The importance of this dog is that he is mentioned in the Bill. If the Bill goes through as it is he will be the star dog in the Act—the only one of his kind; a dog that was legislated against because he was a dangerous dog. He will have to go through the full treatment: lose all his equipment and be mutilated. He has come over here as a show dog. He came out of quarantine only in April. Certainly there has not been much time for him to establish a reputation for being dangerous. He is a beautiful dog. When I met him he was so affectionate that I thought I was going to be killed by kindness. He was of such height and girth that woe betide a small man like me who tries to embrace a Japanese Tosa dog if he wants to put his paws on one's shoulder. I had to be a little careful.
I urge the Minister to be cautious about describing this dog. These are dogs that most people have never seen. They do not have the faintest idea whether the dog is dangerous; they take everybody else's word for it. I see that the BVA, in a document sent out only a day or two ago, referred to the Japanese Tosa as being an extraordinarily dangerous dog to the general public. Where is the evidence for that? It does not come in those terms from Japan. It may be that this dog is the Japanese canine ambassador to Britain, so we should talk about him with respect; otherwise we could have a diplomatic incident to contend with. We do not want trouble with Japan over the Tosa dog in Britain.
All I am saying is that when we come to the Committee stage it is no good talking about the Japanese Tosa dog breed. We have banned others from coming here. There is no female for him. He is under contract not to be crossed with anything else, and all the rest of it. He is registered in America and in Japan but he is not registered here because the Kennel Club does not have a class for the Japanese Tosa dog. That is the position.
The Minister should apply his mind to the future of this dog. He cannot just say that he is another dangerous dog and he goes with the others. No. He is a dog of quality. There is no doubt about that. I am quite ready to bring him here and walk him up and down during the Committee stage so that your Lordships can see him. He would create a lot of attention outside, I can tell you. But I shall not dwell upon that. I would not like to suggest that he might disperse the population between here and Whitehall, but at least there would be considerable public interest. He is worth looking at.
Now I have a few less pleasant things to say. To listen to the noble Earl this afternoon, with his competent, businesslike and clear exposition of the Bill, with his courteous delivery and his handsome style, one might think that if the Government are like him, they cannot be as bad as people say they are. But the truth is that they are not all like him. The noble Earl is a front man and behind him is a long trail of incompetence and indifference which is absolutely unbelievable in the history of government. We all have to take some responsibility for the situation. We have made a dreadful mess of it. We ought not to deal with

545
such issues as an emergency and rush into legislation. It is our neglect and our failure to deal with this matter years ago that I have brought about this situation.
Do your Lordships realise that the first legislation on dangerous dogs was the Dogs Act of 1871? That was not the criminal law but legislation which enabled magistrates to order the owner of a dangerous dog to bring it under control. That Act was not amended until 1989, when the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced. Dame Janet Fookes piloted it through the House of Commons and I piloted it through the House of Lords. That was the first time that the 1871 Act had been amended, which shows how long we took to deal with that aspect of dog control.
The 1989 Act, which has hardly had time to get into operation, empowered magistrates to be much sterner over dangerous dogs. It is a great pity that we are having to introduce as an emergency a roll-over exercise on issues we have been dealing with in bits and pieces over recent years.
If your Lordships want to read a nice potted case against this Bill, I would recommend Mr. Heathcoat-Amory's reply to a debate in Standing Committee H of the House of Commons on 20th March 1990. It was a very good and interesting debate with a new idea— that local authorities should have the power to designate areas which excluded dangerous and other dogs that might create a disturbance among the public or generally be a source of worry to people round and about. The Minister dealt with that as he dealt with a number of other suggestions. He dismissed them all. What did he say? This is so short that I hope the House will bear with me. I quote from col. 1346 of the Official Report:
"Hon. Members mentioned dangerous breeds of dogs they think should be banned. That would not solve the problem, because many of the most dangerous attacks have been carried out by cross-bred dogs—mongrels. To specify breeds would invite cross-breeding. The American pit bull terrier is not a recognised breed in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) piloted a comprehensive and powerful Bill through the House last year, which became the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. It gives courts extensive powers to ensure the destruction of dangerous animals, increases the penalty for failure to comply with a control order and empowers courts to disqualify the owner from owning any dog in the future".
It is as well to bear in mind that this is a law on the statute book. If that had been in operation—it has not yet been fully put into operation—we might have had a very different state of affairs now.
I would also ask your Lordships to bear in mind that one of the last acts of the Government in the last Session on 31st October 1990 was to hitch on to the Environmental Protection Bill a whole list of new safeguards and conditions of dog control which they sent back to the Commons as an alternative to losing the vote on the reinstatement of the registration clause. It was used as a weapon against the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who was still sponsoring the registration scheme. All that went back to the Commons, was passed as a matter of urgency and straight away received Royal Assent. That is what happened there.
Indeed, had your Lordships' House acted differently, political history would have been different because Sir Geoffrey Howe was waiting for the result
546
of the vote in your Lordships' House on that clause before he could go to the Prime Minister and resign. If we had rejected the Government's overture and stuck by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Sir Geoffrey Howe would not have been able to cross the road and hand his resignation to the Prime Minister. One can imagine how different history might have been if we had held him back from the most momentous step in his life, and perhaps the death knell of the Prime Minister.
Another thought that occurs to me is that this so far is the most intelligent, the most comprehensive and the most sober debate on dogs and dog control that I have had the privilege and honour of listening to in 40 years in Parliament. Why is this, my Lords? I shall tell you. It is because for some reason—congenital or otherwise—governments have wanted dogs to be dealt with as part of the Private Members' Bill procedure. Governments have not wanted to introduce a government Bill on animals, still less a comprehensive Bill on animals. Nor have they wished to introduce a comprehensive Bill on dogs. Therefore, it has been left to the hazards of the Private Members' Bill procedure.
It has not been possible for us to cobble together a comprehensive Bill on dog control which would stand up to scrutiny and the trials of administration without government help. Governments alone can introduce a Bill of that kind. We can only chip at it. It took me three years to get a Private Member's Bill through Parliament to bring to an end the sale of pet animals in open markets. That matter had been discussed for 13 years when I took it up. The Government would not take it up. The Government would not take up even the Dangerous Dogs Bill that Dame Janet Fookes introduced into the House of Commons. However, the Private Members' Bill procedure is either to go to the bran tub and have legislation by lottery; or to use the Ten Minute Rule Bill procedure where one makes one's speech and is given leave to introduce one's Bill. The Bill is then placed on the Clerk's Table and is not seen any more. That is the obstacle that we have had to overcome in another place in order to get any Bill before Parliament.
If we were able to pass these Bills, they would go down the corridor and stay there unless they were taken up by a Member in another place. Does the public realise that this antique procedure in Parliament lies at the root of the apathy and incompetence which was shown previously when dealing with dog legislation? Another point is that part of the package that we had on the Environmental Protection Bill as recently as the 31st October was the leash and tag provision. At least, if we have not added it to that Bill, it has a reference to the powers which are in the hands of the local authorities. However, none of this adds up to anything substantial in dog control.
