Sitting of 12 March 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Neath, in the room of Donald Richard Coleman, Esquire, CBE, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Standard Spending Assessment
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect he calculated the standard spending assessment for 1991–92 will have on the education service.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Education's share of the 1991–92 grant settlement is 16 per cent. higher than this year's settlement. That will allow any well-managed local education authority to make good progress in implementing the reforms and providing a better quality of education for our children.
    Mr. McCartney: Is not it the case that the so-called 16 per cent. increase is a 16 per cent. increase on the reduced budget of the previous year? Local authorities are forced to make cuts because of the standard spending assessment. Will the Secretary of State assure local authorities that there will be no need to sack teachers because of local authority expenditure cuts? Will he come to my constituency and see the effect of local authority expenditure cuts brought about by his Department's policies?
    Mr. Clarke: The answer is no, on all points. Education spending is now 40 per cent. per pupil higher than it was 10 years ago, over and above inflation. The increase in the standard spending assessment is a very real increase compared with last year's, which itself was an increase on the previous year. Authorities such as Wigan borough council had a 19 per cent. increase in their total standard spending assessment, but Wigan is a consistently wasteful and overspending authority. I very much hope that when it gets within reach of setting a serious budget it will not cut its education provision, which is so essential.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. arid learned Friend agree that even the 16 per cent. increase in the money allocated to authorities such as Lancashire county council will not improve the education of children in Lancashire? The authority employs administrators and teachers according to a 50:50 ratio. The people of Lancashire demonstrated clearly what they think of the chairman of the education service by giving her only just over 4,000 votes at the recent by-election.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, but Lancashire does not top the league in terms of the relationship between administration and classroom spending. At least one local education authority employs more people in its central services than in all its classrooms put together. There is a huge discrepancy. If councils such as Lancashire have to make economies in certain areas, that is one which they should consider.

    Research Funding
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the funding of research in universities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Public spending on university research through the Universities Funding Council and the research councils is expected to be some £1·1 billion next year. The Government will continue to pursue their policy of greater selectivity in the use of these substantial sums, with a clearer definition of the responsibilities of the institutions and the research councils.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the recently published evidence of the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information which came to the conclusion that British science has been in serious decline for the past 10 years, and particularly since 1986? Does he agree that it is essential for our future competitiveness that adequate resources should be devoted to scientific research and development? Will he have urgent talks with the Universities Funding Council to ensure that in the 1990s we do not experience a decline similar to that in the 1980s?
    Mr. Howarth: There is no decline in British science, the quality of which is superb. World-class, leading-edge science is being carried out in our research institutions. The achievements and quality of British scientists are second to none. If the hon. Gentleman were to visit, for example, the animal genome research project in Edinburgh, surface sciences in Manchester or molecular sciences in Oxford, he would find science of outstanding world-class quality being carried out. I have seen the reports to which he refers, but that is a flimsy arid precarious base from which to generalise about the condition of British science. The number of citations is an arbitrary index, and some pretty cranky science is cited in it. That does not mean that it is a worthwhile measure of the quality of British science.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the basic difference between research and development in Britain and in Japan and Germany is the higher contribution from private industry in those countries? Should not we work harder to bring universities and local industries closer

    793
    together so that the treasure trove of knowledge in our higher education institutions can be exploited to the benefit of their local communities?
    Mr. Howarth: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, but there were dramatic increases in industry's spending on research throughout the 1980s. The development of science parks promises an improved closer relationship between industry and science. The Government were right to withdraw from public funding of near-market research. It is extremely important that industry has a strong research and development base, but so long as industrialists thought that they could leave it to the taxpayer and the Government to buy the research that they should have been carrying out, they underinvested. That is the basis for a stronger research performance by industry to complement the research that is properly publicly funded.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Is not it a disgrace that the Government are increasing the Science and Engineering Research Council budget by under 3 per cent., which is less than half of even their own estimate of inflation for next year? What estimate has the Minister made of the effects of that on university research, especially in view of the research council's statement that, in supporting projects, it cannot afford to take full account of the costs of nationally agreed pay settlements for academic and support staff? Will not that deliberate Government underfunding mean devastating cuts in work that is vital to the future of British science?
    Mr. Howarth: The Government have increased the science budget by 23 per cent. over and above general inflation since 1979. Two years ago, there was an 8 per cent. real-terms increase. In a difficult economic context, we have managed to hold steady the underlying level of the science budget. It is for scientists, the scientific communities, the research councils and those whom they fund to determine their proper priorities within the substantial sums made available to them.

    School Allocations
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the impact of the Greenwich judgment on local education authorities' school allocation policies; what plans he has to introduce legislation to reverse the judgment; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State received representations from hon. Members, local authorities and from the London Boroughs Association following the court ruling last spring. The judgment's full effects will bear on admissions in September this year. In the light of evidence at that stage, we shall consider whether any action is necessary.
    Mr. Sims: How much more evidence does my hon. Friend need of the problems that the judgment is causing local education authorities and the concern that it is causing parents? Does he accept that what is needed is not a great change in the law but simply to restore it to what everybody thought it was before the Greenwich judgment? If he is having difficulty in drafting the legislation or
    794
    finding Government time, will he facilitate the passage of my private Member's Bill, the Second Reading of which will be considered on Friday week?
    Mr. Fallon: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am aware of the Bill that he is promoting. This summer's admissions will be the first to which the Greenwich judgment will apply. It would not be right to reach a conclusive view until those decisions are taken this summer.

    Education Funding
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of local education authorities to discuss the funding of education.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Funding issues are discussed in many of the meetings that I and my ministerial colleagues have with representatives of local education authorities.
    Mr. O'Hara: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if local authorities had restricted their spending on schools to the sums proposed by central Government in their standard spending assessments there would have had to be substantial cuts in spending on schools? Does he further agree that such local authority discretion is important because the government of education must involve a partnership between central and local government and that any moves to bypass the local education authorities simply to rescue the poll tax would be misguided in the extreme?
    Mr. Clarke: Some local education authorities spend less than the Government's standard spending assessment and, so far as I am aware, deliver a good quality service and do not achieve lower standards than education authorities in other parts of the country. The present position is that education is a local government responsibility. As the hon. Gentleman says, that undoubtedly means that authorities have their discretion to set their own priorities and to decide where to spend more money and where to spend less. I very much regret that some authorities take quixotic and occasionally damaging decisions when exercising that discretion, but that is not my responsibility. The SSA allows any local authority to deliver a good quality service.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in 1991–92 funding for education will increase by 16 per cent. to £17 billion? Will he further confirm that it would be of enormous benefit to children if local education authorities would direct some of the funds that they use for central administration to the classrooms and the schools?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the 16 per cent. of which he reminds us must be set against inflation, which is forecast to drop as low as 6 per cent. in the same year, so it represents a massive injection in terms of Government assessment of education spending. If, due to past expenditure, drawing on reserves, or past misjudgments, some local authorities are having to consider retrenching in some areas, I believe, like my hon. Friend, that such an authority should look first at its central administration costs and not start by making cuts in the classroom.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State will be aware that in many parts of the country, including my own, there are real difficulties in delivering the national curriculum in school buildings that are old and are now inadequate for the purpose for which they were designed. The Government have postponed the 1981 regulations on achieving new standards for school buildings, but when does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to complete the review that we are told is being conducted on that aspect? Will he pledge to the House that that review will not involve cuts in the standards that our children can expect?
    Mr. Clarke: We have increased the capital allocations for next year by 11 per cent. I agree that that is a justifiable increase because we still have many Victorian buildings, especially in rural areas such as the hon. Gentleman represents, and also many 1960s system-built buildings which are no longer adequate for their purpose. The regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred apply to all new buildings and have done so for many years. The part that is still postponed relates to comparatively small features of schools and will, of course, be part of the review that we are currently undertaking.
    Mr. John Browne: During my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions, did anything take place that might encourage local authorities to cut adult education or is adult education something which the Government believe should be pursued?
    Mr. Clarke: I believe that there is a continuing and important role for adult education, which should be part of the provision of any well-managed local authority. Where there are cuts in adult education, that can only be because the local education authority has got itself into a financial mess or is choosing to spend the money on some other part of the service.
    Mr. Fatchett: We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment wants to transfer the funding of education to central Government, but a recent interview in The Guardian showed that the Secretary of State for Education and Science wished to keep education as a local service. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that is still his view and that he still wants education to be funded by a mixture of local and central funding, or will he be rolled over in the poll tax review so as to cut poll tax bills?
    Mr. Clarke: I have yet to read any newspaper account of the discussions that my colleagues and I are having that has been at all accurate. Day after day, I read with amazement of the stances that we are supposed to be taking. My own remarks in The Guardian and elsewhere have always been designed to be Delphic in their content and I shall continue to ensure that that is the case. From time to time, however, I suffer the fate of the Oracle in that my remarks are misunderstood.

    Seven-year-olds (Reporting)
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on reporting by schools to parents of seven-year-olds.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on reporting by schools to parents of seven-year-olds.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Under regulations made last year, all parents of seven-year-olds will this summer receive a written report giving them the results of testing in mathematics, science and English, along with commentary on their child's performance in other subjects.
    Mr. Sayeed: I welcome that announcement and ask the Minister for two pledges. First, will the time that teachers have to take in the preparation and administration of tests be dramatically reduced and, secondly, will schools be required to publish the results of tests for seven-year-olds?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend raises two important points. We have reduced significantly the amount of time that the application of the test will take this summer. We shall be monitoring carefully how well it goes in schools and we shall not hesitate to make further changes should they prove appropriate. As for publishing the results of the tests for seven-year-olds, it will not be compulsory this summer, but we hope that all schools will in practice publish the results.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. Does he agree that parents are the primary educators of children and that such school reports are essential if they are to help at home with school work —building on the foundations that children get at school —during school holidays and in the evenings?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. It is important that schools, as a matter of policy, involve parents in the education of their children. That is why we are advocating that annual reports should include a section making recommendations to parents about what they might wish to help their children with out of school. In addition, we hope that all schools for all children of all ages will have an active homework policy which involves parents.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the concept of assessment and the encouragement of the development of gifts, but what steps is the Department taking to make sure that children of seven will not be labelled failures by parents or others?
    Mr. Eggar: It is important to stress that the tests for seven-year-olds are designed to assess how well children have done, to identify their strengths and their weaknesses and to enable parents and schools to work out how they can assist the children and further improve their performance.
    Ms. Harman: Is the Minister aware that some seven-year-olds will not be tested, because they will not be getting any education? I refer to those in hospital in London. Is he aware of the threat to the education service in hospitals because the large teaching hospitals draw children from many education authorities in London arid the surrounding areas but the small local education authorities in London cannot provide education for children not only from their own areas but from surrounding areas? Will the Department make sure that

    797
    local education authorities are required to provide that education and that the Department will recoup the cost from the other boroughs as and when it is able to do so?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady identifies a difficult area. We are in touch with the local authorities and hospitals concerned. We are working hard to try to ensure that we maintain the appropriate level and type of education in hospitals.

    Rural Schools
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will increase capital allowances for equipment for schools in rural areas.
    Mr. Fallon: The 15 per cent. increase in annual guidelines for schools' capital from April should enable LEAs to spend more on equipment for schools in rural areas, as they wish.
    Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no point in having a new curriculum, good though it is, without the resources to make it implementable? Is he aware that in areas such as Devon extremely low capital authorisation prevents the re-equipping of schools, and credit approvals are so inadequate that new computers, books and other equipment have to be provided by parents raising the money rather than by the local education authorities raising the funds?
    Mr. Fallon: Devon received an allocation of about £7·7 million for the forthcoming year. Included in its bid was only £1·4 million for improvement and replacement work, including equipment, most of which it received. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I recently met a delegation of colleagues from Devon to discuss the allocation further.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the meetings to which he has just referred between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the local education authority from county hall in Devon, the capital funding for schools in rural areas should properly take account of a degree of rural deprivation? It is sometimes difficult for children in rural areas to get transport to libraries and other facilities that they need. New spending assessment rules should perhaps take that into account. In that context, does my right hon. Friend welcome the rebuilding of Horrabridge county primary school, for which we are turning the first turf on Friday?
    Mr. Fallon: I certainly welcome the project to which my hon. Friend refers. When we republish the criteria for next year, we shall consider my hon. Friend's other point about rural areas.

    School Repairs
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the cost of school repairs.
    Mr. Fallon: Provision to meet the recurrent cost of school repairs is included in the total standard spending settlement, which in 1991–92 allows for local authorities in England to spend some £17·5 billion on education. It is for
    798
    each local authority to decide how much to spend on repairing school buildings from the recurrent resources available to it.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware of the serious crisis affecting schools in Leicestershire due to the lack of school repairs? Does he realise that schools in my constituency have had to wait a collective total of one and a half centuries for repairs to be initiated? Will he visit schools such as Abbey primary school where 75 children have to share one lavatory? Would the Minister like to share one lavatory with 75 of his colleagues at the Department of Education and Science? Will he visit such schools or provide the local authority with the resources that it needs to initiate repairs?
    Mr. Fallon: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about schools in Leicestershire—so much so that I have agreed to meet him next week to discuss the matter further. Leicestershire received an allocation of £6·9 million this year, which was over half its bid, for schools alone. That is certainly above average for England.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Would not it be possible to achieve a more flexible and perhaps more cost-effective approach to school repairs by allowing schools to have more control over their budgets?
    Mr. Fallon: Yes, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the heart of the matter. The more money that is delegated to schools level, the more it can be protected from the politicians and bureaucrats at county hall and spent on those items that the headmaster and governors regard as essential.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the Secretary of State is seeking to justify the gross and excessive financial inducements being offered to grant-maintained schools by way of additions for repairs and other matters by the allegation that they are necessary due to what he describes as past neglect by local education authorities? Is the Under-Secretary of State further aware that the Secretary of State has been unable to place in the Library of the House any evidence whatever of such past neglect? Is not that allegation without foundation doubly shameful, given that the clear responsibility for the neglect of school buildings across the country is not the fault of the local authorities but that of central Government who, over the past 10 years, have denied local authorities the money to repair their schools?
    Mr. Fallon: If grant-maintained schools had felt properly looked after by their councils, they would not have chosen to be grant maintained. Through direct grants, we are able to spend more on such schools than their councils have spent over the years. Extra spending on schools should be welcomed and not complained about.
    Mr. Conway: Is it my hon. Friend's experience that schools that have complete control of their budgets have a more flexible and successful repairs policy compared with schools that still see a huge slice of their possible repairs budget retained by the local education authority for its own bureaucratic purposes?
    Mr. Fallon: That is exactly why we aim shortly to propose a new requirement as to the maximum amount

    799
    that a local education authority can hold back at the centre. It is to ensure that more resources are delegated to school level where they can best be allocated.

    Nursery Places
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the change in the demand for nursery places in the United Kingdom in recent years.
    Mr. Eggar: It is for local authorities to assess changes in the requirements of the under-fives and how these might best be met within available resources. The numbers of these children attending school full or part time has grown markedly over the period of the present Government and our expenditure plans allow for this welcome trend to continue.
    Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has now denounced the promise made by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in 1972 that as a nation we should try to provide universal nursery education for all children whose parents want it? Given that most of our European Community partners allow their children to get off to a good start with nursery education, and given the Prime Minister's commitment to putting education first, is not it high time that we provided places for all children aged between three and five whose parents want them to attend nursery schools?
    Mr. Eggar: What I can confirm is that 150,000 more children now have nursery education than 10 years ago; there has been a 50 per cent. real increase in expenditure on nursery classes and nursery children; and next year the Government are allowing an extra £140 million to be spent on nursery education. That is the record. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find a local authority which is offering places for all three and four-year olds, I suggest that he visits Wandsworth.
    Mr. Thornton: While welcoming my hon. Friend's statement concerning increased expenditure on nursery education, does he agree that it is absolutely essential that, in that expansion, due regard is paid to the necessity of having a curriculum appropriate to the needs of the under-fives, and not merely some extension of the primary curriculum? All the evidence suggests that that is the best way to get the maximum benefit out of nursery provision and the head start that children need before going into full-time primary education.
    Mr. Eggar: I know that my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has studied the issue carefully. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) produced her report on quality in nursery education, which has been widely welcomed.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that those parents who are worried about authorities cutting nursery education will be most concerned at the Minister's response. When will the Government ensure that local authorities have the resources to increase nursery education? Will he further recognise that no Labour-controlled authority is in the bottom half of those authorities delivering nursery
    800
    education, and that if children live in a Labour-controlled borough they have twice the opportunity for nursery education than in any Tory borough?
    Mr. Eggar: What the hon. Lady failed to point out was that the Government have made £140 million extra available for nursery education next year, whereas her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) promised the princely sum of £100 million—£40 million less than we are to make available. With regard to the performance of Labour-controlled authorities, it is interesting that school leavers in 20 of the 25 education authorities that spent most on nursery education achieved lower than average results in GCSEs. There is a message there.

    Civil Scientific Research
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of gross domestic product the Government spend on civil scientific research; and what are the comparable figures in Japan and the United States of America.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In 1988 the United Kingdom Government spent 0·55 per cent. of gross domestic product on civil scientific research. The corresponding figures for Japan and the USA were 0·45 and 0·39 per cent.
    Dr. Twinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that those real increases in spending on scientific research are matters for praise and not the criticism that we hear from the Opposition Benches? Does he agree that, by any measurable criteria, scientific output in this country, as a result of that increased spending, is a matter for considerable satisfaction?
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend. Certainly, the 23 per cent. increase in real terms in the science budget that the Government have achieved is evidence of the high priority that we give to basic and strategic science. I also agree that it is important not to concentrate exclusively on inputs. We are just as concerned with output, where our scientists excel. For example, if one considers papers published in the main scientific journals one sees that, between 1981 and 1986, the United Kingdom share of world output remained constant at 8·3 per cent., while that of Germany declined from 6·3 to 5·9 per cent. and France's output fell from 5·1 to 4·8 per cent. By that measure, the United Kingdom remains second only to the United States of America.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister recognise that the problem of research funded by the British Government is that it is not inspired by any industrial strategy and is not worked out in collaboration with industry? Does not industry spend far too little of its own resources in support of civil research? Why do not the Government address these problems? Or is the thought of a weekend with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry too much for these people?
    Mr. Howarth: The Labour party is itchy-fingered, as always. It wants a political strategy for science. It wants bureaucratic, political determination of the way in which resources devoted to science are spent. The Labour party's science strategy would be every bit as disastrous as its industrial strategy.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend will know that I want a scientific strategy, not a political strategy, for science. May I ask him whether, in drafting his reply and including the figures that he has given, his officials advised him on the analysis of this matter in the definitions of research and development in the House of Lords report on science and technology? As it happens, I was looking at that report this morning. Is he aware that those figures, together with figures in the 1988 analysis of scientific research in Germany, plus OECD and "Eurostat" figures, fail to support the view that, in this field, we are doing better than Japan?
    Mr. Howarth: The whole House has enormous respect for my hon. Friend's knowledge and expertise in this area and for his very serious dedication to supporting British science. His attitude contrasts with the rather frivolous attitude of the Opposition, which persists in rubbishing British science. On the statistics furnished by the OECD, it is correct to say that we are spending a larger proportion of GDP on civil science than are Germany and Japan. One can certainly look at definitions, but the important point is that the British Government are fully committed to the provision of responsible and proper support for British science, which is of an excellent standard.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that in the United States a great deal of basic research is financed from the defence budget, and that Japanese industry spends twice as much on research and development as British industry? A more relevant comparison would be with France and Germany, where Government spending, in GDP terms, is 30 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom. Has the Minister digested the House of Lords report, to which the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) referred? That report points out that the United Kingdom is the only industrial country in which total expenditure on research and development, as a percentage of GDP, actually fell between 1981 and 1988, largely as a result of the reduction in Government expenditure.
    Mr. Howarth: The Government's expenditure on science, as a proportion of GDP, did not fall between 1979 and the present year. It is very easy to be selective with statistics, but I am not sure that doing so gets us very far. I agree that the Japanese spend proportionately much more on research and development. We ought to emulate them, and that is what Government policy encourages.
    I do not agree with the implication behind the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not true to say that leading-edge science can derive tremendous benefit from proportionately high expenditure on defence. It seems to me that defence benefits from civil science much more than civil science benefits from defence. The Germans have been reducing the proportion of GDP that is spent on science.
    Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to say whether the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has released a small amount of GDP to keep open the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury?
    Mr. Howarth: I appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment to keeping open the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury and his concern for the welfare of his constituents there. No one could have fought more effectively on their behalf than he. The decision on the allocation of public funding for science must be made by scientists themselves. No further decisions on that matter
    802
    have yet been announced, but such decisions will be made by the scientific community, rather than by the Government.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to ensure that standard spending assessment levels will enable local education authorities to meet their obligations under the Education Reform Act 1988.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Standard spending assessments for next year have been set at a level which will enable any well-managed local education authority to meet all its obligations under the Act.
    The impact of the Act was one of the factors that the Government took into account in deciding to increase the education standard spending assessments for 1991–92 by 16 per cent. over this year's settlement. In addition, £270 million within the 1991–92 programme of grants for education support and training is targeted on getting the reforms successfully into place.
    Mr. Bradley: Following that incredibly complacent answer, will the Secretary of State give Manchester schools a further guarantee that they can spend all the money that they require for books and equipment from their standard spending assessment, so that all the science and technology demands of the national curriculum can be met?
    Mr. Clarke: The answer that the hon. Gentleman has described as complacent referred to a standard spending assessment more than 10 per cent. above next year's likely level of inflation, as well as specific grant of £270 million, which includes provision for extra books and information technology. Even Manchester borough council should be capable of delivering a well-run service, and living up to the requirements of the education reforms, within such sums.
    Dr. Hampson: Local authorities and bodies such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities claim that transferring education expenditure to central Government represents a denial of democracy and would create a vast army of bureaucracy. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, until 1958, there were Exchequer percentage grants limited to education?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly remind the bodies that my hon. Friend has mentioned of that fact. I shall also bear in mind that, throughout most of today's Question Time, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been protesting about decisions made by their local education authorities in the name of—among other things—local democracy.
    Mr. Straw: Would not the Secretary of State have a rather more accurate view of the reality of spending in schools if he had been able to visit a single local authority school during his first three months in office? How can he come out with such bogus figures, when at least one third of all spending on books and equipment comes not from central Government but from parents?
    If the figures are as good as the Secretary of State suggests, why is one Conservative authority after another now facing serious cuts in its education budget? Kent faces a cut of £1·9 million, and its entire careers service is being

    803
    axed; Hampshire faces a cut of nearly £7 million, with a cut of £1 million in school cleaning and meals services, and 30,000 people will be deprived of adult education.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is clearly in considerable difficulties when he reduces exchanges about school resources to arguments about when I first visited a local authority-maintained school. I was appointed shortly before the Christmas holidays, but my familiarity with schools is as good as the hon. Gentleman's, and my familiarity with the increased spending for which we are providing next year is much better than his. He sees no distinction between increased efficiency and the removal of costs. Next year's 16 per cent. increase will allow any well-run authority, whatever its political persuasion, to provide our children with good-quality education.