Then something happens: fights have taken place. There are as many pit bull terriers in Britain now—or almost as many—as there have been for quite a time. It is a tragic coincidence that the attacks, especially on children, all came at the same time. The mutilated face of one child on television is the mutilated face of a million children. The public has no idea about the odds and the risks. I wish we could republish the

547
Dimbleby lecture of the late Lord Rothschild on the risks and hazards of life. One should not think, "If it had not been that child, it might have been mine", as if the odds are even. We know the odds are not even; the odds are a million to one. However, people do not see it in that light.
If only the Government had had more sense when this situation blew up and had pleaded for a calmer spirit! The gutter press was screeching its head off and levelling disgraceful abuse against the Home Secretary. The press was hysterical, and the Home Secretary lost his head. What can be made of a Home Secretary who on a Wednesday announces that the only solution for this terrible emergency situation is to exterminate all dangerous dogs—one day he announces that thousands of innocent dogs are to be sentenced to death. He then consults and thinks the matter over and then, a few days afterwards, he says, "I now reprieve the lot of them," commuting the sentence to genital mutilation and imprisonment for life. What are we to think of a Home Secretary who does that sort of thing? The situation should be calmed down.
I know that it was a period during which any Minister—especially the Prime Minister—stroking his chin in contemplation, would hear the cry, "Ditherer, ditherer!". What can one do in a democracy with a press like that? I shall not repeat what one newspaper had on its front page about the Secretary of State. No doubt he has been deeply wounded; but he is fairly brash and tends to be a bit rash. The Home Secretary's job requires a sturdy man; a strong character; an even temperament; someone who can carry a crisis. For the Home Secretary a crisis can arise any day of the week. Henry Brooke once said to me, "One morning I got up and I thought, 'I have no problems today'." Then the telephone rang. A man who was being extradited to the United States slit his wrists on the aeroplane just as it was landing at Heathrow. The man was bleeding to death and had to be taken off the plane and sent to hospital. Of course the wires were soon buzzing. Japan said, "We don't want him sent to us". America said, "We want him to come to us". And there he was having to be bandaged up! So what should one do with him? That is the sort of life the Home Secretary has. He has to be ready for that type of problem. However, if the press are barking at his heels all the time, it is impossible to give a sober judgment. A few mottos ought to be around in the Home Office such as the President of the United States is alleged to have. There are supposed to be mottos everywhere: "The what-is-it stops here, and the something starts somewhere else". That is what people see as they go along the corridors, I believe.
However, I have said enough to lead to my conclusion. If only we had the time, I am sure that the answer would be to send the Bill to a Select Committee. It would pay for us to do a real job of work on which our reputation stands high. Evidence could be taken. What is the evidence of this emergency? How many dog bites have there been
548
lately? In what circumstances have they taken place? There is no evidence that we are in the middle of an emergency.
I suggest that before we embark on a Bill which will take away civil liberty and individual freedom, we must be careful that we have the evidence on which to do it. Above all, we have to bear in mind what this Bill will do to a large number of innocent dog owners who have docile dogs, whatever they may be called, but which are under control.
Although a dog has been acquired and kept according to the law; and although the owner has done his duty as a citizen, we are now going to say that at the end of November the dog owner will be a criminal if he still has that dog but has not gone through all the processes prescribed in the Bill. The owner will not have done anything wrong or infringed the law in any way. But if the owners just sit on their backsides, we shall turn them from being honourable citizens into being criminals: "We shall send you to gaol and impose a heavy fine on you, and heaven knows what else, if you persist in martyrdom".
It is a draconian state of affairs to give the Secretary of State power to enlarge this area of distress and to enforce these conditions on the owners of dogs without any forewarning or without any justification except that which the Minister may feel important. We have to be careful that we are not going along with this emergency Bill without realising that we are going into some very deep water in terms of civil liberty and individual freedom. As the House of Lords, we cannot ignore that aspect of the matter.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is a difficult act to follow, certainly as regards dog legislation and possibly even on political analysis and recent events. I never realised that the noble Lord played such an important part in what might be called "high affairs" or world affairs. Further, I probably should not be speaking in this debate. I say that because I have never actually seen a pit bull terrier and I no longer keep a dog. I live in an enormous house and very soon found that dogs could not quite tell where indoors and outdoors were. Therefore, at the end of the day, I thought that it would be best for me not to have a replacement.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who said that no emergency was taking place at present. It is quite obvious that the Bill relates to about 10,000 pit bull terriers which have come into the country since the 1970s. The figures which we have heard, if I remember rightly, indicate that they produced a large quantity—about one third—of the accidents. No one has mentioned how serious they are. They are probably much more serious than those involving other dogs. It does in point of fact constitute an emergency and justify a Bill of this nature.
Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as he well knows, that there must be a proper registration scheme at some stage. It should be brought forward in a separate Bill. It should

549
become a separate Act, together with any consolidations needed. It should not be tacked onto a Bill, such as the one before the House today.
However, it is important that this Bill is targeted, as I imagine it is intended to be, straight at what I and obviously the Government see to be the problem of vicious dogs bred for fighting doing a great deal of damage. At the same time, we must look behind the dog to see the kind of person who owns such a dog, who wants to fight dog against dog, who wants, as we have heard this afternoon, to set dogs upon people to rob them, and so on. I shall return later to that point.
I turn now briefly to the Bill. It seems to me that Clause 1 deals with a large part of the situation. It states which dogs the Bill applies to, including the poor Tosa which, apparently, is no longer in the country. In paragraph (c) it refers to,
"any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose".
I cast my eye from that part of the Bill to Clause 2. I came to the conclusion that Clause 2 was superfluous. It deals with a sort of stand-by situation covering, presumably, every sort of dog imaginable. At the beginning it says:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that dogs of any type",
and so on. That seems to me to be a woolly and unsatisfactory expression. It appears that the real danger is dealt with in Clause 1. Perhaps with one addition to that clause, we may feel able to dispose of Clause 2. I say that because it will then ensure that the category of dangerous dogs is confined to those which are obviously fighting dogs.
I said that we must look behind such dogs to consider their owners. It seems that the Bill is designed to phase out the pit bull terrier. If it is passed, as I hope it will be, that will happen over a period of time. However, I do not think that people will be phased out. I believe that there will still be people who will want to fight dogs for money and who will want to badger bait and attack people with their dogs. They will soon find other breeds of dog, some of which have already been mentioned this evening, to breed and train to do so.
On the whole, I should like Clause 1 to stand as it is at present and Clause 2 to be removed, except for that part which obliges the Secretary of State to have advisers of the veterinary sort, such as the RSPCA, and so on. Therefore, if Clause 2 was removed, Clause 1 would have to incorporate not only a provision of that nature but also one which provided for a Standing Committee, such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I am told that the council exists for the benefit of farm animals. It is an effective and useful advisory body. It is always there and can be referred to; it is not a body which is established only when an emergency takes place.