    English Literature
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the standards set in examinations in English literature; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have not received any representations about the standards set in GCSE or A-level examinations in English literature.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the concern felt by the Oxford University English faculty, which claims that students are being exiled from their cultural heritage, that English literature is being marginalised in some schools and that there is a trendy fashion for appearing to raise standards by making exams easier? Does he accept that Conservative Members would not agree to a process of educational apartheid, putting the fortunate few who come from well-educated backgrounds in touch with literature but leaving the vast majority ignorant of their cultural heritage?
    Mr. Clarke: I feel as strongly as my hon. Friend that we should ensure that pupils are not cut off from access to the complete corpus of English literature, both traditional and contemporary. Those who are implementing the reforms and conducting today's examinations do not intend to do that. It is not always fair to compare the pupils who took O-levels in both English literature and English language with those who are now taking only English language exams at GCSE. The School Examinations and Assessment Council and the examining bodies are, however, laying down syllabuses that require a wide range of reading and knowledge of English literature, including Shakespeare. I shall do all that I can to ensure that that continues.

    School Repairs
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds have been allocated to local education authorities to meet the costs of repair and maintenance to the fabric of primary and secondary schools in 1991–92.
    Mr. Fallon: Over £650 million has been allowed for the recurrent costs of school repairs and maintenance in setting 1991–92 education standard spending. Local education authorities are free to decide how much to spend
    804
    on the repair and maintenance of schools from whatever overall recurrent and capital resources are available to them.
    Dr. Howells: Are the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State proud of the fact that many of our kids—not necessarily those of Cabinet Ministers, by the way—are being educated in schools that are ramshackle and shabby and which mark us down as having one of the most philistine Administrations in the past 50 years? What will he do to make the education of our children a priority and to put them in the buildings that they deserve?
    Mr. Fallon: We have increased schools capital by some 15 per cent. to some £472 million from this April. As my right hon. and learned Friend has already told the House, there is a 16 per cent. increase in the education standard spending assessment for current expenditure.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.
    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 have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Marshall: During his busy day will my right hon. Friend consider Lambeth council's decision to impose a community charge which is more than four times as high as that imposed in neighbouring Wandsworth? Is he aware that in Merton where there was a change of control last year community charge payers will pay 50 per cent. more this year than last, while the Leader of the Opposition can look forward to a 10 per cent. reduction in his community charge? Does not this show that Conservative councils give value for money and that Labour councils squander it?
    The Prime Minister: It is what one has come to expect from Lambeth council and from a number of other councils. One might call it Labour local government in action—if they are not on strike at present.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister still take satisfaction from the leading part that he played in introducing the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are reviewing the community charge. He will be interested to know that we are making good progress and are on track for the announcement.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why is the Prime Minister so coy about his poll tax past? Is he not the man who said just last Friday
    "I think I'm clear in my own mind which way we're going on the poll tax"?
    Can he tell us today: does he want the floor tax or the roof tax, the bed-and-breakfast tax or the bedroom tax, the capital value tax or the extension tax? Does he want one tax or two? Surely he can tell us what he wants.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will find out the answers to those questions before too long, and

    805
    when he does he will perhaps, having introduced a roof tax some months ago, tell us what will be the average rate bill under his tax—even in his constituency—how much people in the midlands and the south will have to pay extra under his proposals and how many people will be eligible for rebates under his tax. None of those questions can he answer.
    Mr. Kinnock rose [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: From his answer it is obvious that the Prime Minister has not made up his mind about making up his mind. Why does he not do the sensible thing, abolish the poll tax completely, which is what the whole of Britain wants and introduce a new system—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—very interesting. But despite his hon. Friends and their enthusiasm for the hated poll tax, why does he not introduce a system calculated on the basis of property and charged according to ability to pay? A fair system—and Labour party policy.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will find out soon enough. Was not it the same right hon. Gentleman who said that the Labour party would produce several different tax bases and bung the figures into a computer?
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that children need protection not only from abusers but from officials who fail to provide proper protection? Will he instruct local authorities to use some common sense instead of carrying out secret dawn raids on innocent families?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend may know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health said that further guidance would be issued this summer to local authorities and, of course, the Children Act 1989 comes into force this October. That will ensure that the welfare of children is paramount. I hope that those steps will make it less likely that another situation such as that in Rochdale will occur in future.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the sea change in both the tone and substance of his European speech last night? If he does as he says—place Britain at the heart of Europe, play a constructive part in steps towards a single currency and encourage political and foreign policy integration—he can count on our united support—[Interruption.]—even if he has to cope with splits in his own party.
    The Prime Minister: It is a generous offer, but I am not sure if it is a fair swap. There are only three ways to go in the Community—to leave, which is unthinkable; to stand aside and let ourselves be dragged along by others, which is untenable; or to be at the very heart of the Community and to help frame the decisions, and that is our policy.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: During my right hon. Friend's admirably timed talks with the crown prince in Kuwait last week, what assurance was he given about the protection of the large Palestinian community there and about future democratic developments in Kuwait? As the Kuwaiti police force was destroyed by the Iraqis, will Britain play a part in rebuilding it and in training the Kuwaiti defence forces so that they can play their full part in the excellent plans for the Gulf, which were recently agreed in Damascus?
    The Prime Minister: I raised the first part of my hon. Friend's question with the crown prince when we met last week. He gave me a firm assurance, which he has subsequently repeated to others in public and in private, that the Kuwaiti authorities would not tolerate retaliation against the Palestinians. In the present circumstances in Kuwait, it is difficult for the Government to exert control, but I understand that law and order has, to a large extent, been restored.
    In reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we should be prepared to provide the training that he suggests, as we have done in the past. We are discussing the terms and conditions with the Kuwaiti Government.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister stop darting, dithering and dodging and tell us that he is ready for turning by announcing the abolition of the poll tax which, as he knows, is unfair and unworkable and which, as he knows to his cost, is also unpopular?
    The Prime Minister: As I have explained, the hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait for the answer.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Devlin: If the Government's policy is to stand up for small nations that are invaded by their larger neighbours and to prevent atrocities and the trampling underfoot of cultures by invaders, why will not my right hon. Friend meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the United Kingdom next week?
    The Prime Minister: The Dalai Lama is visiting the United Kingdom on a private visit and no conditions have been imposed by the Government. I have no wish to be discourteous to a distinguished spiritual leader. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will see the Dalai Lama at a meeting that he will chair.
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister find some time today to reflect on his words yesterday about producing a more tolerant, more efficient and more just society? Will he tell us how those words relate to the continued imposition of the poll tax on the people of Scotland? Will he relate those words to the problem and, instead of disparaging

    807
    votes cast against him and his party as votes cast into a dustbin, would not he do better to look back on the Scottish votes cast against his poll tax in 1987? How can he justify continuing to impose the tax on people who are on income support and on students? Would not it be best to cast the poll tax into the dustbin?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will endure with the same patience as his hon. Friends, he will soon know the answer. I may come to Garscadden and make a speech about the matter there.
    Mr. Budgen: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the good relations that he has achieved with Herr Kohl, demonstrating that there does not need to be ill will when there are differences of interest? However, will he give the House and the nation leadership and tell us whether he personally favours a single currency?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said to my hon. Friend on previous occasions, we have set out in detail our proposals for economic and monetary union, and we have produced treaty language to that effect. There is now welcome evidence that a number of European nations are following our proposals and moving closer to us.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that within the past fortnight, his Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has finished off 2,000 years of tin mining in Cornwall? That decision has been taken despite the pledge of Government support. The cost to the Department of Social Security and to other Departments will exceed the money saved by the Department of Trade and Industry. Will the Prime Minister look again at the way in which Departments operate? At present, one Department may attempt to save money, although there will be an all-round cost to the Treasury in excess of the savings, and there will also be the cost of the jobs of people who lose work as a result.
    The Prime Minister: An overall look is taken on these occasions to see what is the right policy. We have to examine the matter not just in the short term, but in terms of what is sustainable in the medium and long term. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have done.
    Mr. Mills: Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether his discussions with Chancellor Kohl and his speech last night are likely to be more fruitful in achieving European unity, while maintaining national sovereignty, than the more fundamental and more difficult to accept proposals of Commissioner Delors?
    The Prime Minister: The proposals of Commissioner Delors are not generally acceptable in the House and they are not acceptable to me. We have made that clear on a number of occasions and nothing in that respect has changed.
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Galbraith: In view of the Prime Minister's strong words against the property tax, which the whole House will have noted, can we take it that he is now in favour of the poll tax, or is he still dithering on the matter?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is as unoriginal as his hon. Friends. He will soon know.

    Tourism
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to appoint a Minister with responsibility for United Kingdom tourism.
    The Prime Minister: I fully recognise the importance of an industry that contributes more than £22 billion a year to the economy and which provides work for 1·5 million people. The present arrangements allow for the separate interests of England, of Scotland, of Wales and of Northern Ireland to be effectively represented, while ensuring the necessary co-ordination of the policy for the country as a whole.
    Mr. Gregory: As tourism is Britain's fastest growth industry and is the major employer in cities such as York, will my right hon. Friend look closely at the possibility of appointing a Minister who has overall responsibility, rather than leaving this important area to junior Ministers in England, in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: It would be difficult precisely to do what my hon. Friend suggests without raising difficulties over territorial responsibilities and the territorial Departments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has a co-ordinating responsibility for tourism as a whole in Great Britain, but the day-to-day responsibility in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland rests with my right hon. Friends the relevant Secretaries of State.
    Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the importance of tourism between our country and all the other countries in Europe, particularly Germany, is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us on both sides of the House who, over the years, have worked hard to promote friendship and understanding with the Germans and who recall their special efforts in our three attempts to enter the European Community, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to establish a trusting and lasting relationship with the Germans in Europe? Does he recognise that the relationship between our two Parliaments which has involved a certain amount of tourism—[Interruption.] is closer than it has been for many years. Indeed, it is closer than the relationship between any other two Parliaments in Europe.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who expresses his view with great clarity. I hope that, in view of that clarity, he will see many German tourists in south-west Essex.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The Opposition have decided that, instead of the debate on the national health service previously announced for the first half of tomorrow, there will now be a debate, until about Seven o'clock, on an Opposition motion described as "The Urgent Need for the Abolition of the Poll Tax". Afterwards, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "Family Hardship in the Recession", followed by a motion to take note of the report by the European Court of Auditors for 1989 and a motion on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is not the real reason why the Leader of the House has made a business statement not that the Opposition have changed the business for the Supply day, which could have been displayed in the No Lobby, but that the Government have made a mess of dealing with the European bank for reconstruction and development order in Committee and must now bring it to the Floor of the House? Will the Leader of the House guarantee that, when we debate the poll tax tomorrow, there will be a Minister able to give the House and the country a clear idea of whether the Government will stop dithering, swithering and muddling, and simply abolish it?
Mr. MacGregor: There are two reasons for my making a business statement today. First, the Opposition have changed the subject of tomorrow's debate, and I wanted, for the convenience of the House, to inform hon. Members. Of course, a Minister will be involved in the debate. Secondly, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that the European bank for reconstruction and development order went to the joint Committee on Statutory Instruments last Tuesday and some defects were found in the original order. A new order has been laid to remedy the defects. It could not be taken in Standing Committee in time for the order to go to the Privy Council scheduled for next week.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to hon. Members who are rising that their questions must relate directly to the change of business and nothing else.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House has announced a debate to take place tomorrow, initiated by the Labour party, on the abolition of the poll tax. Does he have notice of the motion? He will recall that, when we last debated that subject, the Labour party proposed no alternative to the poll tax. When the voters have a choice, as they had in Ribble Valley, they will vote for a party that wants to abolish the poll tax and has a coherent alternative.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to start discussing the merits this afternoon, because they are a matter for tomorrow's debate, and an important Bill is to receive its Second Reading debate this afternoon. I do not think that the voters of Ribble Valley looked carefully at what the
810
Liberal Democrats were putting forward—if they had, they would have come to a different view. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's substantive question, I do not have notice of any motion.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the reason that the Opposition requested the change was because they were more concerned to explain away the record poll tax set by Lambeth borough council than in the health of the national health service?
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly expect, and suspect, that the issue of Lambeth's community charge will come up in tomorrow's debate.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Given that there is to be a change of business tomorrow, is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister has not made a statement to the House about his discussions yesterday with the German Government? Surely we should have an opportunity to discuss such a vital issue.
Mr. MacGregor: The Prime Minister not only made an important speech yesterday, which I am sure all hon. Members heard, but answered questions on the issue this afternoon.
Mr. Michael Latham: If the Opposition have run out of things to say on the national health service, could we have a Government debate on the subject next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but that question goes beyond tomorrow's business.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Would not a debate on the poll tax give the Prime Minister a good opportunity to answer the questions that he has refused to answer today? Will the Leader of the House get the Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box to express his regret for his enthusiastic support that he showed for that dreadful tax over the years when he was a senior member of the Government?
Mr. MacGregor: The debate will be on an Opposition motion, so I am sure that the House will be interested to hear the answers given about Opposition policies on the issue.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread pressure from Conservative Members for a Question Time for questions to be put to the Opposition—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not in the business statement.
Mr. Allason: It is about tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will have heard what I said—questions must refer to the business for tomorrow.
Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tomorrow afternoon would provide an ideal opportunity for the Opposition to detail their exact proposals for an alternative to the community charge?
Mr. MacGregor: Certainly, since the Opposition have chosen the subject for tomorrow's debate, I have no doubt that many questions will be asked of the Opposition in that debate.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that normally, when a new Member waits to take his seat, I would not ask a question, but as the Liberal Whip, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), chose to hold up the proceedings, I feel free to join in the questioning?
Will the Leader of the House look at his briefing material and tell us the last time a Leader of the House advised the House in a business statement about a change of business for an Opposition Supply day? In view of tomorrow's motion for the quick abolition of the poll tax, will Government Members be in the Lobby with us to vote against the abolition of the poll tax, or in the other Lobby —or will they be in both Lobbies?
Mr. MacGregorcc: The first point in the hon. Gentleman's question was a long way of delaying proceedings. There were two changes in tomorrow's business, and I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I informed it of that.
As for the vote, the hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what happens tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is such a narrow statement, the questions now are a little repetitive, so I shall take two more from each side, and then we shall move on.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the Leader of the House agree that to have a debate tomorrow on the community charge or the poll tax—call it what one will—is a gross misuse of parliamentary time? We are in the middle of a review, the result of which will be announced shortly, as the Prime Minister told us four times this afternoon. The Opposition were invited to say their piece and make their input into our review, but refused, although other parties agreed. What on earth are we wasting parliamentary time for?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should make that speech tomorrow.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point loud and clear. I cannot be held accountable for what the Opposition decide to do or how many times they change their mind.
Mr. Ron Brown: Surely the Leader of the House understands one thing about tomorrow's important debate about the poll tax. The rethink that is apparently going on in Government circles has nothing to do with fancy speeches in this place—it is all to do with the mass struggle, the gut reaction of working-class people throughout Britain, and the by-election.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make that speech tomorrow, if he is called. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. These are debating points. Bring it to an end, Ron.
Mr. Brown: It is unlikely that I will be called, because many people on the Left are not called. Could the Leader of the House arrange for members of the Anti-Poll Tax Union to meet Ministers to express their views and feelings about the poll tax? That is important.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Really, that has nothing to do with the business for tomorrow.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that two separate pieces of legislation brought about the community charge. Will he confirm that any proposals made by the Opposition or anyone eke should take that into account? Shall we have the opportunity fully to debate both pieces of legislation?
Mr. MacGregor: I simply do not know what the Opposition will say tomorrow. The debate will be an opportunity to probe them on their position.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements tomorrow for the Prime Minister to put the Government's case on the poll tax? He has failed to do it until now. Is the Prime Minister waiting for George Bush to give him the answer?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was waiting to get that in at Prime Minister's questions. If I may say so, it was a weak point. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that we shall announce the outcome of the review at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that the Prime Minister will be fully in command of that.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Michael Carr, Esq., for Ribble Valley.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made an important statement of policy in Germany, but no statement has been made to the House. I know that you do not have any direct control over that, Mr. Speaker, but surely, as a matter of accountability, when the Prime Minister makes an important statement that we are to capitulate completely to the Common Market, he should make the statement here or give an account of it so that he can be questioned on it. It is disgraceful that the Prime Minister is avoiding that accountability. Have you had any indication that the Prime Minister will have the guts to come to the House and make a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication that there is to be a statement today. I did not even have a request for a private notice question.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Electricity Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Training and Enterprise Councils Training and Enterprise Councils
3.44 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for full public disclosure of the financial affairs and administrative decisions of training and enterprise councils.
I should like first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for sitting up half the night to obtain this spot for me this afternoon.
I sought to introduce the Bill after having read a copy of a letter dated 12 December from the permanent secretary to the Department of Employment, Sir Geoffrey Holland, KCB, to all TEC chairmen about the first internal audits of TECs. The letter gives the findings of the first five audits of fully operational TECs. Sir Geoffrey Holland said that, because of the weaknesses in financial management that they reveal and the disquieting overall picture, he was drawing the matter to the attention of all TEC chairmen.
The second paragraph says:
"I attach a detailed note of the main weaknesses revealed. But the picture that emerges is one in which financial control weaknesses have led, and could continue to lead to substantial levels of overpayment of public funds either to individual Councils or by the Councils to providers. The Public Accounts Committee would not regard such a situation as satisfactory. And I write primarily because I am anxious that you should be able to defend yourself before the Public Accounts Committee should they call you at any time."
Sir Geoffrey Holland went on to say:
"I attach to this letter a detailed note of the audit findings but you will see that the weaknesses centre on:
a. claims by the Councils which could not be supported by adequate documentary evidence.
b. claims overstated by the inclusion of expenditure which was outside the terms of the contract;
c. attendance records not being properly maintained by Training Providers:
d. financial appraisal and monitoring of providers not being carried out; and
e. excessive working capital loans and substantial cash balances being held.
It is very probable that these same issues are occurring at other operational Councils which have not yet received a visit from my Internal Auditors."
That letter from the permanent secretary, Sir Geoffrey Holland, shows that Parliament needs to review the present position of TECs.
How many right hon. and hon. Members realised, when the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" was announced, that the TECs would slip through the back door of Parliament without a Bill, without a Committee, without the usual scrutiny by Members, with no real debate or meaningful consultation, thrown together by devious means and given authority to spend some billions of pounds of taxpayers' money?
The Department of Employment said that the management of those bodies would be run by a board of at least nine but no more than 15. At least two thirds of the directors, including the chairman, must be local business leaders from the private sector who are chairmen, chief executives or top operational managers at local level or in major companies.
The composition of the boards and the reasons for the directive need careful scrutiny, because those are the very people whom the Department of Employment has been attempting over the years to encourage to introduce
814
training in their companies and who have constantly and continually failed or, in most cases, never even attempted to introduce any company-run training scheme.
It is passing strange, to say the least, that, as soon as the Government are prepared to pump money into new schemes, those overworked, busy, pressurised managing directors become interested overnight. Within 12 months, from March 1989 to March 1990, there were 65 potential TECs, with 600 directors or managing directors on their boards of management, all taking a new-found interest in training.
So what was the purpose of the transformation from employment training to training and enterprise councils? Was it to benefit the training programme, to provide better trainers, to give more and varied opportunities for trainees, for all the training managers to have sufficient funding to provide adequately for the training and expertise needed in the changing modern industrial world, or to help get through the recession and meanwhile provide a trained work force to overcome the challenge in the aftermath of the recession?
Alas, it was nothing so ambitious, nothing with such forethought and constructive imagination. TECs were created to give private sector employers, backed by specially selected civil servants, the opportunity to run down what some training managers have taken a decade to build, and to destroy the whole concept of devoted trainers training trainees with patience and care, to enable them to develop and maintain a rightful, dignified position in the employment of their choice, with skills to maintain themselves and their families and to be of use to employers and their country in future.
The training structure has been replaced with a system which caters for the concept of greed and malicious manipulation. Having rid themselves of the real purpose of training, the Government have replaced it with a system which directs funding and training places to their own firms, for personal greed, with easy backhand treatment of civil servants administering the system and without parliamentary scrutiny, with the excuse of plc cover to avoid answering the questions of hon. Members.
It is frightening to think that Parliament, with all its Select Committees to scrutinise the executive, has been hoodwinked into allowing such a system to be established. Already, 6,000 experts in training have been made redundant as a result of the £350 million reduction in Government spending on adult training—at a time when unemployment has been increasing constantly for 10 consecutive months.
The position is even worse when redundancies are particularly severe for the trainers in the voluntary sector. One group, Community Industry, specialising in training for special needs, has already declared 1,000 staff redundant. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has already had notice that 10 of its projects will not be funded, and more are to follow. Places with many and varied organisations all around the country are being cut.
The Secretary of State for Employment, having cut the budget by £350 million when TECs were introduced, announced on 26 February—no doubt aware of the general election round the corner—that an extra £120 million would be made available to TECs. There is a need for more funding, but with proper financial scrutiny,

815
especially by Parliament, to prevent trainees being sent to TEC boards and companies in collusion with their chief executives and other officers.
In Mid Glamorgan TEC, the chief executive officer, Mr. Alan Williams, has decided to cut a training organisation of 10 years' standing that trained 4,000 trainees. It was recognised throughout the Principality and praised by Ministers and others for a well conducted, organised and efficiently managed scheme, but Mr. Williams claimed that the organisation did not meet the training standards set by TECs. At the same time, he spends thousands of pounds advertising for new training managers whose training is not accessible, because they have yet to establish themselves. The places are brand new, or are in firms in a list approved by him or others.
The whole system lends itself to the possibility of great corruption. Private firms seem to have all the advantages. We need to know who makes decisions and on what basis decisions are made. Who receives the funding? What amounts do they receive? Hon. Members must be able to question everyone involved. All TEC meetings should be open to the public.
I am given to understand that, when the Mid Glamorgan TEC board met at 8 am on Tuesday 19 February, there was a decision of no confidence in the managerial staff. Yet they are still there. Why? Have they something to say, so they stay? Even the right-wing Bow Group of the Conservative party is pressing the Government to make sweeping changes. Phillip Virgo, the author of the report, recently claimed that the Government should ensure the quality—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already had his 10 minutes. Will he please bring his remarks to a close?
Mr. Powell: —and relevance of current training bodies such as the training and enterprise councils, through the regular publication of performance figures, student placements and employment satisfaction. That accountability is what my Bill aims to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Dennis Turner and Miss Kate Hoey.

TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS
Mr. Ray Powell accordingly presented a Bill to provide for full public disclosure of the financial affairs and administrative decisions of training and enterprise councils: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
Orders of the Day

  Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, during the last few years I have accepted the responsibility on this side of the House for keeping you out of trouble. I always worry deeply when you stray a little from the straight and narrow. I refer to your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who raised a point of order about the need for a statement on the Prime Minister's visit to Germany and his discussions there. I was not a bit surprised when I heard you say that you had had no request for a statement, but I was absolutely flabbergasted when I heard you add that there had not even been a request for a private notice question.
  As you well know, if an application is made for a private notice question and you refuse it, we on these Benches are strictly forbidden to raise the matter. In your final months of office, I should not like to see you making such an elementary mistake.
  Mr. Speaker: I have to confess to the hon. Member and to the House that it was a mistake. I am not supposed to give my reasons. It slipped out.
  A great many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. Therefore, I intend to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock.
  3.57 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Our system of town and country planning has been in place for over 40 years, and by and large it serves us well. In a country which is as densely populated as ours, difficult decisions about the proper use of land are unavoidable. Most activities require land—homes, growing food, manufacture, transport, leisure. Conflict is not uncommon between those in both the public and private sectors who wish to change the use of land—whether to provide public services such as schools, hospitals, roads and rail links, or private services such as new homes or shopping centres —and the interests of conservation and amenity and of local people who are reluctant to see change. The planning system provides the framework for resolving these inevitable conflicts. The Bill brings the system up to date, and enhances its credibility.
  It does this by ensuring that planning decisions are made efficiently and effectively; that they take proper account of the many interests involved; that the system provides for as much certainty as possible for those who use it; and that its provisions are properly enforced. Our aim is to strike the right balance between planning authorities and landowners; and, in land compensation, between private interests and the public interest. I hope to explain the provisions of the Bill with those fundamental considerations in mind.
  Many hon. Members are rightly exasperated at the ease with which people can flout planning controls and get away with it. The present enforcement systems are rightly criticised for their complexity and slow operation. That

  817
  reduces public confidence in the development control system and appears to penalise those who comply with the rules. It can also adversely affect our environment.
  Clauses 1 to 11, and their Scottish equivalents, clauses 28 to 37, contain important measures to strengthen, improve, simplify and speed up the enforcement process. They are based broadly on the recommendations made by Mr. Robert Carnwath, QC, in his report of April 1989 entitled "Enforcing Planning Control". The Government, and indeed everyone concerned with the planning system, are grateful to Mr. Carnwath for his clear and succinct report.
  Mr. Carnwath's recommendations were generally welcomed in the extensive consultation exercise that followed publication of the report. They provide a balanced package of improvements so that planning authorities can take effective enforcement action where necessary.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The Association of District Councils compliments the Government on the improvements in the Bill but is conscious that measures contrary to the interests of planning can occur. No proceedings can be taken when a field is developed by gipsies without planning permission, who then assault officers of the local authority when they serve an injunction on them. Would it not be better if the Bill provided for a criminal offence, so that notices could be served by the police and whoever was responsible for those actions would have a criminal record, which would certainly act as a strong deterrent?
  Sir George Young: Many Conservative Members feel strongly about this matter. I had the pleasure of receiving a delegation from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), when we discussed it at length. Clauses 2 and 3 will give local authorities additional powers, which may help with the problem that he described. The power to take an injunction against persons unknown will be especially helpful in dealing with gipsies, because it is sometimes difficult to get their names from them.
  On the specific question of criminalisation, initially I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that it would be right to bring the criminal law into play, but the Carnwath report persuaded me the other way. The House must take on board several arguments. The onus of proof in a criminal case is far higher than in a civil case. In a civil case, the balance of probability applies, but in a criminal case the onus is on the prosecution to prove it.
  The problem with creating a criminal offence is that it does nothing to remedy the offence. The local authority could apply to a magistrates court for an injunction and prosecute, but it may be weeks before the case is heard. Even if the case is won, the offence still occurred. To tackle the underlying injustice, the local authority would have to take enforcement action, so two parallel processes would be going on at the same time.
  To reduce bureaucracy and achieve a better system, there must be a better enforcement system, with substantially increased penalties, which we are providing for in the Bill, rather than a criminally based system, which would not deal with the fundamental problem. I hope to say more about that later.
  818
  The new planning contravention notice, which is introduced in clause 1, is meant to encourage developers and authorities to talk to each other in the early stages of the process. At present, when a development goes ahead without planning permission but is broadly acceptable in form, the planning authority faces a dilemma: it cannot regularise it by granting planning permission, perhaps with conditions that it wishes to impose, and if the development is not acceptable, it will probably have no alternative to taking enforcement action, even though it might be changed to make it acceptable as a result of discussion with the developer.
  In future, the authority will be able to use the planning contravention notice to break the deadlock by requiring the developer to refrain from carrying out further development or by inviting him to apply for planning permission if it would be willing to grant it. The advantage of that procedure is that it does not bring the developer immediately within the scope of the criminal law, and discussions can take place between the authority and developer.
  I prefer that more constructive approach, rather than criminalising all unlawful development, which carries a risk of catching a range of minor planning offences which none of us would regard as criminal behaviour. Where enforcement is necessary, the Bill provides important strengthening and improvement of the present enforcement powers, including the possibility of obtaining a court injunction, and greatly increased summary maximum penalties for enforcement offences.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the Association of District Councils, am I right in assuming that the provisions give discretion to the local authorities, which would surely not be under an obligation to go down that route? Therefore, the frivolous, small or inadvertent case would not be prosecuted in that way because the local authority would choose a criminal prosecution only when it was faced with persistent offenders.
  Sir George Young: I understand that argument, but it detracts to no small extent from the argument for criminal sanctions which, as put to me by the delegation to which I have just referred, was that a criminal sanction would act as a deterrent. I do not think that it would act as a deterrent—[HON. MEMBERS: "It will."] It would not act as a deterrent if there was some uncertainty about whether the power would actually be used. My hon. Friends should also bear in mind the fact that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Local Government and Planning Bar Association and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities were all against criminalising this offence. The only representations that I have received on behalf of criminalisation were from the planning officers of the district councils. There is no unanimity that it would be right to criminalise that action among those responsible for enforcing the planning process.
  Mr. Anthony Steens: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in 1989, 74,979 complaints were received by planning departments throughout the country about unlawful developments? That is the scale of the problem. Giving a criminal twist to this matter would mean that those people who build houses without planning consent in areas of outstanding natural beauty, as has happened in

  819
  my constituency, would think twice before doing so. The threat of criminal sanctions will prevent people from carrying out such anti-social and unlawful acts.
  Sir George Young: I look forward to a long and vigorous debate in Standing Committee on the question of whether it would be right to introduce criminal sanctions into the planning process. Of course, I recognise the strong feelings of my hon. Friends about the need to enforce the credibility of the planning system.
  The proposals in clauses 10 and 36 clarify the lawful use and development of land and are also based on the Carnwath report's recommendations.
  Clause 12 makes important changes to the law relating to planning agreements. It introduces the concept of planning obligations, which includes both the familiar planning agreements, and unilateral undertakings. The clause will enable a developer to make an undertaking to carry out works or to contribute to infrastructure, as an alternative to a planning agreement with the local planning authority. I stress—there has been some misunderstanding of this point—that undertakings will be an alternative to agreements, not a replacement for them.
  Under the present law, a planning authority may hold out for exessive planning gain or be unwilling to reach an agreement that will resolve its planning objections to a proposed development. The developer can, of course, appeal, and the inspector may be willing to grant the appeal subject to a satisfactory planning agreement, but if the authority still obdurately refuses to reach agreement, the developer is stuck. Allowing him to make an undertaking, enforceable by the authority, will break the logjam.
  The second major change is to make provision for the modification and discharge of planning obligations. At the moment, a planning agreement can be discharged or modified only by applying to the Lands Tribunal, and then only on the grounds that it is legally obsolete. But, over time, the purpose behind a planning obligation may disappear, or circumstances may change, so that the obligation is no longer relevant in planning terms. Clause 12 provides that modification or discharge will be possible either with the consent of the parties or by a formal process of application to the local planning authority, with a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend where the application is refused or not determined in time. That right will be available only where the obligation no longer serves a useful purpose.
  Clauses 13 to 16 and 38 to 40 make a number of changes to the procedures governing planning applications. They are designed to simplify the development control process and make it more efficient. Clauses 13 and 38 enable the Secretary of State to prescribe in a development order the detailed arrangements for publicity and notification of planning applications.
  This will mean that the statutory requirements for publicity and notification can be adapted with greater speed to reflect changing demands and circumstances. For example, we should not have to wait another 10 years for the next planning Bill if we wished to alter the number of days that a site notice advertising "bad neighbour" development was required to be displayed before a planning application for that development could be submitted.
  Consideration of clause 13 in another place stimulated discussion about the extent to which planning applications
  820
  should be publicised, and the options for achieving such publicity. We have stated our intention of tabling an amendment which would specifically require the owners and tenants of agricultural holdings to be notified of planning applications affecting land in which they have an interest. We have also undertaken to prepare further guidance about neighbour notification generally for local planning authorities. I look forward to hearing the views of the House on that subject.
  Clauses 14 and 39 are designed to give local planning authorities the power to decline to determine an application if a similar application has been rejected by the Secretary of State within the previous two years and there has been no material change in circumstances. That 'will enable authorities to deal with developers who use repetitive planning applications as a means of wearing down the resistance of local authorities and local communities.
  Clauses 15 and 40 would enable the Secretary of State to dismiss an appeal where the appellant delays its progress unreasonably. That is designed to stop developers using planning appeals as a tactical device rather than as an action of last resort.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The theme of the Minister's last remarks has been efficiency. I appreciate that the point I now raise is not in the Bill, but it seems that much of the delay in the planning procedure occurs in his Department, which first takes a lengthy period to decide whether to call in a decision, secondly, to appoint a date for the inspector to hear the appeal, thirdly, for the inspector to report, and, fourthly for the Minister to make up his mind. If his Department could get its skates on, many of the problems associated with planning decisions would go away.
  Sir George Young: My Department is increasing the number of inspectors dealing with that problem. Also, the number of cases being dealt with per inspector has gone up —their productivity is increasing—and that, combined with a reduced number of appeals, will, I hope, mean that the backlog will be caught up and my Department can improve its performance in that respect.
  I was referring to clause 15. Amendments to that clause were moved in another place to overcome the problems associated with twin tracking. That is a tactical device of submitting two similar planning applications at the same time. Where a decision is not reached within eight weeks, negotiations with the planning authority can continue on one application while the other is the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State. If the authority grants permission on the first application before the appeal is heard, the appeal is withdrawn. That can be a useful spur with which to goad some local authorities into swifter handling of planning applications, but it can also waste public resources.
  In response to the amendments in another place, we have issued a consultation letter inviting comments on a proposal which would allow local planning authorities to decline to determine a planning application while a similar application is the subject of an appeal. If appropriate, we will table a suitable amendment to the Bill during its passage through this House.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Having chaired a planning committee for five years, I am aware of the difficulties that the Minister is addressing; but does he

  821
  accept that, as well as trying to tip the balance against applicants who take advantage of the system—by making more than one application or appealing frivolously—there is substance in claiming that applicants who are spun out by planning authorities or by his Department should have some redress? Will he consider, as well as saying that, if an appeal takes too long it should be dismissed, saying that, if a planning authority takes too long, the appeal should be allowed automatically because of dithering by bureaucrats?
  Sir George Young: As I said, the present system acts as a goad to the local authority. The Government have not taken a decision on whether twin tracking should be banned. We are consulting in an exercise that began on 6 March, and when we have a clearer view of the balance of opinion, we shall reach a judgment and perhaps table an amendment at a later stage.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: Why has the Minister not taken this opportunity to introduce a right of appeal by citizens whose interests will be affected by the granting of planning permission? As the Minister knows, the only right of appeal at present is by an applicant whose application has been turned down. Many people may be adversely affected by the granting of an application, and a right of appeal is a long overdue reform. The Minister should consider this matter.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds the House that objectors have no right of appeal if planning permission is granted. That has always been the case. The theory is that the local planning committee takes the decision as the representative of the community. That is the process by which the views of the community are fed into the decision making machinery. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends wishes to table an amendment giving a right of appeal to objectors, we shall consider it and try to persuade the Committee that it is redundant. That is another debate in Committee to which I look forward with mounting anticipation.
  Clause 17 provides the statutory framework for reforming the arrangements under which local authorities deem themselves planning permission. This package of measures was welcomed by most respondents when we consulted on it last year. It will require that all local authority development proposals must be fully advertised and decided in public by a committee that is not responsible for the management of the land concerned. We shall also require that, when such proposals conflict with the development plan, they must be reported to my right hon. Friend, so that he can consider calling them in for his own decision.
  Clauses 18 and 41 and schedules 1 and 7 implement proposals set out in the consultation paper on efficient planning, although modified in the light of the responses to that consultation. They provide for development involving the depositing of mineral waste to be subject to the same planning powers and controls as apply to the winning and working of minerals, and extend, for use in suitable circumstances, the power to impose after-care conditions to development involving waste disposal. That will make it clear that local authorities' powers to review mineral
  822
  working operations and to impose orders updating those operations to modern standards extend to the tipping of mineral wastes as well as to the extraction of minerals.
  The House will be aware of the increasing concern about old minerals permissions granted under interim development orders. Indeed, many hon. Members have written to me on this subject. As I announced on 21 February, the Government consider that it is inequitable that the extent and terms of these permissions, which have been existed for close to 50 years, are not recorded, and that householders and others may have been disadvantaged by this lack of knowledge. It is wholly unacceptable that somebody can purchase a house or land in good faith, having carried out all the usual searches and received a clean bill of health, only to find subsequently that there is an interim development order permission affecting his property.
  I therefore intend to table amendments to the Bill to require that, unless the holder of such a permission applies to the appropriate mineral planning authority within a specified time for the permission to be registered, the permission will cease to have effect. This in itself is a major step forward in removing an anomaly which has existed since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 came into operation.
  However, I am not convinced that registration in itself goes far enough. We are therefore consulting on the proposal that applications for registration should be accompanied by schemes of operating, restoration and, where appropriate, after-care conditions for the mineral planning authority's approval, to ensure that such permissions as are registered are operated in an environmentally acceptable way. Clearly, that would have some implications for the minerals industry, and it is right that I should listen to its views before reaching a decision. The consultation period ends on 15 March, and I will report the outcome to the House.
  I turn now to the Bill's provisions for reforming the development plan system which are contained in clause 22 and schedule 3. They give effect to the proposals in the White Paper of January 1989, as modified by our decision announced in September last year, to retain county structure plans as part of the development plan system. That decision reflected the widespread recognition that strategic planning at the county level has a very important part to play in the planning system.
  The structure plan sets out the framework for local planning at the district level, together with the relevant national and regional policies and the counties own policies for the area. It is very important, if consistency and coherence is to be achieved, that the structure planning framework is clear and authoritative. Structure plans have successfully established that function over the past 20 years, and for that reason we have decided to retain them as a component of the development plan.
  Turning to local plans, the main change is that non-metropolitan districts and national park authorities will be required to produce and keep up to date a single district or park-wide local plan covering the whole of their area. At present, the preparation of local plans is discretionary. We estimate that only some 30 per cent. of the population of England and Wales is covered. Mandatory preparation of local plans should greatly increase the local community's confidence in the planning

  823
  system and simplify the process of day-to-day develop-ment control. It will also ensure the removal of detailed policies from structure plans, allowing county plans to focus on key strategic issues.
  While the plan can never override all other material planning considerations, in future the balance should shift from planning by appeal to planning by local choice, within the framework of national and regional policies, with local authorities taking their own decisions through the preparation of development plans and the process of public consultation that that involves. The proposals incorporate safeguards to prevent districts from ignoring the need for realistic development in plans. Local plans have to be consistent with the relevant structure plan and my right hon. Friend has reserve powers to direct modifications, should it become necessary.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Can the Minister make it clear to the House that the import of what he is saying is that, for the first time for 10 or 11 years, the Government want to move towards a plan-led system of development, rather than a market-led system?
  Sir George Young: We want the system to be plan-led. I made it clear that plans had to be consistent with regional guidance, which will fall within national policy. We want the district plan to be the indicator—the signal—of what is permitted development and the market must respond to the local plan.
  Mr. Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: Yes, but for the last time.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me yet again.
  How am I to convince my constituents that the Minister really means what he has just said? We strongly welcome the proposition that there should be local plans, but in the village of Wrington, in my constituency the parish council, the district council and all the inhabitants opposed a development which is outside the village fence arid was previously outside the local plan. However, an inspector came along, for some reason decided that the development should be allowed to proceed, and the Minister confirmed that decision. Can the Minister give me an assurance that, from now on, he will use local plans as his yardstick to a far greater extent?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be better able to convince his constituents than I. He can tell them what I have just said in the House, and on the record, as a statement of Government policy. We believe that, when there is a system of district plans which covers the country, instead of 30 per cent. of the country as there is at the moment, we will be able to devolve decision-making down to an extent that is simply not possible nowadays because district plans are so patchy. If there is a coherent system of regional guidance from the department, down through county structure plans to district plans, that system should result in planning by local decision rather than planning by appeal.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Sir George Young: No.
  Mr. Steen: Just a quick one.
  Sir George Young: No, not even for a quick one.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: I shall just get this paragraph behind me because it is relevant, and then I shall give way, for the last time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
  The new provisions will offer an opportunity and a challenge to the local planning authorities. We are giving greater importance to their role in the preparation of plans—but it will be their responsibility to get on with that task, to ensure that development plans are prepared quickly and are kept up to date. Many authorities throughout the country are already responding enthusiastically to that challenge. We also want communities to see their plans as important vehicles for local choice and for decisions about the local pattern of development to respect people's feelings for their neighbourhood and what is precious in it. Obviously, plans have to be consistent with national and regional policy, and they have to be realistic, but within those constraints, there is much more room for genuinely local choices to be made.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is very patient, and I am grateful. Can he make clear from the Dispatch Box today that his inspectors will recognise that the 30 per cent. of authorities which submit local plans that are recognised and conform to all the regulations, will not be penalised simply because 70 per cent. of district councils have not put plans in place? There is a suspicion that inspectors do not tend to pay full respect to the local plans which are already approved.
  Sir George Young: I can give that assurance—so long as the plans are up to date and conform with regional guidance. The inspector should attach more credibility to such plans than to proposals of an authority that has not got round to having a district plan at all.
  Clause 24 gives the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England power to prosecute or to seek injunctions to prevent breaches of listed building control, and also to be treated as a local authority for the purpose of requiring information as to interests in land.
  Clause 25 is concerned with the power of the Secretary of State to award appeal costs in certain circumstances when a party's "unreasonable behaviour" in the appeal process results in wasted expense incurred by another party.
  Mr. Paul Channon: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend mentioned listed buildings. Can he say a few words about clause 26, which removes the right to compensation when listed building consent is refused? This seems unfair to someone who has an unlisted building that subsequently becomes listed. If my right hon. Friend does not have the answer at his fingertips, perhaps he will write to me about the matter.
  Sir George Young: The answer to that rather detailed question is indeed not at my fingertips. Perhaps it will be at the fingertips of my hon. Friend when he replies at 9.40. If not, one of us will certainly write to my right hon. Friend.
  Parts III and IV of the Bill, together with clause 65, deal with land compensation and compulsory purchase procedure.
  Clauses 55 and 57 place the home loss payment scheme on a more generous basis. The residence qualification is reduced from five years to one year. This will mean a very