I should like to refer to a few of the points made by other speakers. The description "dangerously out of control" which appears later in the Bill in Clause 3 worries me. The description of a "public place" seems fairly clear; indeed, it includes a great deal of our country. It refers to the streets, the New Forest, the
550
moors and all sorts of places, including Underground stations, and so on. However, are we thinking of a dog being dangerously out of control in a vicious manner, or will the provision cover a situation where, for example, a little terrier runs to greet an old man on a bicycle coming down the road who subsequently wobbles, falls down and breaks his neck? It seems to me that there should be a better description than that which exists in the Bill at present.
Apart from that, I do not have too many criticisms to make. I entirely agree with the hunting people who point out that hounds can be lured onto a road so that those who are against hunting can achieve their ends by a different means from that which is used at present. Having said that, and in the event of Clause 2 being removed—or, at least, careful consideration being given to it—I wish the Bill well.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Milne: My Lords, I intend to be very brief in what I have to say. My concern with the Bill is that, while dealing satisfactorily in Clause 1 with dogs bred to fight, it does virtually nothing to put an instant curb on the aggressive breeds, some of which are known to be dangerous and to have caused the majority of incidents so far.
The effect of Clause 2, which is designed to deal with those types of dogs not specifically bred for fighting, is to impose the relatively mild sanction of leading and muzzling in public; but only after enough incidents have occurred to make them statistically significant, or Clause 3 has been triggered. If two fighting dogs can be named in Clause 1, why should not notably aggressive types such as Rottweilers and Dobermanns be named in Clause 2 for immediate imposition of muzzling and leading in public?
I do not believe that any reasonable owner would object to the exemptions in special circumstances provided for in Clause 2(2). The margin of difference between Clause 1 and Clause 2-type dogs is so slim that there are bound to be more dreadful accidents which muzzling would prevent. I am sure that the public, and anyone subsequently involved, will see things that way.
The Minister has said that he intends to make insurance a condition for the retention of neutered Clause 1-type animals. The owners of all dogs should be required to have insurance. The cost might make the potential owners of some types of dog think again and some of the problems caused by irresponsible ownership might disappear.
There are other problems such as hygiene, identification and so on. To be of any value, restrictions must be enforced, and that costs money. We have heard that a probing amendment relating to registration was discussed and defeated in another place. Nevertheless, I feel that dog owners should be made to pay for the costs they give rise to, and registration fees would cover those costs and help to solve many other problems.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, like almost everyone else who has spoken, I support the Bill so far as it goes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Milne, and other noble Lords, that all potentially dangerous breeds should be muzzled. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is not in her place. She appeared to suggest that muzzling would be an alternative to a dog registration scheme. I do not agree with her. Dogs bred for fighting have no place in a civilised society. The sooner that they are no longer seen on our streets, the better it will be.
I have two questions which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. How will the police apprehend stray dogs? I hope they will not be armed with a long stick, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested. Perhaps they could have a tranquilliser dart. There must be some way of enabling the police to take such dogs into control without putting themselves at risk of being savaged. Once the strays have been collected, how will the police identify them? Is it intended that as part of the—I understand that I am not allowed to call it a registration scheme—identification scheme it will be possible to identify dogs by a tattoo mark or in some other way?
The requirement that dogs should be kept on a lead and be muzzled while in a public place is welcome, but what is a lead? I almost came to grief in Cambridge last weekend. A man came along towing a small but active dog on the end of a 10-foot piece of string. I did not see the piece of string or the dog until the man had long passed me. No one could say that that dog was under control. I question whether it could be said to be on a lead. It may be necessary to define a lead at some stage.
Despite the discussions that have taken place this afternoon, I am still worried about postmen, milkmen and other delivery men. There seems to be some confusion about whether the front garden or the path up to the back door—if that is what the milkman uses—is a public place. That point needs to be cleared up. With dogs as savage as pit bull terriers and some of the others we are talking about controlling, the old adage that they are allowed one bite at the postman is not good enough. One bite from one of those dogs can be serious. We must have a clear ruling on that point. If it is decided that the front garden or the back path are not public places, and that dogs can roam free there, the owners of such dogs should be required to place a delivery point at the edge of their property so that it is not necessary for postmen or milkmen to enter. That is common sense.
Other noble Lords have said that the Bill does not address the problems of irresponsible ownership generally. For example, the NFU points out that it does nothing about dogs that worry sheep. Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently on that point. I shall not go into the figures regarding serious attacks in the metropolitan area because that has been done by a number of speakers. Even if we deal with attacks on people, we are left with the problems of fouling, accidents caused by strays, and all the other difficulties that were identified in our previous long and tedious discussions about dog registration.
552
My noble friend Lady Phillips said that we had been warned off registration. I do not intend to be warned off. I have something to say about it. The Home Secretary apparently accepts that registration is an essential element in the control of dangerous dogs, otherwise he would not suggest the system put forward in the Bill, which is registration by any other name. Why is he so blind to the fact that registration is an essential element—not a solution—in the battle against all the other problems that have been mentioned? How otherwise will dog wardens be financed, strays identified and returned to their owners, and a realistic third party insurance scheme be designed?
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was worried about the cost of dog registration and the numbers involved. According to the latest figures I have been given, there are about 7 million dogs. However, without a registration scheme we cannot be sure of that figure. There is a computer at Wood Green which already caters for a privately run registration scheme. It is capable of dealing with 80 million pets. That is a far greater number than is ever likely to be involved in a dog registration scheme. It is calculated that each registration would cost between £11 and £15. All the organisations that supported the concept of a dog registration scheme continue to support it. All those Members of Parliament and Members of this House who supported such a scheme previously continue to support it, and many of them have said so. They have been joined by others who are now convinced.
We are told, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, that there is no point in pursuing the matter on this occasion because many of the scheme's supporters do not wish to add to the Government's present embarrassment. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, gave sound reasons, which I accept, as to why this House should not pursue dog registration in the Bill. In the other place, the decision not to pursue it resulted from a form of political manoeuvring which undermines the credibility of politicians. I am reluctant to be party to it. The reality is that any attempt to amend the Bill so as to implement existing powers to introduce a registration scheme will merely lead to a long debate in which all the old arguments will be repeated. At the end of the day there will be a defeat in the Lobbies with nothing to show except a waste of public money, so I am glad that my noble friend will not pursue that matter at later stages of the Bill, although I am unhappy about the principle. I must remind the House again that the power to start a registration scheme already exists. It can be implemented when a sufficiently enlightened Secretary of State decides to act. The scheme does not need, as my noble friend Lord Houghton said, to be spatchcocked into anything. The power exists in the Environmental Protection Act, and my party is committed to implementing it.