  825
  substantial increase in the number of people—tenants as well as owner-occupiers—who qualify for a home loss payment. The rules on eligibility for payment are relaxed in a number of other ways.
  For instance, the law already provides for a home loss payment to be made in the case of a voluntary sale to an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. We are now extending this principle by removing the current bar on payment in the case of blight notice acquisitions. In addition, there is an increase in the actual level of payment to owner-occupiers, for whom an enforced move can be especially traumatic. Such claimants will now receive a payment of 10 per cent. of the value of their home, subject to a minimum of £1,500 and a maximum of £15,000.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: I said three times already that I would not give way again. As so many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, I hope that the House will forgive me if I press on.
  As I have said, claimants will now receive a payment of 10 per cent. of the value of their home, subject to a minimum of £1,500 and a maximum of £15,000. The changes will take effect as from the day of the Bill's publication–16 November 1990. We estimate that, together, they will lead to a doubling of expenditure on home loss payments.
  The Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland. I have mentioned the Scottish clauses along with their counterparts for England and Wales. The only Scottish clause that does not reflect provisions for England and Wales is clause 44, which gives Scottish local authorities power to deal with fly posting—a power that is already enjoyed by the English and Welsh counterparts of those Scottish authorities.
  A number of people have criticised this Bill on the grounds that it is not sufficiently green. Indeed, the Council for the Protection of Rural England has challenged the Government to demonstrate their green credentials. However, as I said at the beginning, the purpose of the system is to provide a framework for the resolution of conflicts by ensuring that all material considerations are taken into account. That requires that planning system to be even-handed and to ensure that all interests are listened to. We therefore resisted in another place amendments that sought to place a specific environmental duty on planning authorities.
  None the less, the Bill does address environmental concerns in many respects. Both the enforcement provisions and the provisions relating to development plans will make a considerable environmental contribution by ensuring that action is taken against breaches of planning control, and by providing a clear planning framework throughout the country. The Bill also includes a number of specifically environmental provisions, such as the requirement that local plans must include policies in respect of the conservation of natural beauty and amenity, and the after-care provisions in relation to minerals and wastes.
  Finally, I return to what I said at the beginning. Overall, the Bill will lead to valuable improvements in the operation of the planning system. It is not intended to tilt
  826
  the balance significantly in favour of, or against, particular types of development. Planning policies will continue to be effected through the existing mechanisms of planning policy guidance notes and departmental circulars. The Bill will, however, make the system fairer and more efficient.
  I emphasise to my hon. Friends who have intervened that the Bill is a decentralising measure. It will give local authorities the opportunity, through the self-adoption of plans, to set out more strongly the pattern of development that they, as representatives of local people, want to take place in their areas; and, through their enhanced enforcement powers, they can do more to ensure that that vision is not spoilt by unacceptable development.
  On Third Reading in another place, Lord McIntosh described the measure from the Opposition Front Bench as basically a good Bill, which represented a serious attempt to improve the efficiency and justice of the planning system. It has won wide support outside Parliament, and I hope that it will win equally wide support in the House, to which I now commend it.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister has just offered me the lifeline that Lord McIntosh offered him in the House of Lords when he said that this was not a bad Bill. I think that that is basically true, but I also think that the Minister will need that lifeline, judging by some of the interventions from his hon. Friends. Our complaint is not that the Bill is bad—although we consider certain parts of it bad and they are among the parts that we want to change. Our biggest criticism relates to what has been left out.
  Let me extend a hearty welcome to all the Conservative Members whose speeches I have had the joy of hearing for so many years in planning debates in the House, and who have signed early-day motions and tabled questions. All that has demonstrated that the Government are in an appalling mess over planning; they deserve that, following the way in which they have treated the issue over the past 10 or 11 years. We now have an opportunity to start redressing the balance and we look forward to doing so in Committee.
  Let me tell Conservative Members that I shall exert all the influence that I can bring to bear to ensure that as many of them as possible are members of the Standing Committee. I shall give them as much time to speak as I can, and I shall do all in my power to keep their constituents informed about how they vote as well as how they speak. I do not just want to see bared fangs; bared votes are ultimately much more important, and I think that Conservative Members' constituents will find them very interesting.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: As one who will volunteer to serve on the Committee, I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not need to say a word to my constituents. I shall tell them all by myself how I vote, and I think that they will be very pleased with the results.
  Mr. Soley: I undertake to offer the hon. Lady an additional service, which she will be pleased to receive when it comes to it.
  The Minister rightly pointed out that there had been relatively little change in the legislation since the 1947 Act. That Act put this country well ahead of the rest of the world and was generally received as a welcome step in the

  827
  right direction at the right time. It has served the country very well. Everyone knew that it needed to be changed and updated; what we did not need was the bonfire of planning controls about which the present Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—talked in 1980.
  It is one of the ironies of politics that, when the then Secretary of State was replaced by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—I do not know whether he can be described as his right hon. Friend or not—the latter poured petrol on the flames, arid the right hon. Member for Henley began persuading all his hon. Friends to sign early-day motions criticising what his replacement was doing. Now the right hon. Member for Henley is back in post and, as well as having to sort out the poll tax, the poor man must try to sort out the planning system.
  The Bill does not represent a bad offer; as I have said, it is not a bad Bill. There are many good things in it, although there are also many worrying aspects—above all on the bureaucracy side, which some hon. Members seem to think that they are addressing. They are not; they are passing the buck. The main issue is our failure to engage in the debate in which we should be engaging: a debate about the type of planning system that we need for the 21st century, and about how we are to address the 'green' issues that are now so critical throughout the country, especially in the over-populated parts of the south that are now so well represented on the Conservative Benches.
  When Conservative Members complain about green-field developments behind their houses or their villages, what they are complaining about is population pressure in a particular area of Britain—the south—where it is most intense. Population pressure exists elsewhere, but it is most intense in the south.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) explain what he means? He has told us that the 1947 Act is a good Act which has stood the test of time, and I agree with him. Now he says that we need a radical restructuring of the planning system. What has he in mind? What is wrong with our present system? Does it not contain good checks and balances?
  Mr. Soley: No longer, unfortunately. Many of the changes made in the early 1980s were retrogressive, and we missed the opportunity of putting in new things. I hope to address some of those new issues during my speech and throughout consideration of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is welcome to look at a number of documents published under my name for the Labour party.
  We must acknowledge what I shall call, for want of a better phrase, the green issue. In southern Britain we have a population of 22 million to 30 million in a very small area, which makes it one of the most densely populated areas in the world. If we are serious about not just protecting our environment in such an area but enhancing it, we must take account of the green issues. They apply to every other area of Britain, but, because of the population pressure in the south, they bring out Conservative Members like moths to the flame of a candle; they cannot resist coming, because the pressure on them is so great and because it has implications not only for green issues but for jobs, leisure, recreation, transport and so on.
  828
  That is one reason why I put this forward as one of the solutions that we can offer: we must have regional structures including a regional planning structure, not least to deal with transport and planning in the strategic sense. The Secretary of State is taking a step towards that with his county structure plans. I was interested to note the words that the Minister used: he spoke of regional guidance being offered. If we need regional guidance, we need regional government on this issue. We cannot get round the problem simply by adding another bureaucratic layer, which is not particularly responsive to anyone, in the Minister's office, looking at questions that the Minister is supposed to answer in detail. He cannot. That is one of the problems of the present system.
  When the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) was briefly Secretary of State for the Environment, he said:
  "The planning system is in many ways the most effective tool of environmental management available to us."
  Anyone interested in green issues who reads the Bill will not believe that it was written by that Minister. I suspect that a large part of it was begun by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He was replaced by the right hon. Member for Bath, who saw it, nearly passed out, tore up large chunks of it, put in lots of amendments in another place and passed it on to his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley, who is now dealing with it. There are welcome changes, and I want to accept them.
  We shall argue in Committee the need for environmental impact statements. I should like to take the Minister with me on this. The House of Lords disliked the idea arid wanted to reject it, as do some Conservative Members. However, if a local authority cannot say in certain circumstances—not all—that it would like to have a statement on a particular planning proposal, it will he unable to address many of the issues that trouble it, especially with regard to green-field sites. An initial development may not affect a green-field site but it may well have implications for the future. For example, a large shopping centre or new urban development leads to greatly increased use of surrounding roads and causes many other pressures on the surrounding countryside.
  The Minister has not, therefore, convinced Opposition Members or, I suspect, some of his hon. Friends that there is no need for environmental impact statements. I accept that it is difficult to define where they should start and end, whether all developments should be included or only some, and how they should be drawn up, but there is no doubt that, in the heavily populated areas of the country, we need these statements if we are to put some flesh on the bones of the idea of protecting and enhancing our environment.
  I use the words "protecting" and "enhancing" because too often we think only about not developing a field or forest, in the hope of keeping it as it is. I represent an inner-city constituency, and I believe that to do the right thing, we should positively enhance the green environment. I want some of the countryside in the city, but there are areas in the country where we need to enhance the quality of life generally and to give nature an opportunity to be restored rather than merely protected.
  I have already mentioned that we need regional structures. Development is a problem for the Government. I accept that it would have been a problem for any Government, although it has been aggravated by this Government's wrong policies. Development is unplanned in the most intensively developed area of Britain—the

  829
  south and the south-east—while there is underdevelopment and often the wrong type of develop-ment in the northern and western regions.
  It is all very well to say that we do not want development to take place and that it should be for local people to control it, but if we do not follow the logic of that argument and demand better developments in other parts of Britain, things will stay as they are in the south. That is not good enough. There must be development of the right type throughout the country. It is a question not merely of having the right type of development in the south but of ensuring appropriate developments in the north which can take the pressure off the south. That often means that major investment decisions will be influenced by either regional or national Government as France and every other member of the European Community has done so successfully.
  It is significant that, in the European Community, Britain alone has chosen not to introduce regional government. In 1992, we shall pay an appalling price for that, not least in London, which will remain the only unplanned capital city, with snarled up traffic and a deteriorating quality of life. Frankfurt and Paris have expressed a desire to take over London's financial role, and they will be more attractive places in which to live and work. If we do not deal with the problem, we shall pay a high price.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: How would the hon. Gentleman deal with the problem that Greater London, the 12 shire counties and many beyond come within the economic commuting ambit of London? If there were a regional government to cover such a huge percentage of the national population, how would that square with the responsibility of the House and, at a much lower level, that of local councils?
  Mr. Soley: I do not want to deal with that issue in too much detail, because it is a different debate, but a regional government would not cover a region of that size. There is a need for a government of London and the south or the south-east, but there is a problem of boundaries. We have assessed that we should need between eight and 12 regional governments for England. That would provide a number of sensible and logical options about how to deal with the south-east. It is an approach which has been used successfully without exception throughout the European Community. In 1992, Europe will be a community of economic regions and we shall be the one country which does not have regional governments to fight for the regions and look after their needs.
  Mr. Jones: Other European countries have an entirely different geographical structure. Their population are distributed differently and there are very few cases in which the capital city is so close to the trading exists—whether ports or airports. Such a system would be much more difficult to achieve in the United Kingdom than it is in a disparate society such as Germany, or in Italy or France.
  Mr. Soley: Each area always has individual difficulties, but it is exactly the same in the Ruhr valley and in northern France. They have solved the problem, and I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the British to solve it.
  830
  These are important background issues, but I do not want to deal with them in detail today. The Minister said that he wanted county structure plans, and that the proposal to extend local plans should mean strengthening the importance of planning in general. I intervened in his speech because he made an important admission of a major change in Government policy, which I welcome. He said—I saw that several Conservative Members agreed —that the Government's approach is no longer market-led development but plan-led development. It behoves us to get the planning structure right, and we must stop ducking the question by blaming the bureaucrats in the council or in the Ministry. It is up to the House to get the legislation right, but if we do not get it right, it is no good our passing the buck. That does not mean that the bureaucratic structures outside the House do not cause problems, but it is the legislation rather than the bureaucratic system that is faulty.
  We need a far clearer understanding of the rules, as do developers and, above all, local communities. Once they know what the rules are and how plans are drawn up, they can become involved. They also need to know whether the plans are certain. As the Minister discovered, one of the great problems of the present system is the lack of certainty. A decision that has been made locally may be confirmed by an inspector but then overturned by the Government, or vice versa.
  Mr. Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on appeal, the inspector considers not only local plans, which have been properly drawn up and approved by the Secretary of State, but the planning policy guidance? Does he agree that they should not be more important than a valid local plan? At the moment, there is conflict, and the inspector tends to favour development. That should be questioned and changed, so that he follows only a valid local plan.
  Mr. Soley: I have some sympathy with that idea. I want to make certain statements about local plans and to consider the appeal system, but I shall not be wildly out of line with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). Planning policy guidance is necessary in the short term but in the right planning structure, it would become less important.
  The predictability and rationality of the system are important and we need to get them right. The Bill helps by clarifying and improving some of the rules, which is why people have welcomed it as a step in the right direction. However, it is not enough.
  Clauses 1 to 11 deal with enforcement. They should impose a general duty on local authorities to ensure that planning controls are adhered to. That is difficult, because, for that to be done, we must get the legislation right.
  Several hon. Members intervened on the question of criminal sanctions. The Minister will probably be sorry about this, but I have considerable sympathy for him. It is widely assumed that all probation officers want there to be more crime so that they will have work if they need to look for their old jobs, but that is not correct. I am rather doubtful about extending the role of the criminal law. Generally, it is not a good idea, and the assumptions about deterrence are usually wildly wrong. The theory of deterrence works best when considering the dangers of being caught.

  831
  When a developer breaches a planning law, guidelines should aim to ensure that he redresses the breach, and that the building is returned to its original state at the earliest opportunity. The hon. Member for South Hams gave the example of a house that should not have been built and he said that the criminal law would act as a deterrent. A far greater deterrent than putting the gentleman concerned under my supervision —which might not be a deterrent —would be to tell him that he must restore the building to what it was previously. It might have to be restored as a barn, and I suspect that most people would not want to live in a barn. People would not take such action if they knew that there was certainty.
  We should consider the time lag. Often, a developer knows that, if he keeps his head down for long enough, he will get away with it. We may need to provide a longer period so that people cannot keep fobbing off the planning officer by saying that they do not have the capital, that they have to do this or that or that they will get round to it. We should make it a harsher system in terms of ensuring that the person cannot get out of it simply by delaying.
  There may be a case for criminal sanctions if the position is irreversible. One can give a number of simple examples. An opencast mining development may eat up half the coastline or several fields. It may be difficult to reverse the knocking down of a listed building. If the position cannot be reversed, there may be a case for criminal sanctions. I have my doubts even then, but I should be willing to consider that compromise. We should not kid ourselves that we can stop crime simply by creating a criminal offence. Often one cannot. It is far more effective to deter by ensuring that the person who has done something wrong has to put it right and that he knows that the chances of getting away with it are slim. That means that we must get the planning system right.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Has not the demand for the criminalisation of unlawful development arisen partly from frustration at the failure of the civil penalties? I see no point in doing what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggests and placing a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure that planning control is enforced. I think that that is what he said. There is no point if we do not give local authorities the powers that are necessary to do such things. I have many examples in my constituency where not just for weeks or for months, but for years there has been no effective enforcement, because the local authority does not have the power.
  Mr. Soley: I have much sympathy with that view. I know of cases in which people have got out of doing what they need to do simply by sending occasional letters saying that they will do it or that they are putting off doing so for various reasons. If they delay matters long enough, it becomes out of time. That is especially true of London with the building regulations. There are a number of areas in which we need to ensure that the matter cannot be put out of time and that local authorities have the power to step in and say, "You have done this without permission. You must put it right." That does not mean that we must always take a hard line. A development may be started reasonably and may not be out of character. One might then need to give retrospective development permission. Those are exceptional cases, but we can get the balance right if we put more faith in the local authorities.
  832
  One of my criticisms of the Conservative party, in planning as in many other areas, is that Conservative Members tend to believe that local authorities are incompetent and useless, and that they should be got rid of generally. In fact, most local authorities are efficient and good. However, they need the right powers to do the job. They need the right structure of legislation from us—and that is our responsibility—and they then need to be told to get on with the job. We may need additional safeguards to ensure that they do the job of ensuring that the people who live in the area get the service that they deserve. We must not undermine the competence, management and morale of local authorities and then expect them to do the job well, because they will be unable to do so.
  Mr. Patrick Ground: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I do not want to give way much more, because I am aware that many hon. Members want to speak. However, I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Ground: I just heard the hon. Gentleman say that he wanted to make it mandatory for local authorities to enforce planning control. Is he saying that he wants them to stop having to consider whether it is expedient to enforce planning control, which has always been a fundamental aspect of the provision? If so, he is taking away a huge area of discretion for local authorities which some of us think is important.
  Mr. Soley: I deliberately did not use the word "mandatory". I seek a clearer framework of planning powers for the local authorities which would allow them, as I suggested when I gave my example, to give retrospective planning permission. I want to ensure that the local authorities can use their planning powers effectively when there has been a breach of planning law. The present problem is that local authorities often cannot do that, either because the matter is out of time or because they do not have effective powers. We must get such matters right in the Bill; we have not got them right yet.
  It is not merely an argument about mandatory versus expedient. It is more an argument for giving local authorities the power to act in both directions so that they can deal sympathetically with the genuine case of a person who has gone ahead with a building repair or change without following through all the regulations. The change may be perfectly reasonable. We want local authorities to allow such a case to be put right retrospectively, without at the same time allowing someone to turn a barn in a field into a mini-factory, which aggravates so many people in rural areas. The general duty for local authorities to ensure that planning controls are adhered to is important and we look forward to the debate on criminal sanctions.
  One problem is the appeal mechanism. I suggest to the Minister and to Conservative Members that we have an opportunity in the Bill to consider that mechanism, which is inadequate. In Committee, we may wish to consider whether we should take a bolder step and say that if there is a modern plan, drawn up by the local authority, by the regional government or by the county, it must be, as the Minister seemed to suggest it should be, the guiding light for planning development in the area. If it is, it follows that, if someone makes an application for a development that runs counter to the plan, there is a strong case for

  833
  saying that there will be no appeal. However, if a person is refused a permission when it is in line with the plan, there should be an automatic right of appeal.
  The critical point is that if the plan is out of date or if recent dramatic changes have taken place, such as the building of an airport which might change the nature of the area, there should be a case for appeal—perhaps a judicial review—to see whether the plan is sufficiently up to date for the local authority to decide to refuse permission. There should be a three-pronged approach: a right of appeal if a person's application has been refused when it is in line with the plan, no right of appeal when it is not in line with the plan and a right to judicial review if there are doubts. I do not give that structure in detail, although it is an area on which we have worked. We consider that it has sufficient potential to be considered for inclusion in the Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said, there is also a case for a third-party right of appeal. That needs to be tightly defined, because we do not want to provide another opportunity to delay development that has already been tried and tested. However, there are cases in which the local authority and the developer both want the development to go ahead for wider reasons, but in which the local people have genuine reasons for saying that the development would not be right or would be out of line with the plan. In such circumstances, we should try to draw up a tightly defined third-party right of appeal, which would go some way to meeting the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. The third-party right of appeal troubles not only the south but the north. People sometimes feel that their views are not taken into account in some of the larger developments. There is a case for a third-party right of appeal.
  Planning gain is an important issue and clause 12 troubles us very much. I urge Conservative Members to look carefully, long and hard at clause 12. All who are worried about green-field development around their backyards will find the dangers in the clause. It would allow a developer to go ahead, having more or less decided what planning gain he or she will give. It does not allow the local authority the right to say no. That is profoundly dangerous, so we should not go down that road. There is a strong case for a far more carefully thought out approach to planning, gain. It is one of the most difficult areas of planning and we often come across it in our own constituencies.
  The Hammersmith Broadway project under Brederoe taught me a great deal. An enormous development was going ahead. It seems that the local authority says, "We will slow down your permission to develop if you do not give us certain things." The developer says, "We will fight you all the way, and make it very expensive and difficult for you if you do not give us something else instead." One ends up with a saloon bar face-off over who backs down first and who gets what.
  I am not saying that there should be no negotiating process in planning gain—it is almost impossible to avoid it—but if it is seen simply as a negotiating process and we tell the developer that he can keep his development if he gives us certain things, that is wrong. First, it must be decided whether a development is appropriate for an area,
  834
  and that should be determined on the basis of a plan. Secondly, we need a clear method of deciding how planning gain can be written into that process, not only for the immediate facilities on the site but for the implications of larger sites that affect the surrounding countryside for some miles.
  We must look long and hard at clause 12, which I find impossible to support in its present form. For the Minister's own sake, he should rethink it—it requires much thought and effort, and must be changed.
  Several other aspects of the Bill are important, but I shall not take the time of the House now. Constituents come to see many of us about developments that have taken place and complain that they were not made aware of their rights. One such difficult case involved my local authority allowing a housing development to go ahead. The windows in that development were not supposed to overlook my constituent's garden. Eventually, once the development had been owned by a couple of companies that had gone bankrupt, windows were installed and it was discovered retrospectively that planning permission had been given by delegated authority without the knowledge of local people.
  I have many other examples of local people who were inadequately informed. There is a strong case for looking harder at the need to inform local people about the full impact of any development that may take place. There should be a duty to inform not only people who live in the vicinity but local interested groups, such as conservation groups. In that way, we could involve people in the planning process, as we should want to do.
  It would be a sorry tale if we were to argue on the basis of development versus planning. Development should always take place. In a heavily urbanised country like ours, it should fit in with other needs and take on board the growing importance of green issues. We cannot continue with this nonsense of burgeoning development in the south, which we are in danger of concreting over from Andover to Dover, while there is a chronic shortage of housing and it is becoming almost impossible to move on public transport and on the roads. That shows that there is a failure in housing and transport policy as well as planning policy.
  I regret that the Government have taken no steps to face those problems but we intend, in the Bill, to try to ensure that we have the opportunity to face them. Judging from the number of nods of support from Conservative Members, I think that they will be voting for me when we debate the Bill in Committee.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but he did not have a nod of support from me, and I do not look forward to being on the Committee with him.
  I shall focus almost entirely on the question of planning enforcement. Before doing so, I should say that I welcome the provision in the Bill increasing the penalty for defiance of tree preservation orders by increasing the fine. I hope that it will be within the scope of my hon. Friend the Minister's ingenuity to extend the reforming legislation on tree preservation by closing the loophole whereby a landowner appears to be able to anticipate and thus escape a tree preservation order by felling trees in an area of woodland of four or five acres and saying that the area is

  835
  part of his garden. Such areas are an attempt to secure planning permission by creating a barren, unattractive area in place of an agreeable piece of woodland that formed part of a local amenity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can bring such cases within the scope of the Bill.
  I heard my hon. Friend the Minister's comments and I echo, to an extent, what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about criminalisation. It would be going too far to bring every breach of planning control within the scope of criminal law, but I have considerable sympathy with the argument of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that unauthorised, irrever-sible development should be made a criminal offence. If my hon. Friend the Minister believes that that is wrong, he should say why. It is surely a crime to inflict such damage on the heritage that has been handed down to us if that damage cannot be reversed. Civil penalties are scarcely adequate in such cases. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to press that point further.
  Problems of enforcement worry me most. When I saw that the Bill was coming up for debate and the general welcome that it received, I asked the planning officers of my two borough councils, Woking and Guildford, whether they could give me a sample of the worst cases with which they have had to deal in recent years. I also asked them how they hoped that the Bill might strengthen their hand in dealing with such cases in future. I had an interesting response, although I already have box files on more than one of the cases that they mentioned.
  I am prepared to accept that the case of a householder who persists in putting a roof extension on his house, against the wishes of his neighbours and despite being told by the planning authorities that he is breaking the rules, will be covered by the powers in the Bill; and that such a person can in future be stopped in his tracks because the local authority will be able to act quickly and effectively. I hope, too, that a case in which a disused shop is turned into a car hire and taxi business, and run as that for two years to the great annoyance of the neighbours and in clear defiance of planning regulations, can be brought to a halt more quickly than at present.
  I hope that the users of the Bill—the people on the other end of the planning process, not only those who apply for planning permission but those who are affected by the granting of permission and the breach of planning control —will judge it according to its effects on the speed with which regulations can be enforced and the scale of penalties for persistent breach of controls. In the two cases that I have mentioned, speed may be the only change that the Bill would bring, but that would be a considerable bonus.
  Another case in which marginal farm land is being persistently used for dumping materials to build up ground levels, with the clear anticipation of something more to follow, may also be stopped in its tracks. I hope that the people who carry out such action will be given clearly to understand that there are no gains to be had from it in the short or long term. Using land as a tip is profitable, even if such use is not authorised, and may also involve much undeclared money.
  Another case involves somebody who set about laying hardcore, surfacing land within the green belt and subsequently placing a couple of caravans on it. In spite of the local authority's refusal to give planning permission and all its efforts to resolve the issue, the case has
  836
  continued for the past two years, and the site has become a derelict eyesore. The perpetrator appears to have vanished—the police cannot find him—and despite two public inquiries, it is still impossible for any effective action to be taken to put the land back in its original order. Who will decide who should pay if the man has disappeared?
  I have cited a relatively minor case, but a more serious case which attracted a good deal of public attention in my constituency concerns Brookwood cemetery. Anyone who knows what it used to be like and sees it now will be astonished to see that a large part of it appears to have been turned into a battlefield, with enormous piles of waste material and derelict earth-moving equipment parked on it. Although the cemetery owner is at last beginning to understand what needs to be done, and to co-operate with the local authority, that state of affairs should never have come about—it should have been prevented at the outset.
  If the Bill has powers to do that and to prevent the deposit of rubble in sites of special scientific interest and the general vandalism of graves and desecration of a considerable national monument, I welcome it whole-heartedly, as will everyone else. The scale of damage done to sites such as Brookwood cemetery is not an everyday occurrence, as there are not all that many such sites, but there are plenty of places where things occur that need to be the subject of firm action.
  Not far from Brookwood, in the neighbouring parish of Pirbright, a man named Mr. Crimes got hold of a piece of land on which, over a relatively long period, he has managed to dump thousands of tonnes of rubble. He built up enormous mounds around the site, to which he seems to have obtained unauthorised access across Ministry of Defence land. He has now vanished, and all the local authority's powers to stop the action are ineffective, in the sense that although action has now stopped, it cannot easily be reversed. It will be almost impossible for the county council to find the tens of thousands of pounds needed to restore the site to its former condition as a perfectly ordinary field. It is now a major eyesore.
  It is no use looking to Mr. Crimes to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of restitution because he has disappeared. When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up, will he tell us more about restitution costs? Some of the perpetrators of such breaches of the law are very elusive people. Local authorities are not always fortunate enough to locate the perpetrators and make them understand that they must work within the ambit of planning regulations.
  I will describe two more cases in which my constituents would like an assurance that the Bill will improve the position in which they have found themselves in recent months. The first may seem small, but it involves a long history of disagreement between neighbours, following'the granting of planning permission at a small infill site. Events have culminated in the owner of the site having more or less deliberately defied the planning condition that he should erect a fence and not seek to establish access along one boundary. By erecting a fence with a gap, flanked by two brick pillars, he appears to be using the gap as a means of access. As the law stands, I do not know how long it will be before that relatively minor case is brought to a conclusion. On past form, it could easily be at least a year.
  I heard of the second case only at the weekend. Two of my constituents complained that a neighbour of theirs had recently started to use the land just beyond their garden fence as a dump for wrecked cars. It appeared to be

  837
  impossible to bring any effective action to stop the neighbour. When I made inquiries, the local planning authority said that it was true that complaints about that activity on the land had started at the end of last year. The owner was eventually traced and said that the use was well established and went back many years.
  The owner was given six weeks to apply for an established use certificate or whatever the relevent piece of paper might be. That time limit has expired and the council will have to debate the matter to decide whether to issue an enforcement notice, which will take time. Even more time has to be allowed for an appeal. Meanwhile, the unfortunate people living in the district can look forward to a scrapyard on the back doorstep for at least another 12 months.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that the Bill will bring such breaches to a halt and make those who break planning regulations subject to effective action and penalties. It is high time they were, and unless and until such regulations are seen to be a feature of the planning system, I am afraid that public confidence in the system is bound to be diminished. Our task should be to reinforce and increase that confidence, and this is our opportunity to do so.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: As a Scottish Member, I have found one of the most striking aspects of the debate so far the high number of Conservative Back Benchers participating. That is not something to which hon. Members are accustomed when dealing with Scottish business. It is refreshing to see that Conservative Back Benchers take an interest in some of the Bills that pass through the House, if not the Scottish ones. That feature of the debate also reflects the continuation of the north-south divide in this country.
  The south of England contains the bulk of Government Back-Bench Members, the country's wealth, population and investment, both public and private. Consequently, the south of England has the greatest pressure on its land use and the greatest conflict between environment and development needs. Therefore, it is not surprising that such wide interest is shown by southern Members in a Bill that sets out to strengthen the planning process at the expense of the operation of the free market.
  I was also struck by a Conservative Member's reference to the problem of gipsy encampments in fields where there was no planning permission, and the inability of local authority officials to do anything about it. The remedy suggested was to make it a criminal offence and call in the police. The Minister gave his reasons why that would not be a good idea and why he preferred a strengthened planning enforcement system and stiffer civil penalties.
  A better approach might be to tackle the underlying injustice of lack of provision for gipsies and travelling people. Such an approach is attempted in Scotland, where we try to ensure that all local authorities provide travelling people with sites. It is then possible for the police to move unofficial encampments to official sites. It is in everyone's interests—Government, local authorities, local people, travelling people and police—that a sufficient network of such sites should be made available to gipsies and travelling people.
  Mr. James Paice: It does not necessarily follow that one solves the problem by simply providing more gipsy sites. At present, South Cambridgeshire district council, part of whose area I represent, is not a designated council under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Over the past few years, numerous new sites have been provided, both privately and publicly, in that district. It has been possible to plot on a graph an exact correlation to show that the more sites are provided, the more gipsies move into the district and park along the roads. It is not necessarily the case that, if one provides sites, one solves the problem.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that not all United Kingdom districts contain sufficient networks of sites. Therefore, if one region provides more sites, it attracts more travelling people and gipsies. If there were equal provision of sites across the country, every local authority accepted its responsibility and the Government accepted their responsibility to help local authorities provide sites through funding, it would be easier to ensure that provision was evenly distributed across the country and gipsies could travel their own routes without being attracted only to districts that provided sites—[Interruption.] The Minister with respon-sibility at the Scottish Office looks restless. If he wants to intervene, I shall give way.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): This Parliament has established a large number of travelling people's sites in Scotland. One is soon to be established in the Dundee district, and an earlier one was turned down on the grounds of representations by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) as well as others. All the facts must be taken into account.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister is right. He did not tell the House that I was merely the candidate for my constituency when I made those representations. But that is entirely beside the point. The original site was the wrong site. It was opposed by Tayside regional council in its entirety —Labour, Tory and Scottish National party members and everyone else. A far better site was available, which will now be provided.
  Getting the site right is the problem for people in the local area. There is no doubt that sufficient sites must be provided throughout the country and not only in some areas. That is the approach which the Government should take, and in Scotland they have done so. I cannot understand why such an approach has not been taken in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. It is the approach in England. It is the law. The Government provide substantial financial assistance to local authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister will intervene to give the exact figure. I cannot remember whether the Government reimburse 85 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the cost to local authorities. But we are still left with a problem as a result of the difficulty referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and of the weakness of the original Liberal legislation of Eric Lubbock, which was woolly-worded and has led to all sorts of difficulties since.
  Mr. McAllion: The Government have had 12 years to do something about woolly-worded laws which were

  839
  passed before they came to office, and they have not done so. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is the Government's fault, I shall not seek to dissuade him.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): First, the Government meet 100 per cent. of the cost. Secondly, the number of sites provided is now greater than the number of gipsy vans in 1979. It is only because of the massive and rapid growth in the number of gipsy vans referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) that we continue to have a surplus of vans over sites.
  Mr. McAllion: There is a surplus of vans over sites, and there will always be a problem until that surplus ceases to exist, and sufficient sites are made available for gipsies. That is the key approach which the Government should take. They should not seek to criminalise people's way of life or seek to force people into ways of life that they do not wish to follow.
  I have not even started the remarks that I had intended to make. Conservative Members have had me going for six minutes.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Almost seven minutes now.
  Mr. McAllion: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, virtually seven minutes.
  The Bill has been variously described as a pot-pourri of measures, an opportunity to complete the planning jigsaw and the first opportunity in over 20 years to overhaul the land use planning system and strike a balance between the need to protect the environment and at the same time satisfy the demand for jobs, housing development and economic growth. I have no quarrel with any of those descriptions.
  However one describes it, the Bill will surely be judged on how it answers a number of simple questions. Does the Bill make the planning system fairer? Does it make the planning system more efficient? Does that planning system strengthen rather than weaken the environmental policies that we are developing? Above all, is that planning system subject to democratic and local control?
  There can be no doubt that developers' demands, opportunities in the marketplace and possibilities of making profits do not always coincide with what is best for the local environment and countryside and, indeed, the well-being of present and future generations of local people. The tension between those two factors is very real indeed. That is why the Government had to resort to introducing enterprise zones, which are areas free of not only local taxes and rates but planning restrictions which might be placed on incoming developers.
  We must always remind ourselves that we are not discussing the Bill in a vacuum. Particularly in areas such as mine, there is mass unemployment and poverty, created by the lunatic economic policies pursued by the Government. Local industries, employment and investment have collapsed. If new employment, industries and investment are to be attracted back, the enterprise zone logic means that it will have to be on the terms dictated by those who make key investment decisions. That means that there is no role whatever for planning authorities or people who live in the area and no place for any democratic input.
  840
  Whatever the developers want, they get. If they want a retail superstore instead of a housing development, a retail superstore will be built. If they want an office block instead of a travel interchange, an office block will be built. If they want car parking instead of a local museum, car parking will be provided.
  The criteria are always the same in areas similar to mine in the north, Scotland and Wales—to maximise the return on the developers' investment and to squeeze every last ounce of profit out of the investment. If that damages the local environment, defeats the aspirations of local people for different types of development and ensures that the jobs created are part-time, low-skilled, low-paid jobs, it does not matter to the Government. In areas of high unemployment, we are not given any choice. We either take it or leave it. We either take what the developers want or have to do without any investment whatever.
  Of course, enteprise zones are the exception rather than the rule, but they reveal the real nature of market forces in Britain. They throw into stark relief the true instincts of developers and uncover the driving force of economic decision making in the United Kingdom. It is always profit. It is profit first, profit last and profit before everything else. That is why it is absolutely essential that in this Bill we begin to build in the necessary safeguards to protect people, places, the environment and all of us against the worst excesses of the pursuit of private profit.
  The Bill is absolutely right to tackle what has been described as the weakest link in the planning system. Enforcement powers need to be strengthened. I understand entirely that local authorities must be left some discretion in the exercise of their enforcement powers. Inevitably, there are cases in which there is a genuine conflict of interests between protecting amenity and encouraging business activity in an area. A balance must be struck between the need to secure jobs and economic growth by sanctioning a particular development and the need to protect the environmental amenity of residents who happen to live immediately adjacent to the development.
  The Glasgow Herald this morning contained a report about a £ 70 million project to build a hotel, housing, a business park, a golf course and a visitor centre at Dunblane in Scotland. Local residents, who fear that it will destroy the amenity of two local villages, have objected to it. The councillors in the surrounding area are divided on the matter. The project was given permission by only a narrow margin—a majority of one. The project has gone to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The case at Dunblane highlights the tensions that exist in ordinary parts of the country. It shows that any legislation should give preference to allowing such decisions to be taken locally. The particular circumstances of each area vary. The surest way to facilitate a proper balance is to allow the local authority, which knows all the local circumstances, to make a local judgment. It it makes the wrong judgment, it is an elected body and it can be dealt with by the local people at the next local elections. There is also the local safeguard of an appeal to the Secretary of State to protect local interests.
  It cannot be right to deny all discretion to local authorities and insist on the strict enforcement of planning legislation, when such enforcement may in itself be against the interests of local people. That is why I especially welcome clause 28, which sets up a new discretionary procedure—the planning contravention notice—for

  841
  Scottish planning authorities. It will allow local authorities to obtain information on suspected minor breaches of planning control and to increase the penalties for those who fail to comply with such a notice. Above all, it will allow local authorities to consult those involved, to offer advice and to make recommendations, without resort to enforcement through a stop notice. Therefore, the procedure allows for compromise rather than confronta-tion. All hon. Members will welcome that clause.
  I also welcome the breach-of-condition notices in clause 29, which will enable local authorities to deal simply and swiftly with instances where a planning condition has been breached. There are many such instances. The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to some of them. What are essentially businesses are sometimes run from the front gardens of local houses or the streets of local housing estates in clear breach of planning law, which requires planning permission for such activities.
  Such activities clutter up and disfigure the environment for all the neighbours who have to put up with the activity. Too often, the existing procedures for dealing with such problems are insufficiently clear and flexible or unduly cumbersome, so far too often, nothing is done about the selfish practices of the few, which are allowed to proceed unchecked and make everyone's life a misery. It is to be hoped that the new breach-of-condition notices will enable local authorities to take swift and effective action in such instances, and to give justice to local people.
  I welcome too the provisions of part IV, which improve home loss payments to those whose homes are compulsorily purchased for new road and rail develop-ments. I only hope that those encourage the Government to make the kind of road and rail investments in Scotland which have been required for the past decade but which have so far gone largely unnoticed.
  The major quarrel that Opposition Members have with the Bill is not so much what is in it as what is not. No power is given to local authorities to require environmen-tal assessments from developers where the local authorities believe that such investments are necessary. There is no ending of Crown immunity. Surely, at a time when the very survival of the planet is at stake, no one, no matter how high, should be exempt from planning control. Nor is there any increased involvement of ordinary people in the planning system. That system needs to be opened up to democratic influence, and planning decisions must be taken openly and in a manner which allows them to be accountable to those affected by them.
  Above all, the Bill fails because planning law as it now stands allows the indefensible to continue. For example, any decision by Nirex to site a nuclear dump at Dounreay in Scotland will be taken in opposition to the local planning authorities, local opinion and public opinion in Scotland. Such a decision can only be taken if there is a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland to side with Nirex against the Scottish people. Any planning system which allows that farcical situation to persist cannot be defended, although the Government try to do precisely that. Even after the Bill is passed, that indefensible situation will continue.
  The Government have had more than enough opportunity to do something about that, and they have
  842
  failed to do so. It is at least in part because of that failure that the Government will fail too when they finally find the courage to face the British people.
  5.31 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Britain suffers from a lack of space. We are a vastly overcrowded and highly mobile population. When I looked up the figures this morning for this brief speech, I saw that 40 per cent. of the population of Islington moves every year. None the less, it is tempting to think that they are forced to do so because they have one of the worst Labour councils in Britain. That may be the mobile gipsy population that has been mentioned. However, the rest of us move once every five years and inevitably, therefore, there is great difficulty in finding enough room to accommodate all of us in the areas in which we wish to live.
  Planning controls of any sort are a large interference in the way in which people move around. As a Conservative, I regard planning controls as an extreme interference in the marketplace, forcing up the price of land and resulting in house prices being too high. Essentially, therefore, I deeply regret the need for any planning controls at all. They give power over local lives and livelihoods which almost matches that of the mediaeval landlord.
  Parish councils—the bodies most representative of local views—have no power and scant influence over irrevocable decisions which destroy their lands and carpet them with concrete. I should like parish councils to have some sort of planning teeth, even if they are only milk teeth, with a delaying ability. District councils wield the real power, but most decisions there are taken by officials and not by elected members. The only weapon of the county councils is the county structure plan. Although county councils consistently oppose the districts they are fundamentally powerless.
  I will give some examples of what I see as weaknesses in the current legislation and why this new debate is badly needed. They have, of necessity, to be constituency examples; I make no apology for that, because planning is so much a local matter. I use them to put forward five points of national importance.
  Compensation for farmers who are not always willing sellers is currently determined under present use. Why should we not ask privatised companies to pay a premium, or even development value, where it is clear that the land is to be developed? Roadford reservoir in my constituency was opened last year by the former Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative party. The inspector at the inquiry authorising that huge development said that all development subsequent to the reservoir being created should be modest and in harmony with the beauty of the place. Plans are now being put forward and will probably be implemented, including a large time-share hotel and probably other property developments. I should have liked the farmers, who were not all willing sellers, to be compensated at those prices.
  Tenant farmers have an even rougher time. Many of them are pushed out of the business completely because they are not compensated within our current planning regulations at sufficient value to enable them to go to another farm. Despite the consultation paper, which I and the National Farmers Union warmly welcomed, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries

  843
  and Food announced three weeks ago, those of us with farmers in our constituencies know how difficult it is for a tenant farmer to find a tenancy. It will continue to be difficult for young farmers and older existing tenant farmers to find new farms, despite the fact that the new agreements should be more favourable towards them. I should like to see tenant farmers treated more kindly in the new debate.
  Involvement is of vast importance. The Opposition have called for a right of appeal by the third party. That will be difficult, but I welcome the continuing exercise of the calling-in procedure where the county structure plan is not being adhered to. Within half a mile of where I live in Winkleigh a large development is postulated on a disused airfield which the district council tells us will incorporate 1,000 houses, another time-share hotel and a golf course. Half a mile into a different district council over the boundary is another plan outside the county structure plan for another time-share hotel, another golf course and more development.
  I value the county structure plan immensely and great thought should be given to going against it. It matters to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members because it reflects local discussion, local creation and a local plan. It has gone through the parish, district and county council structure. It is the one part of the planning process which genuinely involves all levels of local people. That is why I find it so important and beg my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to continue to focus strongly on the calling-in procedure.
  Other hon. Members have talked about the criminalisa-tion of unauthorised development. I am not sure whether criminalising it will help. That would be a heavy weapon to use on something that my constituents and I find not just irritating but somehow worse than that. West Devon borough council is scrupulous in its planning processes, but we have another planning authority—Dartmoor national park committee—which has sometimes let unauthorised development go through.
  The village of Mary Tavy is a case in point. The Dartmoor national park committee tells me that stopping such developments relies on neighbours spotting things going wrong. That conjures up a vision of neighbours running up and down with rulers, measuring roof heights and trying to see what is going on—a ridiculous situation. We have two planning authorities for one patch of land. Dartmoor national park committee has allowed unauth-orised development to continue even after it has been pointed out that it is outside the agreed plan that the committee itself passed.
  My answer would be slightly different from criminalisa-tion, which has already been proposed. I believe that at least one third of the membership of a national park committee should be elected from the parish councils which encircle the national park. It is the local people who care—not those who are nominated or delegated by other bodies to sit upon the committee.
  I hope that in Standing Committee we shall debate the importance of architecture. How can planning people, who are elected councillors, know sufficient about architecture to be able immediately to unravel plans put before them at open council meetings? Could we not have guidelines or rules dealing with the pitch of the roofs in a village, or the type of materials used? In Devon we have veritable mushroom farms of drably designed little bungalows, which are very unappealing visually and which
  844
  neither reflect the local architecture nor enhance the villages. They provide homes for local people, but what will future generations think of the way in which we have allowed the individuality of the United Kingdom to be so diluted?
  Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend has made some excellent points, but the last was particularly important. I raised it in a debate about two years ago. Perhaps Department of the Environment rules lay it down, but many modern constructions are of a size which dwarfs the traditional cottages and farm settlements. I hope that my hon. Friend will persist with the point.
  Miss Nicholson: I wholly support my hon. Friend. The point is of keen importance in the western area, not just to us but to those who holiday there and to the many thousands who want to live in our beautiful countryside, because they believe that it is still an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is indeed, but we need to work a great deal harder to keep it so. Back-pedalling needs to take place on matters such as architectural guidelines. It can he done. The French do it. Why cannot we see what our friends across the channel are up to?
  Environmental assessment should be at the heart of our planning system. It is a Government policy priority, but I should like to see it on the face of the Bill. Land today must have multi-faceted use. It is not enough to say that it will be for ever agricultural, for ever Dartmoor national park land, for ever heath, or uplands or lowlands, or for ever covered with houses. Things can change rapidly; bad buildings can be pulled down.
  The problem is ownership. Here I differ strenuously from Her Majesty's Opposition, who speak so gaily of regional planning, regional ownership and of regional requirements over local people. As a true Conservative, I believe that decisions should be taken as close to home as possible. What matters is the ownership of a project. It is a case of "me and mine" being so much more valuable to a human being than "us and ours". Certainly, in the west, I cannot think of Bristol or Bath as having anything to do with Devon. I sincerely hope that we have no regional planning godfather —that would be a very unfriendly prospect.
  The Minister stated that the Bill was basically good, and I strongly agree. I hope that I, and colleagues fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee, can make it an even better Bill.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. David Bellotti: I welcome quite a number of the reforms in the Bill; I hope that in Committee they will be improved upon.
  One of the biggest points missing from the Bill is environmental impact assessment. In every constituency, we know of developments which have taken place without anyone assessing their impact until it was too late. Very often, there is a highway impact because thousands of cars go through streets which are not equipped to take them. Often, the impact on smaller communities, perhaps rural villages, is not seen until it is far too late. It is essential for an impact assessment to be done on every development before it is approved.
  In a more micro manner, there are impacts from shops. For example, we see litter from takeaway shops in the nearby streets. Trolleys are wheeled half a mile from

  845
  supermarkets and left in the streets. Had environmental impact assessments been done earlier, regulations could have been attached to the planning applications to ensure that the local environment was not affected. Whether it be highways or supermarket trolleys that cause the problem, if an environmental impact assessment were done first, it would lead to better results for the local communities, however large or small.
  The Bill has fudged the enforcement question. I should have thought that the House would want unanimously to condemn any person or party who deliberately flouts rules by producing a plan in contravention of what has been set in concrete by the local authority. If that is not made a criminal act, we are encouraging it. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider criminalising such action; that would be a step towards improving enforcement.
  The Bill has also fudged the whole question of Crown immunity. Why should the Crown be immune from regulations which the rest of the people have to follow? I hope that, in Committee, the Government will permit a debate on that. It has always seemed unfair to my hon. Friends and me that the Crown can get away with not being subject to the laws it makes.
  We should also consider the way in which planning regulations are interpreted locally. It has not been mentioned so far, but the debate impinges largely on the review which the Secretary of State is undertaking of the structure of local government. Far too often, a district council, having considered plans submitted to it, thinks that the only reason for refusal is a highway ground and leaves the decision to the county council. When it gets to the county council, it takes the view that, because the district council has considered the plan and has not objected, it would be foolish for it to object on that ground alone. That has happened often in East Sussex, with many examples in Eastbourne.
  Were multi-purpose authorities to be introduced in the review of local government, that not only would help to speed up planning applications but would lead to better decisions that were better informed.
  The comment of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), about regional authorities is helpful. It has been my view for a long time that local authorities should not be judge and jury on their own planning applications. The results of that can be seen across the country, again certainly in East Sussex. It would be interesting and helpful to consider submitting a planning application by a local authority to a regional authority rather than to the Secretary of State. Regional authorities have much more local knowledge than the Secretary of State.
  In the context of the review of local government, it is important to acknowledge that, time after time, local council officers do not have the time to follow up what happens to planning applications after they have been approved. They are unable to check what is happening on the ground. That is due to the Government. Government grants to local authorities are such that local authorities have to consider carefully the allocation of tasks within local government departments. All too often, there are insufficient staff in planning authority enforcement departments. I hope that, in his review, the Secretary of
  846
  State will look again at the help the Government are giving to local authorities so that they are able to enforce their planning decisions.
  Recently local authorities have not been helped—this certainly applies to my constituency—by what is referred to as twin tracking. If a developer submits a planning application to a local authority, one often finds that about eight weeks later he submits another one. That places an enormous burden on local authority staff. Moreover, it confuses local people. If they are objecting to or making comments about a planning application, they are confused if another planning application relating to the same land is submitted. Twin tracking ought to be dealt with by the Government in Committee. Before Third Reading, I hope that they will come forward with proposals to avoid it.
  I hope that the Government will also examine the question of planning gain. When local council officers discuss plans with developers, they often gain something that will benefit the local community. However, due to this country's economic situation, the land is often sold on; the gain is subsequently lost in the ensuing negotiations. If a planning gain is obtained for the benefit of the community it must be passed on if future applications are made concerning land for which planning consent was previously obtained.
  In Sussex, as in other parts of the country, we have a beautiful coastline, and we want it to be preserved as far as possible. A plethora of Government bodies have an interest in the coastline. Therefore, it is impossible for Sussex to protect its coastline when planning applications are made. I refer specifically to the Crumbles, an enormous development in Eastbourne. It will certainly lead to a much poorer coastline.
  When planning applications are made, local authorities ought to be provided with far greater powers over coastal development. I visited another coastal area about 10 days ago, the Ribble estuary, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). The planning approval granted for developments in the area has caused considerable concern about wildlife in the estuary. No assessment has been made of the impact of those developments upon it. Local authorities ought to have the power to take environmental matters into consideration.
  The Bill does not provide for public participation. I served on local authorities for a number of years. I was always surprised by the fact that the general public felt that they were genuinely participating in the planning process when I knew that in many cases they were not. Members of the public ought to have the right to address planning committees on issues that cause them concern. The Government should consider granting them that right.
  As for the shire part of East Sussex county council, particularly Lewes district council, on which I served as a member, I was appalled by the fact that parish council comments were often reported verbally and extremely briefly. Their comments were not given the same weight as those made by developers when submitting their planning applications. I was often surrounded by maps and beautiful drawings provided by the developer, but I heard only a few brief verbal comments on behalf of the parish council, which plays an important part in the planning process. It ought to be given more credence.
  The ability of third parties to appeal is another matter that ought to be considered in Committee. They should be given the right to appeal when the permission granted is

  847
  contrary to the local plan. Such a right would be seen to work, and would be fair both to those who are in favour of a development and to those who oppose it.
  All hon. Members could refer to constituency examples of plans that have gone wrong and of people who have a justifiable grievance about what has happened, subsequent to the granting of approval. We could all refer to local authority staff who have a very difficult task to perform in trying to get the plans altered late in the day, or enforcing them after they have been approved. The Bill ought to provide that, if constituents draw planning irregularities to the attention of their local authority, they can be put right.
  In my constituency, planning permission has been granted for garage premises. The cars being repaired stand on the highway in a state of disrepair. They are taken in at night and put out again in the morning. Garage owners will always obey any police instruction. Moreover, when the local authority's environmental health officer and planning officer visit a garage, the garage owner always complies for the time being, but thereafter the situation deteriorates again. When applications are made for garage premises, we ought to be able to ensure that regulations are in place that will prevent that.
  Houses have been built in Eastbourne that are a metre nearer the road than they ought to be. Planning officers are in a delimma about enforcement. The consequence for local people is that, in order to keep a road the right width, the pavement has to be very narrow, so it is not as safe as it ought to be. The Bill ought to enable local authorities to take all the action that they need to improve the local environment.
  The test in Committee will be whether the voices of our constituents on both smaller matters and larger structural matters are heard and listened to. The test will also be whether the House decides to support local authorities that have a difficult enforcement task to perform. The question whether local authorities and our constituents are to be supported ought to be uppermost in the Government's mind in Committee.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It would be sensible at this time to remind the House that Mr. Speaker has required that speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock should not exceed 10 minutes.
  5.57 pm
  Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I intend to deal with two aspects of the land compensation provisions. One element is already included in the Bill. The second will, I hope, be included by the time the proceedings on the Bill are completed.
  The element already included in the Bill relates to the very welcome provisions in clause 49 as they apply to England and Wales, and in clause 61 as they apply to Scotland, whereby highway authorities are to be given wider discretionary powers to buy blighted houses by voluntary agreement with home owners. That, to me, is exceptionally welcome, as I have a major problem in my constituency which I believe many hon. Members will also face in years to come.
  More and more of our major roads are being widened. In the south of England in particular, many already go through built-up areas. A major road-widening scheme is taking place along the M20, between junctions 3 and 5, as
  848
  part of the road improvements for the channel tunnel. That section of road goes almost entirely through an area that is built up on both sides.
  The current blight provisions are inadequate. The distance commonly used by the Department within which a blight notice can be served is 67 m. Eccentrically, that distance takes no account of the width of the road. It is calculated not from the edge of the motorway or from the edge of the furthest carriageway but from the centre line of the motorway and therefore is a relatively thin strip.
  Those whose houses are within the 67 m distance are happy. Blight notices have been served on them, they are being fully compensated for the unblighted value of their properties and are moving away. But probably hundreds of my constituents whose homes are equally blighted arid unsaleable, but which fall outside the 67 m blight line, are trapped from the day when the intention to widen a road or to build a new road is announced, because the Department of Transport must define the road line arid obtain the funds to build it, and only a year after it is opened, are people entitled to injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973. That will take my constituents five years or more. It is intolerable that people should be unable to sell their main assets and be trapped in that way by the need for public infrastructure works.
  I very much welcome the provisions of the Bill, but will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify the criteria to be applied in operating clauses 49 and 61? If a meagre arid parsimonious approach is pursued, those powers will hardly be worth having. I hope that the Government intend that those unable to sell their house due to blight will be able to serve a blight notice regardless of distance from a motorway or major road.
  I especially hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure the House that personal hardship will be taken into account. In any sizeable community over a five-year period, some people who cannot move will be placed in desperate circumstances—such as unemployed people who have to move to take up a new job, those whose health suffers and who need to move near a relative who can care for them, and those whose marriage breaks down and who desperately need to sell the matrimonial home so that the assets can be divided between the parties. Such circumstances make it imperative that personal hardship should be taken into account by the Government.
  A further personal hardship—this time from a different source—is not covered by the Bill, but I hope that it will be. Some of my constituents face a dramatic worsening of their environment as a result of a huge intensification of use of existing transport infrastructure. I refer, as the House may have guessed, to the proposed designated rail links to and from the channel tunnel.
  Those who buy a house near a major road take a chance, in the belief that there is a limit to the extent to which disturbance from the road can increase before new works are necessary, which trigger an entitlement to injurious affection compensation, but it is possible dramatically to change the use of a railway line, particularly an under-used line, without new works and thus without the need to pay injurious affection compensation.
  Without exaggeration, some houses in my constituency will be uninhabitable from the moment the channel tunnel trains begin to run in the summer of 1993. The houses are situated by the line through Maidstone, East, the second

  849
  designated freight line to the channel tunnel, which is currently scarcely used at night. Their inhabitants will be unable to have unbroken sleep. According to British Rail's published plans, channel tunnel freight trains, which will be half a mile long, will run at 75 mph within a few yards of those people's bedroom windows every 20 minutes from 10 pm to 6 am seven nights per week. I suggest that even my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) might not be enthusiastic about purchasing such a property.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport kindly visited my constituency to see for himself the problems that my constituents face. He said that the Government would announce their policy on injurious affection compensation for the intensification of existing use. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would make that announcement today, but clearly he was not in a position to do so. We were promised an announcement early this year, and it is already March. When will the announcement be made? It is extremely germane to the Bill, because, if the Government decide to extend injurious affection compensation on a discretionary basis, a relatively minor amendment to clauses 49 and 61 would give the necessary statutory powers for it to be paid for serious environmental deterioration and when people are unable to sell their house because of an intensification of existing use.
  If the Department of Transport can make such an announcement quickly, I hope that the Government will table an amendment to clause 49 in Committee or on Report to give statutory effect to the policy announcement. I look forward with interest to the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I should like to speak specifically to home loss payments under clauses 55 and 57, which amend the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973.
  A tenant or owner-occupier whose property is compulsorily purchased and who is displaced—perhaps because of new house building, a road building programme or rail development—is eligible for a home loss payment, which was standardised in 1989 at £ 1,500. Previously, the payment varied according to the rateable value of the house, but that practice was discontinued in 1989, when the poll tax was introduced. The Prime Minister's puzzling comments in the past few days suggest that it might not be too long before rates are on the agenda and, perhaps, back in being. I hope that that does not lead to payments for home loss being viable once again.
  When there is compulsory purchase, councils generally offer equivalent housing to their tenants. From time to time, they also make offers to owner-occupiers who are obliged to move and they may offer them local authority housing. I accept that there is a need for differentiation in the treatment of tenants and owner-occupiers. The £ 1,500 payment will remain the standard, but for owner-occupiers there will be a 10 per cent. premium on the market value of their home.
  That is fair and understandable, given that people who are obliged to move house have often been living in substandard accommodation and may find it difficult, if
  850
  not impossible, to buy similar accommodation—if they want to. Such people could suffer considerable financial loss because their homes may even have been dangerous, which is often the reason for the compulsory purchase, and they are almost always obliged to buy up-market, which costs them considerably more.
  It has been claimed that a premium in excess of 10 per cent. should be applied. This morning, I was surprised to receive information from the Confederation of British Industry urging that a 25 per cent. premium might be applicable for owner-occupiers who lose their homes in that way. I understand the CBI's motive in making that claim which was stated clearly. It is to facilitate the rapid development of the transport infrastructure, about which Conservative Members representing constituencies in the south-east have been concerned, but which is less of a problem in Scotland.
  However, the CBI should balance its argument. If it is suggesting that owner-occupiers should receive an increased premium over and above the 10 per cent. set out in the Bill, it should also advocate additional finance for local authorities to enable them to build more houses to speed up the transfer of council tenants whose homes may stand in the way of developments or which may require redevelopment. If the CBI is serious about this matter, it should strike a balance.
  My main concern about my constituency relates to its local authority tenants. I have to admit that they stand to benefit from the Bill because the qualifying period for home loss payments is being reduced from five years to one year. Although that is to be welcomed, I should like to know why any qualifying period is specified. I cannot see that there is any justification for assuming that a family who have occupied their home for, say, one month are less likely to suffer trauma or to be out of pocket than a family who have occupied their home for a year. One of the first things that people generally do when moving home is to decorate, spending a considerable amount of money. Therefore, I cannot see any relevance in the one-year cut-off. If we are reducing the period from five years, why not get rid of the qualifying period altogether, so that anybody who is faced with losing his or her home, whether it is owned or rented, is suitably compensated? I hope that amendments will be tabled in Committee to remove the qualification altogether.
  Another area in which I should like to see some improvement relates to the date on which the improved home loss payments become applicable. According to the Bill, the effective date is 16 November 1990. I have a constituency interest in this matter because of what has happened in the Queen Elizabeth square area of the Gorbals district. That complex of multi-storey blocks was designed by Sir Basil Spence in the mid-1960s. I understand that Sir Basil was given an award for his work, but anyone who drives past Queen Elizabeth square, let alone lives in it, must wonder about the judgment of the people who made the award.
  The Gorbals area has been much maligned over the years. I will not have the place done down—not least because I have a family connection, in that my grandfather was born and brought up there. The people who live there are warm, genuine and proud. It is perhaps surprising when one looks at the place that, given the chance to leave their homes, which is being offered at the moment, the people who live there do not want to leave the Gorbals district. They will move heaven and earth to stay there. In

  851
  many cases, people are turning down accommodation in better parts of the city, where there are more amenities and fewer social problems. The Gorbals people have a link with their area that they want to maintain.
  Queen Elizabeth square is now 25 years old and has all the problems that are endemic in multi-storey blocks, such as dampness, condensation, alienation of the residents, and many forms of crime. I was intrigued, although I might have been amused if the circumstances had been different, at the comments of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson)—I am sorry that she is not in her place to hear this—who said how terrible it was that drab bungalows were being thrown up all over her area. I can tell her that the people of the Gorbals in Glasgow and of many other areas of cities throughout the United Kingdom would be delighted if somebody said, "We are going to build some drab bungalows in your area and get you out of these multi-storey blocks." That highlights the different world in which we live and puts the question of housing into perspective.
  As I said, Sir Basil Spence was given an award for designing that property. Having sentenced people to live there for 25 years, perhaps he should have been obliged to spend —
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: At least 60 days there.
  Mr. Watson: Yes, at least 60 days, or perhaps even longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) has suggested. If Sir Basil Spence had experienced what it was like to live there, he might have changed his ideas—and those of some other architects and developers—about the concept of multi-storey living.
  It is not the fault of Glasgow district council's housing department that those blocks are in their current state. It has done the best that it can with its limited and reducing resources over the past 10 years. Last year, the council was faced with a bill of £ 12·5 million to bring Queen Elizabeth square up to habitable standards. On closer examination, the council found that it would cost one third of that amount to demolish the blocks altogether. With some trepidation, the housing department organised a public meeting, called the residents together and said that there was no real alternative but to move them out of Queen Elizabeth square, to demolish the complex and to build other houses, which would be low-rise, elsewhere.
  The council felt that, because of the close affinity that Gorbals people feel with their environment, it would be met with abuse and strong disagreement with its proposals. One councillor has told me that he was reluctant even to go to the meeting. In fact, the housing department officials have been bowled over in the rush of the tenants to accept their right to move out of those flats because they are so terrible and people want something that is more conducive to pleasant family living, although, as I have said earlier, they want to stay in that district of the city.
  Last summer, the first of the 400 families living in Queen Elizabeth square began to move out. By 15 November—an important date—150 families had moved out. The point is that 50 more families have left in the intervening period and will be treated substantially differently from those who left before 15 November. I
  852
  come, therefore, to the thrust of my argument about the part of the Bill that states that increased home loss payments will be applicable from 16 November. In many cases, families left on a purely arbitrary basis. Let us consider two families of similar size, living in identical accommodation. Family A might have found it acceptable to move to a particular house, while family B might not, but if it delayed beyond 15 November, it stands to gain considerably if it did not meet the five years' qualification.
  That is not only a great pity, but is extremely unfair because neighbours in otherwise identical circumstances will be dealt with on a two-tier basis. I do not see any reason why the legislation cannot provide that everybody is treated equitably and fairly. I understand the reason for the date of 16 November, but there must be some method of ensuring that everybody who is involved in the clearance of Queen Elizabeth square is treated in the same fashion and benefits to the same extent.
  The provisions on home loss payments have their merits, but I hope that they will be amended and approved in Committee. Incidentally—I must finish, because I have now run out of time—we must try to establish some review of the discretionary payments, about which, unfortunate-ly, there is no mention in the Bill as drafted.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) who hit the nail on the head with his references to high-rise blocks and awards for design. I recall my days in Scotland, when I lived in a university building which won for James Stirling the Concrete Society's prize for design. The building leaked like a sieve and was falling apart, but it won a prize.
  Like most debates on planning, this one has been conspicuous for the wide variety of views, many in conflict with one another. Indeed, as it is a commonplace that hon. Members should have conflicting views, I can think of no better Minister to pilot the Bill through than the Minister for Housing and Planning. If anyone can reconcile the irreconcilable, he can, with his broad experience and detailed knowledge of these issues. Unfortunately, most people who deal with planning matters do not have such detailed experience, which is why we sometimes end up with haywire and unworkable legislation.
  It is appropriate that, almost 50 years after the passing of the 1947 Act, we should be having a major review, although certain issues have been examined before now. For example, I served on the Standing Committee which examined two measures in recent Parliaments, when we reviewed various aspects of the planning system.
  I warmly welcome the Bill's provisions on enforcement —they represent a useful step in the right direction—but a large number of other issues are not dealt with in the Bill. they need urgent attention, too, or the planning system will continue to dissatisfy not only those who make most use of it, such as developers, but those whose lives are impinged on, including objectors and others living in the community.
  A famous epitaph to an architect recorded,
  "If you seek his monument, look around."
  The same should be true of planners, because there are good and bad aspects of the planning system. Just as planners gave us the green belt, the most positive planning policy in Britain, so it also gave us tower blocks and all the problems associated with them. I do not believe that that