Meanwhile, the Bill is a useful, if limited, tool. I hope that your Lordships will agree to give it a Second Reading and that we can strengthen it in some of the ways that have been suggested today. There are also

553
many points which need clarification. With those amendments, I hope that the Bill will soon pass into law.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and support Clause 1. I find Clause 2 unusual because it states that orders may be made concerning, "specially dangerous dogs". I have a Staffordshire bull terrier, a "Staffy", which is a very English type of dog. I love him dearly, he is now 10 or 11 years old. When pit bull terriers are mentioned on television, often a picture of a Staffy is flashed up which I find disconcerting. He has got into two bad fights. The first was when he was playing in the front garden of our home. At the time we lived next door to the American school which President Reagan was to visit the next day. Special security was put on with giant Alsatian guard dogs. One rushed into our front garden and attacked my Staffy who responded and I must say he won. Much to my distress, I had to go to see the guard when I returned from your Lordships' House at about midnight, in order to pacify him because he was insulted that his dog was injured by the Staffy. It was not badly injured but there was a dog fight.
The other occasion was when my husband took the dog out on the street but not on the lead. Along came another Australian like my husband, with his dog—a Labrador, also not on a lead. The two dogs got into a fight and I thought how typical it was that both Australians should have thought there was no reason for their dogs to be on a lead. There was quite a nasty fight and the two dogs could not be separated. In the end, my husband separated them, but if one attempts to do so in the middle of a fight one suffers for it. Since that day, my dog has never been out of the house off the lead. I take him regularly to Hyde Park, my husband does so even more than I but the dog is always on a lead. I never take him off the lead for that reason.
It is always a Yorkie that rushes up to attack my dog. I do not know whether it is because Yorkies are only the size of threepence, but for some reason they feel that they have to show that they are big macho dogs and they rush to attack any larger dog. It is extremely difficult; apparently all the owners of Yorkies let them off the lead in the park. I find it quite a problem; so many owners take their dogs to the park and let them off the lead as soon as they arrive.
The type of lead that I believe is good for the park is the one that extends to 20 feet; I do not know whether it is the same as the piece of string referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The extending leads are good because they allow the dog more or less to roam free but there is sufficient time to reel the lead in if one sees another dog coming. I reached the point where I used to take an umbrella to fend off the Yorkies. However, that seems to be a different problem. If a dog is being attacked by another dog, it is difficult.
I wonder whether there could be a suggestion that under Clause 2 all dogs must be kept on a lead in certain places; for example, in the street, any dog can be a hazard to others. Should local authorities make
554
regulations as to where dogs be kept on leads or does it come under the Bill? I should be interested to know. I do not wish the matter to be on the face of the Bill. It should not be necessary to put it into primary legislation if there are sufficient enabling provisions in the Bill for the regulations to be made when it becomes apparent that they are necessary.
The point that has been made in the debate is that different problems with dogs arise all the time. It is hard to anticipate them. However, if the legislation is sufficiently wide to enable regulations to be made when required, that would solve the problem.
This is a good Bill. The urban situation is quite different from that in rural areas. I was interested to hear those who spoke about the rural situation. I support the comment of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes that no one should ever leave a dog with a small baby or a small child. I should never do so, no matter how much I loved or trusted the dog. One does not know how a dog thinks; it might see a small baby as a rat to be caught. There is no way of knowing and it is important for us to appreciate that, although people often think in this country that dogs are more human than humans, we do not know how dogs think and react. We must always be aware of that, even with the safest and kindest dog. I support the Bill.
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I wish to address your Lordships briefly in support of the Government's action in bringing in the Bill and congratulate them. The Minister may be gratified to know that all 478 canine inhabitants of the dogs' home at Battersea are personally grateful to him for what he is doing for them. I have consulted them through their barking vocal delegates. The dogs' home at Battersea has more experience than any other metropolitan dogs' charity in dealing with rescuing, re-homing and so on of stray dogs. Therefore, we are reasonably confident that in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police we can deal with any problems that arise as a result of such horrifying possibilities as hordes of stray pit bull terriers being released by irresponsible owners on to the streets of London.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whether he is in favour of masses of stray pit bull terriers being released in London. After listening to his 25-minute peroration I was not quite sure. I believe he would not be in favour of it. However, if the same trouble had been taken over the first pit bull terrier that arrived in this country as is apparently being taken over the Tosa animal, we should not be in the present mess.
Personally, and on behalf of the canine delegates, I support the Bill.
7.37 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, although I have a hankering after the registration scheme which I am sure will eventually come, I support my noble friend who so ably introduced the

555
Bill. I have no doubt whatever that sometime—perhaps under the next Government—the dog registration scheme will come.
I had early instruction on dogs. I am told that at the age of two-and-a-half I tried to force a lump of coal down an Irish wolfhound's mouth, but I was dragged away, presumably screaming. I wish to refer to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He is not present but I understand that he farms and he said that sheepdogs were only useful for herding sheep. With the greatest respect to him, I have quite a few sheep and many dogs, three of which are sheepdogs. They are remarkable animals, they can do much more than herd sheep. I once told a story in this House which I shall not repeat in detail. I knew a sheepdog that saved a man's life: it came home and got the search party which went out for about four miles into the hills in the dark. The man lived, they got him home, but the doctor said that it was a chance in a thousand.
I will tell you another instance of a greyhound which had run on the race track. My wife is interested in greyhound racing. I do not strictly approve of greyhound racing because often when the dogs have reached the end of their useful running lives they are put down, even though they may have made their owners a lot of money. It is atrocious that perfectly healthy dogs should be put down when they could be taken to dogs' homes. My wife once took out for a walk a greyhound bitch which had never seen a pheasant before. It slipped its lead during the walk and, spotting a cock pheasant about 100 yards away in the stubble, raced off like lightning and killed the bird instantly. It retrieved the pheasant and laid it at my wife's feet. I do not understand why the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said specific breeds of dogs were trained for one purpose only. Dogs have many sides to them.
As I have already said, I was brought up with dogs from an early age. When I was a boy I used to let my dogs sleep in my bed at night. I used to play tricks on them sometimes. I dressed in different clothes and then the dog would not accompany me out of the room. I have always considered dogs to be extremely sensitive animals just as I know many human beings who are also sensitive.
I hope that one day a dog registration scheme will be introduced. I would also like to see some provision made for bitches to be spayed. I know many people who are not very well off who own bitches. Often the bitches get out, mate with other dogs and have litters. Their owners cannot always afford to have them spayed as that is expensive nowadays. It is a great pity that the Government cannot offer such people some financial help to have their bitches spayed. Neutering a dog is of course a different matter as it is reasonably cheap. Neutering is a good practice as it prohibits dogs from mating indiscriminately.
A few years ago I introduced into this House a Bill which concerned pit bull terriers. The Bill came from another place, where it had been introduced by Mr. Greenway. At that time pit bull terriers had only just become fashionable among people who gambled on dog fights. One cannot call that a sport as it is a most
556
atrocious practice. I was pleased to hear my noble friend say that, when this Bill passes into law, pit bull terriers will become a thing of the past, certainly as regards organised dog fights.