  853
  state of affairs would have arisem in a free market system, because people would not have been prepared to pay for flats in tower blocks.
  As I represent an area with a large rural hinterland, hon. Members will expect me to refer to the green belt, which is the prime consideration of many of my constituents, whether or not they live in villages in the green belt. I believe that the policy is too hard-line in terms of villages located in the green belt, as opposed to the green areas, a subject to which I shall come.
  The Bill purports to address the problem of inefficiency in the planning system. It contains provisions that will, I hope, improve the system. But in terms of dealing with applications quickly and effectively, I see nothing in the measure that will improve on the present situation. Many applications are not dealt with in eight weeks, and that is particularly true of some local authorities with the lowest volume of applications. In other words, there is no correlation with work, for even as the work load has fallen, the performance has not improved substantially.
  Between April and June 1990, for example, there was a 13 per cent. drop in the number of applications compared with the same period in 1989, yet there was only a 4 per cent. increase in the number determined in the statutory eight week period over the 12 months. The only way to police the time it takes is to use the appeal system, which is slow and ineffective. I regret that the Bill does not deal with delays either in dealing with applications or in policing any delays.
  However much we may welcome a structure plan system, there is still widespread incidence of nimbyism. People say that any pressure for the creation of new housing must come from the economic magnet of the south-east, and that is true to a degree, but it is not the whole answer. We need more houses, because old people are living longer, because young people are leaving home earlier and, sadly, because there are more divorces. I am afraid that those who resist every housing development are, in effect, condemning their sons and daughters and grandsons and grand-daughters either to be priced out of the market by what happens to prices or to decamp into the next town or village further up the road.
  Just as I could not have afforded to live in the area where my parents live, so I have no doubt that my children could not afford to live in the area where I now live. That problem must be addressed if we are not to stifle ourselves economically and create an extremely major problem in housing conditions in Britain.
  Although reserve powers are built into the Bill for self-certification to protect us against that sort of nimbyism, I fear that that will lead to buck-passing by local authorities, in the same way as the present system often leads authorities to turn down planning applications knowing that any unpopularity will pass to the Secretary of State instead of to the elected members of the local authority. Much of the increase in the number of successful appeals in recent years has occurred not because the Government have overruled the local authorities but because the authorities are shirking unpopular decisions.
  Certain matters that should be included in the Bill are not in it. The agricultural exemption is far too wide. The subdivision of farms, particularly in the south-east, supported by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
  854
  Food, rides through loopholes in the planning law and leads to the urbanisation of some of our most beautiful areas. The Minister should get together with some of his opposite numbers in that Department to try to get a more reasonable policy on that issue.
  The exemption for farm buildings is far too large, so that, without planning permission, one can erect large buildings in a way that affect the visual appearance of the green belt. One can build a hard standing for pick-your-own farming without planning permission, and that can lead to the sort of situation about which we have heard, with ugly tarmac covering the green belt.
  I said that the green belt should not be hard-line on urban areas that lie within it. There are villages in my constituency in which, in the urban centre, there are vacant pieces of land for which planning permission is regularly turned down on the grounds that it is in an area of outstanding natural beauty or in the green belt.
  If the Minister reads a booklet that I wrote on the subject, he will find the prime case of the owners of cement works in Kent who applied for planning permission to demolish the works and build houses on the site. The application was supported by the residents of the housing surrounding the site on all three sides, but it was rejected on the grounds that it was in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Considering that it was a cement works, the refusal was crazy.
  Many of my constituents are concerned with zoning restrictions and believe that the land use categories are not tight enough. We still get many complaints about, for example, building societies taking over high streets. I shall say no more about that today. If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee, I shall raise the issue then.
  There is no easy answer to the problem of neighbour notification, because it is impossible to define who is a neighbour. A neighbour may live a long way away and have a direct view of an application site, rather than next door to the site, yet most local authorities which practise neighbour notification notify the people in the immediate vicinity without thinking of the view, say, across the valley, or even about the situation a few hundred yards away.
  I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said about compensation. It is a gross injustice that people whose homes are blighted, often for long periods, should be unable to obtain compensation. If anything, my right hon. Friend understated the case, because the Minister knows that five years is a short time in terms of the planning of a road. In my constituency, we are about to acquire a bypass the planning of which began nearly 50 years ago.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to that point and the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) made earlier, the whole process of getting roads built would be speeded up if more generous compensation provisions were built into the process?
  Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend, and we have many lessons still to learn. The Select Committee on the Environment, on which I served, spent much time looking at the effectiveness and efficiency of the appeal system. The Minister should take on board some of the lessons to be drawn from that. Indeed, he should look widely overseas

  855
  to see what beneficial lessons we might learn in order to implement provisions relating to the whole area of compensation.
  I have pleasure in commending the Bill, and hope that it will be amended in Committee.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: I take part in the debate as someone who has had about five or seven years experience as the chairman of a large local authority environmental planning committee. I also have many years' experience of the frustrations not just of politicians but of residents. I also know about the costs incurred by local authorities in chasing developers who have not complied with planning regulations or who did not receive planning permission in the first place.
  Another annoyance is that when a local authority takes a developer to appeal the developer often seems to get away scot free; even when the local authority is in the right, it often has to pay the bill. However, that did not apply in a particular case because the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, changed the rules in respect of one particular application. I leave it to the imagination of hon. Members to work out why the right hon. Gentleman did that.
  The Government have tried many ways to speed up planning applications. The introduction of urban development corporations was supposed to do that, and to a limited extent that has worked, but the emphasis has always been placed on speeding up planning applications which give the developer an advantage while lesser advantage and resources are given to planning officers and councils who have to make sure that developments are correct and accord with the environment of the area. Big business has exploited that situation for many years, and losing appeals does not seem to make any difference to it.
  At present there is a planning application for a large Tesco development in my constituency, which I and many others are fighting against. It is proposed for the present site of a cricket pitch with a beautiful pavilion and open space just as one enters Sheffield. The application has been going on for months and has taken up a great deal of planning officer time. Amended plans may be coming in and sooner or later the officers will be frightened to death to refuse the application in case it goes to the Secretary of State and finish up with a worse development. The planning department may also have to pay the costs. The restrictions on local government in this area are unjustifiable.
  I do not know whether any hon. Members have received the District Planning Officers Society's report on making unauthorised development an offence. I recom-mend it to all hon. Members in the hope that they will accept its recommendations. The society seeks the support of metropolitan planning officers for its proposals to strengthen planning authorities' enforcement powers beyond those in the Bill. The report states:
  "The aim is basically to propose further strengthening to tackle the growing number of deliberate offenders who flout the planning system to their own ends, usually to the considerable harm of local people who suffer the effects of their development for months and years as the planning enforcement procedures take their cumbersome course."
  I shall try later to give some examples of that.
  Everyone accepts that development consideration has to take place, provided that the environment is protected.
  856
  People who have invested in housing, and so on, do not want their environment destroyed by people who flout the planning regulations and procedures for their own ends. At the end of the day, such developers usually win. When they lose, they lose little in terms of compensation or cost.
  A complainant who is quoted in the report says:
  "Evading planning permission is a very insiduous method of undermining planning legislation and its regulations. These have been instituted to protect the nation's environment, both urban and rural. If one individual or organisation is successful in flouting the valid constraints, a very serious precedent is set for others to follow."
  That is precisely what is happening now. Exploitation of land, land values and development costs are encouraging more and more people to flout the planning regulations, laws and procedures, and they are doing it every day. I know not only from my experience as ex-chairman of a planning committee, but from the experience of constituents, of the frustrations which can arise from the cumbersome procedure that we have to go through to stop a development taking place, especially before that development has been agreed by a planning department.
  I commend the proposals by the District Planning Officers Society for an amendment to the Bill which will make unauthorised development a criminal offence. That is my personal view; I am not speaking on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench or the Labour party in general. The creation of such a criminal offence is the only way in which we can pose a threat of which the offender will take notice.
  Planning officers have to go through a long legal procedure, and developers, when it suits them, think that a battle is worth the effort. They think that by going through the procedures they will tire out the city council and the planners and may win on appeal. In the case of a criminal offence, such developers would have second thoughts. That is the whole point of my argument. It may stop further unauthorised developments if the offenders are brought before the courts rather than having to go through the normal procedures with the planners.
  Stop notices have been useful in the past, but clarification is needed about compensation. Injunctions have their place and would be more effective than stop notices in dealing with threatened breaches of control. We need stronger deterrents than those proposed in the Bill.
  Some people say that the courts are not qualified to deal with such issues, and that may be so. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to magistrates. The matter is complicated. I am not saying that the magistrate should make a judgment about whether a planning application is good or bad. The whole idea is for the court to decide whether a developer, whether a person or a company, is legally right or wrong in starting a development before having proper consent.
  The court would not deal with the implications or the effect on the environment or the technicalities of the matter. The bench would have to deal with a straightfor-ward question. If it is not seen as straightforward, a little training could easily be given to magistrates to enable them to make the correct judgments. While that is going on, the planning officers and planning departments in general could still follow their normal professional procedures and carry their usual responsibilities.
  I do not propose giving the courts power to deal with planning applications. The proposal is that a court may immediately stop anyone on a criminal basis, rather than making the planning officer follow the cumbersome

  857
  present procedures. I have many examples, but I do not have time to give many of them. I will give one which is not in my constituency—a meadow which is perpetually defaced by hardcore. A meadow is an area of beauty: it is obviously green belt and should not be used for the dumping of hardcore. The planning officer tells the person who dumped it that it has to be shifted, and the dumper refuses. The example that I am outlining started in January 1987 and the applicants were in the High Court in August 1990—three years after the dumping started. When the planning officer insisted on the removal of the hardcore, it was taken away—but then more was laid down, and the process started all over again.
  That is an example of the system being used in an attempt to make the planners give up the ghost, but they do not. People in the area who suffer from such matters become frustrated with the council and ask the council to do something about it. However, although the council follows the correct procedure, it gets nowhere, because, when the hardcore is removed, the order falls. Then when the stuff is put back, the procedures have to start again from the beginning and the process goes on and on. A simple amendment to the Bill to take people to court who have no legal right to carry out a certain activity would allow planners to deal with the planning issues. I feel strongly about the matter and I hope that hon. Members agree with me.
  6.39 pm
  Sir Hal Miller: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a subject which is of great importance to my constituency. I regret that I cannot follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) about development corporations. In my experience, they were introduced only when a local authority was unwilling to allow development of any description, or in some cases when an authority felt unable to do so because it could not grapple with the problems. However, I shall follow his remarks about the dumping of hardcore in green belt areas.
  First, I must deal with the Opposition's idea that there should be regional councils and plans. I regret that some of my colleagues seemed to assent to that. In my constituency we know what a regional council means— extending the boundaries of the Birmingham conurbation into Worcestershire, hotly pursued by the erection of tower blocks in the green belt and an increase in the community charge. We all know what that means, and we want none of it.
  I counsel my hon. Friends further about subscribing to the doctrine of plan-led development. We have seen some examples of Labour plans—we only need to reflect upon the Ryder plan for the motor industry. My goodness, what a failure that was, but Labour spent a great deal of our money on it, leading us precisely nowhere. Labour does not have development plans but embalmment plans in mind.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) did not want any development. He dismissed shops and he dismissed jobs, saying that they were all low-tech and part time. That is a bit hard to take from the hon. Member for Dundee, East, when one remembers what happened with the Ford motor company. If there were no profits, how
  858
  would all the training be provided? How would all the other goodies be secured, including the social provision which has to come out of taxation?
  No, we do not want regional councils and plan-led development. The Opposition have been parading their green credentials. However, in the knowledge that power stations are the biggest source of ozone and the greenhouse effect, they are the ones complaining about the move to nuclear power. The hon. Member for Heeley objected to dumping of nuclear waste and the Liberal hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) complained about proposals for barrages, which one would have thought were a more acceptable form of power. However, he started wittering on about the wildlife involved. It is rather strange to hear the beneficiary of a Liberal by-election victory complain about litter, when one considers the way in which the Liberals fly-post and, one suspects, the way in which they exceed their election expenses.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Hal Miller: No. I do not have time to give way. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's comments about hardcore in a minute.
  I welcome the Bill's provisions on compensation, but I couple that with the caveat of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who undershot when he talked about blight lasting for five years, as 15 is commonplace in the case of motorway construction. However, he was right to say that it is those people whose enjoyment of their property is affected, though their land may not be taken, who cannot achieve any compensation until the 15 years—or whatever period —are over. Some of them are placed in a serious position, as he said, due to loss of a job, illness or break-up of their family and I ask the Minister to consider that, as it is not clear to me that that is covered in the Bill.
  It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I shall examine the subject of the green belt, which has been under threat in my constituency for the 17 years that I have served there. Part of that effect—including the dumping of hardcore, to which the hon. Member for Heeley referred and what we call the development of horseyculture, is the degradation and downgrading of land on the urban fringe, despite the valiant efforts of the urban fringe project set up by my county council, assisted by the Department of the Environment.
  That effect arises because of the uncertainty that I regret to say was introduced by Government actions. After all, a Conservative Secretary of State decreed that there should be three business parks in the green belt in the midlands on the motorway network. There have already been four applications for the parks that he will permit in my constituency. That upsets everyone, but, more important, it results in a tremendous waste of time for all the officials involved in the prolonged inquiries.
  In one case, quite a small group of people raised £ 30,000 to put up an alternative and are now engaged in raising £ 50,000 to be represented at the inquiry. It is not merely a waste of public money but a waste of the public's private money, dealing with vexatious applications which have been encouraged by the Secretary of State.
  As regards the structure plan, the Government set housing targets for the county, which divides them between the districts. If one sets a housing target in Bromsgrove, which is all within the green belt, it means

  859
  that all the houses have to be built on green belt. Where is the commitment to maintenance of the green belt? It has been undermined by strategic guidance given by the Government and passed on through the county. That is a serious problem, and I had hoped that the legislation would contain some measure to deal with it, or at least that it would be accompanied by some announcement on Government policy on the green belt, about which there is so much uncertainty. In the light of the uncertainty, people try to chance their arm in ways that have been described.
  Finally, I should mention enforcement. A whole alphabet of subjects, from aerodromes to zoos, are included, and most seem to occur in my constituency.
  Mr. Bill Michie: What about heliports?
  Sir Hal Miller: Yes, heliports are the latest problem, as available planning controls seem to be inadequate.
  One of the problems involves the amount of time that people are allowed to carry on activities before any interdiction can be brought. In that context, one thinks of Sunday markets or the stationing of caravans, which are difficult to control as sometimes they only have to move a few yards to evade controls. Local authorities find it dispiriting to try to counter that problem.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing referred to the intensification of use, which commonly happens with lorry parks in my constituency. For example, a few lorries were stationed at a site on Haslucks Green road in Wythall some years ago. Now it is a full container operation, with mobile cranes reaching up between 40 and 60 ft. It is floodlit and diesel engines run all night. The local authority is disinclined to take action because it fears that there is established use and it may be liable for damages. However, the intensification of use is on such a scale that—not only to my mind but to the residents' minds—it has resulted in a change of use. We need more guidance in the Bill on that issue.
  I give a warm welcome to the more generous provisions for compensation, citing my experience in Hong Kong, where we used to have to resume land for public purposes. We always made it the practice to pay over the odds to secure the agreement of those living in the vicinity and to accomplish the work more quickly, doing away with the costs and delays of inquiries so that the whole matter proceeded more cheaply. The typical motorway pro-cedure, with preferred route consultations and compulsory purchase orders, followed by a side roads order, results in unconscionable expense and delays, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that before the Bill comes back for Third Reading.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: In the time available to me, I want to deal in particular with the references to home loss payments to people whose homes are purchased compulsorily. The Bill contains much that is to be applauded. I refer in particular to the proposal to improve the levels of compensation and to the proposal to reduce the residential qualifying period from five years to one year. I must express some concern at evident gaps, particularly in clause 25. I urge the Minister to address the situations which give rise to home loss payments to certain categories of tenants. He should direct his attention also to
  860
  a couple of issues related to the date of displacement and to the rather loose drafting with reference to disturbance allowance payments.
  Under the Bill, tenants who have to move out of their homes permanently for the purpose of improvements to the property are entitled to home loss payments. There is no reference to people who have to move out by reason of major repair work, such as repairs to roofs, and restoration of damp courses. I invite the Minister to address this evident deficiency by being prepared to accept appropriate amendments. If he accepts that there is a gap, he ought to be prepared to close it.
  Clause 29 protects the right of secure tenants of councils and of housing associations to home loss payments if their homes are required for redevelopment purposes. I suggest that there is a need to extend this right to assured tenants of housing associations where the landlord requires vacant possession for redevelopment purposes. I urge the Minister to direct his attention to this issue and to be prepared, in Committee, to accept appropriate amendments.
  There is a need to define more closely the legal interest which must be present if entitlement to home loss payment is to be assured. For example, there appears to be a need to extend qualification to those occupiers who are statutory tenants under the Rent Acts. Another important category of occupiers who need protection are those who could be described as contractual licensees—persons who pay their landlords for the right to occupy property but who, for whatever reason, are not tenants. This category includes flat sharers, lodgers and people under 18 years of age, as well as others who do not have exclusive occupation. At present, such people have no entitlement to home loss payments unless the landlord is a local authority. I suggest that the exclusion of this category of people represents an anomaly which could be removed if the Minister were prepared to accept an appropriate amendment.
  I hope that the Minister will he prepared to extend the entitlement to increased home loss payments. As drafted, the Bill covers owners and the holders of long leases—and rightly so. An owner who has occupied a property for the minimum qualifying period of a year—actually, 13 months —is entitled to full compensation, up to a maximum of £ 15,000. Contrast such an owner with a person who has occupied a property for half a lifetime on the basis of a weekly tenancy. There are examples of such people in my own family—people who live in the older parts of Merseyside. Under the Bill as currently drafted, such people would get the minimum compensation of £ 1,500 for the loss of their home, in which they might have spent the best part of their lives. I hope that the Minister will look with favour on an appropriate amendment to remedy that anomaly.
  It is a strange anomaly that the date of displacement is not defined. Problems would arise from the need to work backwards for the purpose of calculating home loss payment. An amendment could easily provide a clear, workable definition, under which a displaced individual would get the maximum compensation. The defined date could be that on which an occupier was required to give up possession. Some definition would be better than no definition at all.
  With regard to disturbance allowance, I cite people who live in the area that I represent. People should certainly be compensated for the loss of their home, but such people

  861
  are not always able to dispose of their old chattels and set up anew. They incur disturbance costs. For example, certain soft furnishings may have to be replaced. People should be entitled to compensation for the disturbance of losing their home as well as for the actual loss of their home. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, in this respect, the provisions of the Bill might be made clearer and more generous.
  As my statutory time is about to elapse, I conclude by asking the Minister to receive my suggestions in the spirit in which they are made. The Bill contains some laudable provisions, but there is prima facie evidence of some omissions. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept appropriate amendments.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. It is a thoughtful and positive contribution to our planning system, which is so critical to the protection of our towns and villages and the countryside surrounding them.
  First, let me deliver a message—through my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing and Planning. Let me reassure him about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) about the effect of opinions expressed by local planning authorities, and even more local organisations such as town and parish councils.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently overturned the findings of his Department's inspector regarding development of houses in the grounds of Hoddern farm, an old farm in the south downs close to Peacehaven, in my constituency. That is welcome: such a development would have run counter to every local plan, as the inspector was told. It would also have run counter to good sense, as it would have eroded an area of outstanding natural beauty and, eventually, put at risk other kinds of development in similar parts of the south downs. I note the increasing propensity of Ministers to exercise good sense, and to reconsider after noting reports from their inspectors.
  None the less, the planning process is too often flouted by offenders—albeit a relatively small number. Some have been identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and others; sadly, I could identify a myriad more cases, stretching from Chalvington in the east of my constituency to Wivelsfield Green in the west. The problems have rumbled on over the years: offenders have put the planning law to scorn—often persistently— using its weaknesses and gaps to erect buildings and to build extensions, to establish driveways, entrances and exits leading to and from the public highway and to demolish buildings. They have used land for purposes that they know are not allowed under planning law.
  Currently, the law can be avoided for eight, 10, 12 or even more years by a determined builder or developer who dodges hither and thither between the appeals and excuses available to him. Meanwhile, the surrounding community suffers, and the planning law is brought into disrepute.
  862
  The Bill goes some way towards meeting the problem, but, like other Conservative Members, I do not think that it goes far enough. That is not just my opinion, based on a number of offences that have been committed in my constituency; it is shared by planning authorities almost everywhere, and has been voiced sensibly and forcefully both in the other place and by my hon. Friends today.
  The general feeling is that a breach of planning control should be the relevant offence, rather than the breach of an injunction suggested in the Bill. That would dissuade offenders, even if bringing a case of law still rested within the discretion of the local planning authority. It would ensure that such breaches did not recur, or that the offender was made to rectify his offence in a reasonable period, rather than in 10 or more years.
  I believe that local planning authorities know the identities of the offenders; they know who are the persistent culprits. I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude—that they will not merely listen to the arguments and debate them, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has promised, but react more positively than the other place.
  What is now needed is a power to end offensive development, and to show offenders that they can no longer continue to offend against the planning regulations: that they must stop, and not offend again. If the Bill achieves that—as I hope that it will, if it is amended—we may at last begin to have effective planning law that will do what all but the crooked developers want it to do.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: It is unusual for an hon. Member representing an urban constituency to quote the views of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, but I was impressed by its briefing, which observed:
  "The Planning and Compensation Bill could be one of the `greenest' Bills to enter the House of Commons for many years. With a few changes to existing Clauses and a constructive approach to the introduction of new ones it would emerge as a linchpin of environmental policy. With robust legislative backing, the planning system will then be equipped to fulfil its wider environmental potential."
  That, surely, puts the finger on the Bill's "green" potential.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: A green finger.
  Mr. Cohen: A green finger, as my hon. Friend has so wittily suggested.
  The key amendment to the Bill should be the introduction of an environmental duty for local authorities considering planning applications. The protection of the environment should rank as a priority. That should strike a chord with Conservative Members; after all, they are supposed to want to conserve what is best —at their best, that is. Along with energy conservation, that should be deemed as important as the economic and social considerations with which local authority planning committees must deal.
  The marshes that surround my constituency are constantly threatened by developers' plans—road plans, for instance. My local planning authority, and neighbour-ing authorities, should surely be encouraged to try to save the marshes for future generations. The same applies to listed buildings: a penalty should be imposed on developers who destroy or damage them. Planners should be encouraged to respect conservation areas and to adopt the "urban village" approach. There is a notable shortage of improvement areas and parks in towns.