My daughter had a Staffordshire bull terrier. In the middle of the 19th century miners in the Midlands used Staffordshire bull terriers in dog fights. Then the practice died out completely; presumably it was made illegal. Subsequently pit bull terriers have been introduced from America. Dog fighting is frowned upon and the Bill which I introduced in your Lordships' House increased the fine for dog fighting by about £1,000. That Bill attempted to stop the so-called sport of dog fighting. I hope that when the present Bill becomes law it will result in the demise of the pit bull terriers, certainly as regards dog fights.
I shall not delay the House further as it is getting late. I believe that eventually we shall have to introduce a dog registration scheme. There are 6 million dogs in Britain and if they are allowed to stray and breed indiscriminately the dog population will explode.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this Bill is very necessary but it arrives rather late in the day. I welcome the Bill but I feel rather like someone at a cocktail party picking at the various delicacies as they are whisked past. In that situation one just wants one bulky item that will satisfy one's hunger. This legislation is rather like the situation at a cocktail party in that we have little bits of legislation tackling small issues but we are not bringing them together. When we do bring them together I hope that the main course of this meal of legislation will be some form of registration scheme. I believe that the Bill has recognised the need for some form of registration scheme.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill refers to restrictions on other types of dangerous dog. I believe therefore that the Bill concedes that there are dozens of different species of fighting dogs all over the world which can be imported into this country. Many of those species are rather bigger and more formidable than the American pit bull terrier. The RSPCA has given me a list of a vast number of species of dangerous dog from various parts of the world with names that I cannot even begin to remember, let alone pronounce. The single Japanese Tosa in this country may be a good dog and it has not had a bad turn yet. Nevertheless that breed of dog is one of the most frightening to come across, purely because of its size. Anything bigger than a Rottweiler should be in a zoo. The other day when I was running in the streets of London I saw a Rottweiler taking its owner for a walk. It must have been four or five stone heavier than the man who supposedly had it under control on a lead.
My noble friend Lord Falkland spoke of how one should behave with a dog so that it does not attack. Most of what I have been told contradicts the instructions that he had been given. The instructions that I had been given flashed through my mind when

557
I saw, that Rottweiler. I slowed to a walk, put my hands by my sides, did not look at the dog and hoped that it would go away as it dragged its owner past me.
The fact that there are in this country such animals as the Rottweiler, the Alsatian and other large dogs leads to another problem. Not only are there feral dogs in all the major conurbations but there are also latchkey dogs. Those are dogs which are let out when their owners leave for work and return home when their owners return. There is also the guard dog syndrome. There are kept in the United Kingdom, predominantly in built up areas, dozens of different types of dog which are not looked after.
It is also worth remembering that dogs are carnivores which are highly territorial and operate in packs and dogs which become fighting dogs are merely spirited dogs. A terrier is a dog which can worry something; it is agile and it is strong. A bull terrier is a dog which is capable of baiting a bull.
In addressing the problem of dog fighting we are dealing only with the worst offender. We are trying to stop recruitment to the heavyweight division of dog fighting and the macho culture. Unfortunately, money may be spent on the middleweight division; it may be the Staffordshire bull terrier next time round. I am sure that a breeder could easily produce a spirited and aggressive strain of Staffordshire bull terrier and the problems will start all over again. If one can produce one fighting dog one can produce another.
Thus, although the Bill will deal with the worst excesses of the problem and the most visible aspects of it, it can only be a partial answer. Ultimately, even if the Bill is enforced to the fullest extent—and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that:
"The additional expenditure to be incurred by the police, local authorities and the courts is not expected to be significant"—
we may find that pit bull terriers have bred with feral dogs and latchkey dogs and we shall undoubtedly have a huge problem which is only beginning to emerge. I believe that we shall find that that part of the Bill is hopelessly optimistic and will probably not be effective. I hope that the Bill is seen as only a start in dealing with a large-scale problem.
There is one point that I should like to make in connection with breeding. The Labrador was mentioned. It was said that the Labrador does not bother anybody. It is true that normally it does not. However, in Norfolk the black Labrador was for a time the dog which had most commonly to be destroyed. There was a great demand for the dog and there was inbreeding to meet that demand. If a Labrador decides to savage you it does so rather ineffectually, but it can still leave scars. I give that as a small example of the potential problem we face with all dogs if we do not have some form of control. This Bill only makes a start on tackling that problem.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the Bill deals only with a very limited aspect of the dog problem but leaves the main problem untouched. It does nothing to tackle the problem of irresponsible dog ownership, of which fighting dogs is a symptom. Clearly there will
558
not be a registration scheme, but I believe that one day such a scheme will be introduced, either for dogs or for owners.
In the meantime, this Bill deals with the ownership of certain breeds, in particular the pit bull terrier. Yet of the 468 serious attacks recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 1990 only 111 were by pit bull terriers and 357 were by other breeds, including cross-breeds. Therefore the Bill will make little difference to the scale of the attacks. This is in fact a Bill to stop dog fighting and has nothing to do with protecting the public. If that was the intention the breeds involved in those 357 attacks would be banned.
We all know that most dogs of all breeds are friendly by nature, but there is no doubt of the capability of rogue Rottweilers, German shepherds and Dobermanns to cause damage in the same way as pit bull terriers. Had any of those breeds been designated it would mean the destruction of another breed, yet leaving still more breeds capable of causing damage while the majority of dogs of those breeds are perfectly harmless. Even a Pekinese can be fierce.
Therefore, the answer should lie in the threat of potential claims for compensation and in insurance cover. If an owner of a dog had to pay substantial damages in compensation for any misbehaviour by his dog or accident caused by it, he would have to take out adequate third party insurance, and the more dangerous the dog the higher the premium would be. That in itself would be a deterrent against casual ownership. The new regulations regarding the wearing of collars for identification would help to ensure that the majority of dogs were insured in the same way as the majority of cars are insured, although never 100 per cent. of them. Too many dogs do not have collars at present and so their owners cannot be identified.
The cost of compulsory insurance might help to reduce the growing problem of irresponsible ownership with the attendant cruelty, abandonment and strain that exists at present. It might also reduce the vast number of dogs which have to be destroyed each day.
The Bill relates only to public places. The only incident of which I have any knowledge was a horrific one near Dunoon in which a child was suddenly set on and killed by a dog which she and a friend were taking for a walk. So far as I can remember it was a Rottweiler. The incident did not occur in a public place but in a private field, so the Bill would not apply. The attack could have been made on someone who was not with the dog—some other person or child walking at the other end of the field. The application of the Bill to public places only is therefore not wide enough.
There is also the question of the garden of a house, which has been mentioned earlier today. It could be argued that the path to a house is a public place inasmuch as the postman has a right to deliver letters unless requested not to do so. However, the garden could be the scene of an assault but would clearly not be a public place. Therefore, not only should the scope of the Bill be extended beyond public places but there should also be stronger liability for all dog owners to insure against damage caused by their dogs. The

559
penalties for actions brought against them should be high enough not only adequately to compensate the victims but also to encourage all dog owners to take out insurance policies.
I question whether Clause 3 could be turned against police officers arresting a criminal. It would be ironic if a criminal were able to apply the clause against a policeman who arrested him with a police dog.
There is also the question of hounds. There is always the possibility that the Bill could be used against hounds and other dogs used for sporting purposes. I understand that the Government will be bringing forward an amendment to remove any such threat. I look forward to reading it.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I have always understood that a dog's age should be multiplied by seven to match the age of a human being. I am sure that when we look back on this debate as it has gone through the afternoon and evening many of us will measure its length in dog years rather than human years. Nevertheless, the Minister must be very pleased with the response from most speakers who have given their general approval to the Bill before us.
As my noble friend said at the outset of the debate, we on these Benches support the Bill. We believe that the possession of a listed species—the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa—should be prohibited as we cannot think why a dog bred to fight rather than to be a pet should be granted the same status as a pet. When one considers the injuries that have been mentioned in the debate, one realises that it is high time that some protection should be introduced.
However, on that point, we fear that the Government's decision to legislate on the control of dangerous dogs is belated. We also regret their failure to introduce a comprehensive national dog registration scheme. Although some speakers today said that this is not the right framework in which to introduce such a scheme, every speaker has said that he or she believes that a registration scheme would in the long term be the best way to deal with those problems. My noble friend Lady Nicol reminded us of the support of animal welfare groups and the support from public opinion polls which appear to present an overwhelming argument in favour of introducing a national dog registration scheme one day.
Given the Government's insistence on licensing pit bulls, the case for registration becomes even stronger and opposition is more difficult to justify. The inconsistency of the Government's argument is quite obvious, given that the Bill contains reserve powers for the Home Secretary to extend the list of dangerous dogs. Within a short time, there might be a long list of dangerous dogs and a two-tier system of dog ownership in operation. That could easily leave the public confused as to which breeds are classified as dangerous and subject to registration and those that are not. As Ministers have said before, the Minister said today that registration would not have prevented the recent attacks by pit bull terriers. That is true, but one might also say that insuring one's house against
560
fire would not stop it being burnt down. However, it would create a framework in which to deal with the damage and consequences of that fire.
Concern has been expressed as to who exactly will be responsible for implementing the scheme. I understand that the police service will need to enforce the law and prosecute people for breaches of the statutory provisions which deal with the keeping of prohibited dogs. However, I do not understand—perhaps the Minister will elaborate a little on this point when he winds up—why he believes that a private charity might be responsible. I have heard it said that it might be the Kennel Club. Although I have every admiration for the Kennel Club, I wonder why the Government believe that it would be better to give an organisation of that kind the responsibility rather than the local authorities. Local authorities have other related powers to deal with dogs and it is therefore puzzling why a third party should be brought in. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that point.
I should also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the points that were put forward very strongly by my noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Jay who described the difficulties of establishing ownership. I found what they said convincing. I did not see how the important point of establishing ownership could be made within the scope of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, made an extremely interesting speech about safeguards and enforcement of the Bill. No one would disagree with her when she said that other extremely dangerous species of dogs in the shape of Rottweilers caused a great uproar not very long ago. The noble Lord, Lord Milne, said that muzzling appeared to be an adequate way of protecting people from those dogs that were not covered by the Bill. Muzzling is perfectly humane. There is nothing cruel about it. Surely it gives people a great deal of confidence when they see a large dog coming along with a muzzle on. I can see no reason why that matter cannot be considered.
As regards insurance, I and I am sure many other noble Lords received a letter from the Association of British Insurers which stressed the importance of questions regarding compulsory third-party insurance for owners of prohibited dogs and asked that the matter be agreed with the industry before the regulations are prepared. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an assurance that the requirement of the insurance companies has been adequately fulfilled.
My noble friend asked why we could not extend the insurance to all breeds. It is illogical to say that some dogs should be insured whereas others need not be. It is like saying that if one has a Jaguar one must insure it, but if one has a Mini one need not bother. There is a lack of logic in that approach.
We are also concerned about the way in which policy has been invented rather as an instant response to the terrible attacks. My noble friend Lord Houghton made that point very well and said that we must get the matter right. We must work out exactly how to protect the public. We on this side believe that

561
there is a strong case for a more considered standing body to advise on that aspect of animal welfare. After all, there are such models as the Animal Welfare Council and the Food Advisory Committee, and the chances are that the control of dogs will continue to be an area of developing public policy. In the short term therefore it merits having an advisory group comprised of animal welfare experts and local authority representatives. Clause 2(4) goes some way towards achieving that objective, but not far enough. As the Minister knows, the Labour Party is in favour of setting up a dog advisory council to monitor continuously the effectiveness of dog control measures. That council would include vets, breeders, trainers, handlers and keepers of dogs as domestic pets. That would be a good way of dealing with the problem.
We look forward to the Committee stage when, as many speakers have said, the many improvements that we wish to see will be incorporated in the Bill. For instance, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, people who are injured through dog attacks in which the owner cannot be traced or identified should be able to claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, where the police are called in, so to speak, to arrest a dangerous dog, they should be accompanied by a vet, a dog handler or an RSPCA inspector for their better protection. After all, even police dog handlers have no experience of dangerous dogs out of control. The police should have powers to act against dangerous dogs in tower blocks, maisonettes and the areas around them and in back gardens; that is, in other than what the Bill describes as a public place, although there has been a great deal of discussion about that. All owners should be obliged to keep their dogs in secure conditions in and around the area in which the owner resides.
In conclusion, although the Minister says that it does not, the Bill amounts to a registration scheme for dangerous dogs in everything but name and is therefore a welcome step in the right direction. However, we look forward to another opportunity before long to press for a national registration scheme for all dogs because we are convinced, as my noble friend said, that linking the dog and the owner is the best way to increase responsibility. Dog ownership is a way of creating better conditions and a better environment for dogs generally and of protecting the public against the menace of dangerous dogs. In the meantime, we wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as might have been expected, we have had an interesting debate today on the subject of dogs. I do not mind admitting that I was somewhat apprehensive about this debate. I know that if there is a subject which excites noble Lords it is one which deals with animals. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that this debate on dogs was the most moderate that he had heard in his 40 years of parliamentary life. I thought that it was the
562
noble Lord himself who used to raise the temperature in these debates. However, he refrained from doing so today.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who said that I must have been pleased with the response given to this Bill by noble Lords. That is perfectly true. Matters to do with dogs are, quite rightly, very emotive subjects. When your Lordships were good enough on the whole to approve of the Bill, although with criticisms and qualifications here and there, it was a great help.
There was the problem of what should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that the press had hyped up this problem. If my right honourable friend had done nothing at all, everyone would have said that he had been wet and dilatory; but as soon as he did something people claimed that he should not do that and should do something different. It is very difficult. There are those like my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes who would like to see all pit bull terriers destroyed. Other people become distraught when dogs have to be destroyed. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, prefers to see dogs roam. Other people say that dogs ought to be muzzled all the time in public. Yet others say that they ought to be held on a lead in public. But, if a dog is put on a lead in public all the time, when will the poor animal take any exercise? Those are all very complicated matters which the Government have had to take into account.
In the end, we tried to address the real problem which affected everyone; namely, what is to be done with dangerous dogs—dogs that bite, kill and maim? It is perfectly true that many dogs can do that, but we thought it only proper to try to limit the number to those dogs which are trained as fighting dogs. That would at least remove the spotlight from the main problem. Then special provisions could be made for other breeds where it is shown that certain restrictions may be necessary.
To consider just one point, there are people who are frightened of Alsatians. I do not mind saying that I fall into that category. There are those who say that Alsatians ought to be muzzled in public places. But then one finds that Alsatians are the kind of animals which rescue babies who fall into ponds. One can imagine the outcry if an Alsatian could not come to the rescue because it was muzzled and so a baby died. Those were the kind of problems with which we wrestled. I hope that we have the Bill reasonably right in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that the Bill does nothing to make people look after their dogs better. Up to a point he is quite right. It does deal with the problem of dangerous dogs and keeps it at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made some nice remarks about me. I was deeply touched that he should have felt so minded but then of course he added the sting to the tail, as he always does. The noble Lord is generous and one always has to be careful. He said that I was of course merely a frontman for a stream of incompetence for which the Government were responsible. I thought that he had let his imagination run away with him just a trifle. But that is not surprising.

563
The noble Lord let his imagination run away with him over the Japanese Tosa. He said that they are such cuddly and friendly dogs. He told us how this huge, great animal, the size of a donkey, put its paws on his shoulders. I must say to him that he ought to be careful. It is rather like stroking the jaws of a combine harvester when the engine is running. One can get into great trouble. I can assure the noble Lord that the Tosa is a very dangerous dog. Thank goodness the noble Lord, Lord Addington, warned him too. In Japan they are fighting dogs. I understand that in some parts of Japan dog fights still take place. We do not want any more fighting dogs in this country. The noble Lord said that there was only one of them, as though that were a justification for having the poor animal. But if there is one then inevitably there are soon two, and away we go.
The whole idea is to prevent our having more fighting dogs in this country. The RSPCA agrees and so do the veterinary bodies and the dog organisations. They all agree that there is no place for the Tosa. So do the Government and so do all noble Lords except, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who, however, is perfectly entitled to his own individualistic opinion. Nothing that I can say will ever deter him from having that.
We shall look very carefully at any amendments that will be brought forward at Committee stage. However, it may be helpful if I indicate one or two areas in which we shall be prepared to look at amendments with, if possible, even more than our usual generosity, which noble Lords will recognise as considerable.
There was particular concern in another place—this anxiety was expressed again today by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—that the definition of "public place" did not cover the communal parts of blocks of flats which had entry control, such as a security guard or a lockable door, at the front entrance. It was argued that, because the public was denied access by the entry system, the communal areas within could not be defined as a public place. That is certainly an area that we should wish to consider to see whether there is a way around the problem. It is not our intention to allow a flat holder to let loose his pit bull terrier on the stairs, walkways or passages of blocks of flats, simply because one has to go through a communal door in order to get to the flats and therefore it may not be described as a public place. We want to look at ways to get round that problem.
Another anxiety was expressed by my noble friend Lord Kimball and other noble Lords that the reference in Clauses 3(1) and 8(4) to a dog causing injury might have the effect of extending the scope of the offence too far. It was our intention that the offences should catch the owners of those dogs which, by being dangerously out of control, made people fear that they would be bitten, and, in the aggravated offence, would catch those owners whose dog actually bit or savaged people. Some noble Lords suggested
564
that the expression "causing injury" might catch the owner whose dog slipped the lead and put a cyclist in fear of falling off his bike and injuring himself.
My noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Dulverton raised the possibility of hunt saboteurs who might lure foxhounds over a road, thereby causing an accident. It was not our intention to catch that sort of situation. We do not consider that the Bill as presently drafted would have that effect. However, we should certainly look sympathetically at any amendment which would make the intention absolutely clear.
I indicated that we are prepared to look carefully and sympathetically at an amendment which sought to ensure that the types of dog caught by Clause 1 should at all times in public be in the charge of a person aged 16 or over. That is important and will require consideration.
The dreaded word "registration" received a great deal of mention. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that it would provide a more effective method of controlling dogs. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thought that it would be a good idea. My noble friend Lord Stanley very wisely said that he did not want that in this Bill and that another place did not want it. Therefore he would not support an amendment. He has successfully moved an amendment in the past, and I was particularly grateful to him for his breadth of wisdom, if I may so describe it, in saying that it would not be appropriate in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Radnor wanted it. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that she would wish the matter to be pursued now. For the same reasons I was grateful for that information. My noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Gisborough also wanted such a scheme.
A national dog registration scheme, whatever its virtues may be, would be difficult to enforce. It would be expensive to operate and would not solve the problems. It is irrelevant to the issue of fighting and dangerous breeds. If the registration scheme is to bite—if one may use such a description—it must be properly enforced and the cost will be considerable. There is therefore a strong disincentive on the dog-owning public to register. I press the point further. There has been such a scheme in Northern Ireland since 1983. At present only about 50 per cent. of dog owners register. There are always what one might call the goodies who register the dog and the baddies who do not. One is therefore left in the same position as before.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked: how does one know whether a dog is a pit bull terrier or a cross or half-breed? The pit bull terrier is a cross-breed. There is no clear-cut scientific way of defining such a dog. That is why we use the expression in the Bill
"any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred in a chatty way to "Staffies" and "Yorkies". I had not heard those colloquialisms previously. Clause 5(5) of the Bill puts the obligation on the accused to prove that the dog in question is not a pit bull terrier. For someone who owns a "Staffie" (to use my noble friend's expression), the Kennel Club certificate that it is a dog of that breed will be all the evidence needed

565
to convince anyone that the dog in question is perfectly acceptable. But if there is doubt, the person would have to prove that it is not a pit bull terrier.
The matter of third party insurance was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Lord, Lord Milne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. On the face of it, it is an enticing suggestion. To extend a compulsory insurance requirement to other dogs would obviously go much further than necessary for the purpose of the Bill. Compulsory insurance is a rather rare concept. At present one is obliged by law to insure one's motor car; but compulsory insurance does not apply to many other aspects. It is not obligatory by law to insure one's house or contents, even though there might well be goad reasons for doing so. Many household contents policies provide insurance cover for the policy holder's dog. It is probably sensible for the owner to decide to use such a policy. To make it compulsory for owners to insure every Chihuahua and Poodle would be a major step and a fairly major obligation on the dog owner. For the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that that would be a good idea.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, believed that tattooing animals was the better method and that chips tended to move around the body. I did not know that; I accept what he said. He said that he had seen two attractive ladies with two rather less attractive dogs and had suggested to the ladies that they might produce the dogs near the Peers' entrance. That was probably rather undesirable. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, stated that he was going to bring a Japanese Tosa to the front door. I believe that that is going rather over the top. I do not believe that it would be helpful even though it might be instructive. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he was frightened by those dogs, yet he believed that tattooing was a better method. If he were frightened by the dogs how would he like to grab them by the head and look inside their ears to see the tattoo mark? I fancy that he might find that not too enjoyable an experience.
The advantage of the chip is that one can read the information by machine; one does not have to hang onto the dog. There are certain advantages in that. Whether technology is sufficiently advanced is a matter that we must consider.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked how one identifies exempted dogs. The requirements for dogs exempted under Clause 1(5) to be neutered, insured and permanently identified is not on the face of the Bill but it will he in the order defining the exemption scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, my noble friend Lord Radnor and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to dogs which are dangerously out of control. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked what happens about dangerous dogs which jump over fences and attack children. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked whether the front garden is a public place. The front garden is not a public place but the power in Clause 3(4) applies everywhere. That
566
is the defence which the postman and postwoman have against being bitten. They can say that the dog ought to be kept under control.
On the noble Earl's point about a dog jumping over the fence, the Bill does not prescribe secure conditions for Clause 1 dogs, but those who retain exempted dogs will be committing an offence if they allow them to stray and they are out of the house and dangerously out of control. The onus is very much on the owners of the dogs to make sure that they are kept securely. If not, they face pretty tough penalties for breaking the law. If anyone fears that the dog next door—which may be an exempted pit bull terrier—is not properly controlled, he can apply to the court for an order under Clause 3(4) to force the owner to control it properly.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, I am not sure that I heard him aright. Is he saying that the offence under Clause 3 applies to a place which is not a public place? If so, where do I find that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord will address his mind to Clause 3(4), it states:
"It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the Dogs Act … may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have caused injury … and may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control".
That means that if you are pursued by a dog and bitten, or your next-door neighbour has a dog which you believe may bite you, you may apply to the court under the Dogs Act for an order. Clause 3 adds to the Dogs Act by stating that the court may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under control,
"whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise".
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, looks sceptical. He must not; it puts me off. Under the Dogs Act one can go to the court and the court can make an order that the owner must look after his dog properly. Clause 3(4) (b) permits the court to say what he has to do.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, quite rightly said that various dogs are specifically used to deter police in drugs cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that pit bulls are used like weapons. The noble Viscount is quite right. I met some policemen recently who said precisely that: that when they are on the trail of drugs and go to a house, very often they are met by two pit bull terriers. They are used as weapons. That is completely wrong. If the Bill comes into operation then those pit bull terriers will not be there any more. That form of weapon will have been removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that firearms have to be kept in safe places, so why cannot one keep pit bull terriers in safe places? There is one immediate difference. Pit bull terriers have legs whereas firearms do not. It is quite easy to lock up a firearm. It is not so easy to lock up an animal. In that respect I do not believe that the two are totally comparable.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior said that registration should be of the owner and not the dog. A register of owners would be of no

567
additional use to the police or other authorities which will be required to enforce the ban on ownership. They need to know whether a particular dog has been exempted and, if an offence has been committed, who the owner is. The central index will contain information about the dog and the owner. Under the Bill once one is registered as—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all make slips of the tongue. Once one has identified oneself as being the owner one cannot merely let the dog out of the house or give it away to the next door neighbour or to one's wife—one is the owner. Therefore it is unnecessary to have a register of owners such as my noble friend suggested.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked how the police will approach a stray pit bull terrier. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, also expressed anxiety about that matter. It is an operational matter which will be in the hands of the chief constable. In the end the police can call for assistance from a veterinary surgeon if necessary. If the dog is clearly so dangerous and vicious that it cannot be approached, the police have a common law power to put the dog down by shooting it. Such action is pretty extreme and I agree that trying to catch a pit bull terrier owned by a person housing drugs is not what most of us would regard as an afternoon's entertainment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, referred to police dogs. He said that Clause 8(4) should not include police dogs being used operationally. An offence will be committed only if a dog is dangerously out of control. It is my experience that police dogs are exceptionally well disciplined and trained and remain at all times under the control of their handler even when not on the lead. It is sometimes necessary that such dogs under the control of their handlers should use force to restrain a criminal who is engaged in a robbery or trying to escape arrest. In that situation, as in the situation where a police officer must use force, the Criminal Law Act 1967 allows the police to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. That gives the police dog all the protection it needs, as it does to his handler. I do not believe that a special exemption under the Bill is necessary. Police dogs
568
carry out a vital job and are superbly trained. In executing their lawful duty the police have no cause to worry.
My noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Soulsby referred to the Home Secretary's undertaking to produce legislation. Col. 644 referred only to proposals in the consultation paper. These proposals have been picked up by Clause 3(1) and (4) of the Bill. My right honourable friend's remarks had no wider meaning and, so far as I am aware, there are no plans for a wider consolidation of dogs legislation. The RSPCA and British Veterinary Association would like that to be considered in the future but not now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why a private charity is compiling the list of animals. An agency has not yet been identified but we have sent tender documents to more than 25 organisations of all kinds. There is a need for a national list of exempted dogs and the agency is merely undertaking the paperwork. The police and dog wardens will be enforcing the provisions.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the encouragement that you have given to the Bill. I hope that it will have a relatively speedy and uncontroversial passage through this House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.
London Underground Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Llanelli Borough Council (Dafen Estuary) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

  THE IMMIGRATION RULES: IMPACT ON JEWISH MIGRANTS
  THE IMMIGRATION RULES: IMPACT ON JEWISH MIGRANTS
  BEER PRICES
  BEER PRICES
  BEER: SHORT MEASURE ALLEGATIONS
  BEER: SHORT MEASURE ALLEGATIONS
  BURMA: ADVICE TO COMPANIES
  BURMA: ADVICE TO COMPANIES
  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORTS: RESPONSE
  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORTS: RESPONSE
  BEER PRICE INCREASES AND THE RPI
  BEER PRICE INCREASES AND THE RPI
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: ESCALATORS OUT OF SERVICE
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: ESCALATORS OUT OF SERVICE
  WATER UNDERTAKERS: RELATIONS WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT FIRMS
  WATER UNDERTAKERS: RELATIONS WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT FIRMS
  CAMBODIA: TRAINING OF RESISTANCE FORCES
  CAMBODIA: TRAINING OF RESISTANCE FORCES