  863
  The Government promised to introduce control over demolition. In the last Session, a Conservative Member introduced a private Member's Bill to that effect, but it went no further. Without such controls, ugly sites will ruin the environment.
  There needs to be planning gain for the community as a whole. There are very few opportunities for local authorities to do it themselves because the cost of acquiring land is prohibitive these days and they have no money, so using planning to achieve a gain for the community is legitimate. But it must be an open process—the public must have a say in it. There should be no deal between the local authority and the developer, with the public excluded.
  The suggestion of third-party appeal, made as an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) in the Minister's opening speech, is a good one. There should be a right of appeal for people affected by a planning application; it should not just be the developer who has an opportunity to appeal. The idea is practicable. The Secretary of State could be given wider call-in powers, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment in 1986 or, if the planning application that has been approved, conflicts with the local plan or the structure plan, it could be a ground for a third party appeal.
  I welcome the proposal in the Bill to increase compensation for owner-occupiers, but I feel that it is grossly unfair to have no equivalent for tenants affected by planning applications. A number of my constituents are tenants who are affected by the M 11 road scheme. They have been treated shabbily by the Department of Transport and face being thrown out of their homes with no compensation at all. The council cannot help to rehouse them, because it has its own housing crisis. The Government should consider compensation for tenants.
  With regard to planning in London, the London Docklands development corporation has a limited life; it was set up with a limited life and it is due to come to an end shortly. In those circumstances, it is not right that it should make the local plans for the area since it will not be answerable for them in due course. It is the boroughs surrounding the docklands area which should be involved in the local plans for docklands.
  My main concern about London, however, is the need for a strategic overview of the environment and of planning. There is still a case for an overall London planning authority. It could almost be the authority to decide appeals when more than one borough is involved or in dispute; or when a local authority is trying to give itself planning permission, the planning authority could hear appeals from citizens. I think that it should also scrutinise each borough's local plan, see whether there are gaps in the overall planning environment for London and ask boroughs to review the plans and fill in the gaps. It should also be charged with the "public gain" role for London. There is an important link with public transport, roads and traffic policy as well, but overall it should have a green policy for London. Although the Government abolished the Greater London council, therefore, there is still a strong case for a Londonwide environmental authority.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I want generally to welcome the Bill, but I will confine my remarks to parts III and IV, on compensation for compulsory purchase. As a non-practising chartered surveyor, I must declare an interest.
  During the past 70 years, the compensation code of this country has been based on open market value; that is, it has been assumed that there was to be an agreed price between a willing buyer and a willing seller. In 1972 the White Paper on development of compensation "Putting People First" introduced home loss payments. The White Paper committee was made up of two senior civil servants as succeeding chairmen, nine local government officials, one private practice engineer and two private practice architects. One must therefore marvel at how helpful the Land Compensation Act 1973 was in looking after the interests of those who have been dispossessed of their accommodation. Nevertheless, I felt then, and I still feel, that it did not go nearly far enough. It was an official's point of view and not a politician's point of view that we finished up with, and that is the main disadvantage of the present legislation.
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is absolutely right to mention tenants, and this is a matter to which we must address ourselves seriously. Home loss payments do not go nearly far enough in the context of compulsory purchase.
  We must examine the cost of schemes carried out in various parts of the country. Having looked into this matter in some detail, I find that the average cost of the acquisition of land amounts to no more than 10 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme throughout the country as a whole and to no more than 20 per cent. in the London area. In the London area, therefore, the average cost of the other works—the construction, the removal and reposi-tioning of the services, and the construction of the road, railway or whatever it may be—amounts to 80 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme in London and 90 per cent. outside London. So the actual amount paid by way of compensation for land is a very small proportion of the total, and we must not lose sight of that.
  When they acquire property people do not want to give up possession of it in most cases; they choose the property because it suits them very well and they want to live there or carry out their small business in that particular area. They do not buy it with a view to being moved on in the near future at someone else's behest. Society therefore owes them a special debt and we have not paid enough attention to this in the past. If we were to ask ourselves whether we would care to be told that we had to leave our accommodation, we would find it very unsettling and unsatisfactory if we did it purely for the benefit of society as a whole.
  There is also the question of blight. Everyone realises that there will be an enormous fight over the level of compensation, and that this will be a very unpleasant experience. Because it is so unpleasant, the people who might otherwise be prepared to purchase the property shy away from doing so, and its occupant is left to suffer alone, often for many years—it may even be as many as 20—from the time.of the first mention of a scheme until the completion of the acquisition.
  We must therefore take an entirely fresh view of compensation. We must look in a very bold way at what

  865
  we should offer the man in the street to acquire his interest. We should be considering as much as 50 per cent. over the odds for someone whose property is going to be acquired. If we were going to offer such people 50 per cent. more, there would be no incentive to move out of their houses in advance of acquisition; they would be happy to stay there until the property was needed by the authority acquiring it. So the question of blight could not arise; they would be happy to carry on improving their property as long as they were in it.
  Mr. Steen: One of the problems in this country is that we are very mean when it comes to compensation, and that is why people are so resistant to new developments; they refuse to go, because they are not paid properly. If they were only given proper compensation when they lost their homes, as such people are in other European countries, we could get on with public developments much faster.
  Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he has anticipated what I was going to say. A scheme is entered into because Government Departments believe that people will expect a return of 20 per cent. a year on the money that has been laid out. People fight so hard to prevent a scheme because they know that they will experience aggravation. Clearly the delay costs the community a lot of money.
  We should give 50 per cent. extra by way of compensation on top of the open market value as an alternative to home loss payments, so that people would have a choice between the two. The majority would prefer to take the 50 per cent., and would therefore take an entirely different view of being dispossessed.
  What would such a scheme cost? If 50 per cent. were added to the 20 per cent. of land costs in London, it would mean an additional 10 per cent. on the total cost. If a scheme had to pay for itself within five years and was introduced six months early, it would have paid for itself. If it had been introduced many years before, the venom would have gone out of the protest movement. Society would be better off and the cost to the taxpayer would be much less. Elsewhere, the scheme needs to be introduced only three months early for it to be worth paying for.
  Many schemes are required as a matter of urgency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) faces enormous problems with the construction of the north circular, and many other hon. Members also face problems with roads and railways. People whose property is to be taken from them, suffer the constant problem of how to make ends meet and how to buy another property to meet their needs. They would have a different attitude if society were prepared to pay the proper rate.
  If the 50 per cent. were paid, the taxpayer would be much better off and everything would happen much more quickly. As 1992 approaches, we must compete with the rest of Europe. If we do not tackle the problem quickly and sensibly, we shall be left behind, and it will be entirely our fault.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the Bill, and the opportunity for Parliament to discuss a matter which has not been able to amass much parliamentary time. I introduced a Bill on planning a year ago and I hope that
  866
  the Government have had the opportunity to study it. Some of the issues dealt with in that Bill are covered in this legislation.
  I pay tribute to the local planning authority in Leicester, to the director of planning, John Dean, who is a former president of the Royal Town Planning Institute, to his two deputies, Christopher Gere and Tony Davidson, and to the chair of planning, Colin Grundy. They make a fine team. Although hon. Members are keen to be involved in planning, we perhaps back off when the issues become a little too controversial, saying that it is for the local authorities to deal with them. I do not agree. Although planning issues are dealt with by local authorities and local councillors, they directly affect the work of the hon. Members who represent the areas.
  I want to deal with a number of issues and cite the developers as the true villains of planning in Leicester. In various ways, they have sought to subvert and undermine the way in which the planning authority operated. I welcome the Bill as an important step towards controlling the way in which developers have operated in Leicester. If I can convince my colleagues, I propose to table amendments which I hope that the Government will accept. I wish to name the amendments after building firms and developers who have sought to make the lives of my constituents a misery.
  I propose to table a Jelsons amendment, named after the firm which sought to cause misery for the residents of Vicarage lane and Stanley road in the Humberstone area of my constituency. Jelsons sought to build a number of homes in the middle of Humberstone Garden City, against the wishes of the local people. The application was turned down by the local authority, but before the matter reached appeal, Jelsons sent in the bulldozers and completely destroyed the land in question.
  Mr. Lomax, a local authority officer, has written a long letter to the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in which he sets out a history of the builders who have destroyed land between the time that an application is turned down and the time that an appeal is heard. Stronger powers should be given to local authorities to prevent such disgraceful and irresponsible activities. By the time an appeal was heard in the Jelsons case, the land had changed, so the arguments of local residents who said that it was a wildlife area could not be sustained. In the end, however, the inspector sensibly accepted my views and those of the residents, and dismissed Jelsons' appeal.
  I also propose to table the Barratts amendment, named after the firm of developers which has caused misery for my constituents in the Barkby Thorpe area. That area has one of the largest landfill sites in the country. Between 1955 and 1972, various people have dumped waste there, and as a result, there has been an accumulation of methane. Barratts' application went before the planning committee at 5 pm today. Happily, the chairman of the committee said at a public meeting last Friday that he would turn it down.
  It is vital that there should be no further development on landfill sites until a detailed report has been prepared by the inspectors of pollution who are sent by the Department of the Environment. Until that report gives a particular piece of land a clean bill of health, no applications for development on landfill sites should be entertained. I shall argue strongly that the Barratts amendment should be accepted.

  867
  I also propose to table an amendment named after Welland Homes, a firm of developers which has tried to develop a piece of land in the Barnwell avenue area of my constituency. Again, the piece of land in question has been described by local residents as ecologically sound. They want to retain it as an open space, but Welland Homes wants to develop it for commercial gain. Unfortunately —or perhaps fortunately, for the residents—Welland Homes went into liquidation during the application process. However, I subsequently discovered that the firm can still appeal against a refusal of planning permission. A firm that has ceased to exist still has a right to be heard by the Department of the Environment. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment, which would prevent firms that have gone into liquidation from appealing against a refusal of planning permission.
  I shall also table an amendment named after a local Leicester firm called Neal Brothers, which has operated for a number of years, causing a great deal of distress to residents in the Prestwold road area of my constituency. The issue shows the current flaws in the stop notice procedure. I will look carefully at the procedure in the Bill to ensure that it meets the needs of the residents of Prestwold road. We want a stop notice procedure that does what its title says—stops the activity going on. In the case of Neal Brothers, despite the fact that the local authority was able to serve a stop notice, the firm was able to appeal and to delay the procedure, causing a great deal of distress to local people.
  I also want to table an amendment based on a constituency issue concerned with Chater close. A piece of land, owned by builders, is described by local residents as having been left as an eyesore. I went to look at it on Sunday. The local authority has no quick, specific or effective powers to ensure that the developers tidy up or fence the land. As a result of the failure of the developers —whom I have not been able to identify, so I cannot name the amendment after them—to fence the land, people are dumping bricks and other debris, and causing a nuisance to local residents.
  I hope that amendments will be tabled to make it abundantly clear to local authorities that, if they plan a road through a city or a town, they should ensure that they decide where the road will finish before they begin work on it. The A46-A47 link road links into the eastern distributor road in the eastern part of my constituency. It has been achieved through various stages.
  The local authority has spent £ 2 million on building the first part of the road up to Hungerton boulevard, but it has not decided where the third part of the road will go. It has not decided whether heavy lorries will be asked to go down Spencefield lane or Goodwood road. The result is that there is no end to the road, which was begun several years ago. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has laughed and smirked throughout my speech, but these are serious matters, and I hope that the Government will take them on board.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I listened with care to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I do not share his general distaste for developers, but I can understand the apprehension that large developers cause when they cast covetous eyes on rural areas where there have been improvements in major road schemes. I am fond
  868
  of suggesting in speeches from time to time that, in the south-east, we face the danger of Orpington creeping yard by yard to the Kent and Sussex coast, thereby destroying the fabric of the rural community. I hope that that will never be the case.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the proposal to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system, following the Carnwath report, which illustrated clearly the problems that local planning authorities meet in enforcing planning control. The Bill contains many important measures, not least of which are the lifting of the six-month limit for prosecuting an applicant who makes a false declaration, the rationalisation of secondary legislation governing development control and the power for local authorities to impose after-care conditions on landfill sites. Yet in one significant area, the Bill does not appear to go far enough. That as my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said earlier, with enforcement when unauthorised development is deliberately and cynically carried on in flagrant breach of the spirit and letter of planning controls.
  The problem of enforcement has been addressed by the District Planning Officers Society in its helpful paper, which has been circulated to hon. Members. Nobody knows better than planning officers just how frustrating it is not to be able to bring persistent planning offenders to account when stop notices cannot prohibit activity pending an enforcement appeal and when the use of injunctions is costly and of limited effectiveness in that they can halt, but cannot remove, the offending development.
  The paper of the District Planning Officers Society, to which the district planning officer of Wealden district council contributed, includes among its illustrative case studies a notorious eyesore—an entirely unlawful development at Gladwish farm in my constituency, between the villages of Ninfield and Catsfield. In its paper, the society referred to Gladwish farm as
  "the Caravan Park in the Meadow."
  That is the euphemism which is applied in this case.
  I do not wish to amend the Bill to allow unwitting offenders, who have fallen foul of the planning laws by some minor technicality, to be leant on with the threat of court action. However, it is important to consider whether persistent contravention, such as that at Gladwish farm, should be made a punishable offence. That is not the case at present. At Gladwish farm, quarter-acre plots are being sold by the dozen as agricultural land, but at prices that reflect a different intended use, to individual purchasers who promptly use the plots as sites for caravans and for a variety of sheds and similar structures.
  The land at Gladwish farm overlaps the boundaries of Wealden and Rother district councils. Along with the Wealden planning officer, the chief executive and the planning officer of Rother, and a number of elected members of both councils, have been helpful in trying to tackle the problem. One of the main difficulties that both councils face at Gladwish farm is obtaining information. As Rother district council puts it:
  "Many of the plots are uninhabited when a site visit is made, and it is not always easy to determine who owns/occupies a particular plot. Current enforcement notice procedures require that a notice be served on all persons with an interest in the land. If correct procedures are not followed there is always the danger of a notice being quashed on

  869
  appeal. This often leads to complaints that the Council is not taking action quickly enough to remedy the breach of planning control."
  For those reasons, the development at Gladwish farm highlights a number of weaknesses in the present enforcement system, which are summarised as follows:
  "The difficulty in establishing the owner/occupier of the land. The problems with identifying the actual breach of planning control eg. if an occupier of caravan states it is only used for storage and not for human habitation it is very difficult to prove otherwise.
  The inability of the planning system to allow for stop notices to be served in respect of dwellings and caravans used as a person's main residence.
  The fact that even if a stop notice can be served, the liability to pay compensation renders it very unlikely that such a process will be used.
  The length of time an appeal against an enforcement notice takes to determine, … The lack of a quick remedy once a notice is upheld."
  For all those reasons, Mr. Gladwish continues to have a field day—no pun intended—and encourages prospective purchasers of his quarter-acre plots with deferred payment schemes involving a down payment of just £ 300 to become a landowner. He suggests to them that they do not have to have a solicitor if they do not wish to and that he can handle the business by himself.
  Wealden, in whose area the greater part of the farm lies, reports:
  "Enforcement notices have been served in 34 cases regarding unauthorised caravans or structures. These have been served upon the 'owners' and also upon Mr. Gladwish. In every case, an appeal has been lodged. In total 84 appeals against the service of Notices have been received (34 appeals by Mr. Gladwish, 50 from other individuals)."
  On a recent visit to the site by enforcement officers, there were on the site 20 caravans and one double-decker bus, all of which were occupied, 25 unoccupied caravans and a burnt-out caravan chassis. When I drove past the site while travelling between Battle and Bexhill over the weekend, there was also a large amount of funfair machinery on the site. It seems to be a high old example of a problem that needs to be tackled.
  It is more than two years since the agricultural land at Gladwish farm was made over to this bizarre, wholly illegal and rather unsightly scheme. During that period, the officers and members of both councils have been as resourceful as possible within the scope of existing legislation in their attempts to prohibit unlawful development. That they have not succeeded has not been for want of trying. To their understandable frustration, the public have grown impatient of their apparent failure to put a stop to a highly visible blot on the Sussex landscape. Local residents feel threatened and, in some cases, have been menaced by the individuals who inhabit some of those caravans. Unauthorised access has been made to a busy main road between Bexhill and Battle, but nothing decisive can be done without inordinate delays.
  Although I welcome the Bill, I hope that Ministers will not forget the lessons of Gladwish farm when they take the Bill on to its Committee stage.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: I have no problem with caravans in my consitituency at present. Could not the planning authority serve a blanket notice on all the owners rather than on individual owners?
  870
  I do not know the Bexhill and Battle area, and perhaps planning permission was given. If the land was previously agricultural, planning permission for agricultural land may have been granted. I should have thought that a common order would have sufficed but I rely on the Minister's expertise.
  Planning has always been a problem, not only for local councils but for Members of Parliament. I have become a little reluctant to argue about planning, because I have found out, over a long period, that there are no winners —someone always loses. I learned a lesson from the Poulson case and have since kept planning application problems at arm's length. Many people became innocently involved in that case and I always keep it at the back of my mind.
  More information on planning should be made available to those who will be affected by the granting of planning permission. Local authorities and other planning authorities often keep information under their hats—per-haps not intentionally—and give only the minimum amount that they are required to give, so the matter often turns sour.
  The Coal Mining Subsidence Bill could affect planning in areas affected by subsidence. Searches could provide more details on problems that may arise in the future. In my constituency at present, there is a problem of methane emissions and landfill sites. It would be wrong to go into detail, because the case of those who have bought houses in that area could be blighted if I did so. I prefer not to name any part of the site until the case has been resolved, but I cannot help feeling that, had more information been required before planning permission was granted, about the type of site on which the houses were to be built and the nature of the land adjacent to that site, some of the present occupiers would not be in such a position. Nor would the local authority be faced with what is proving to be an expensive and long-drawn-out problem in trying to get rid of the methane.
  Something must be done about such problems and future planning applications should require more information to be provided about the area in which a development is to take place, the existing ground works, and whether there is a landfill site in the vicinity. It is fine for developers—they are in the business of developing— but when they go away and people start to make inquiries, the developers simply say, "It is not our fault: we did our job and built the houses. It is now a local authority problem." The problem eventually falls on the poll tax payers. The provision of all such information should be mandatory before planning applications are approved.
  Rural areas present different problems, especially at present, because people want to build homes where they have never been built before. Moreover, people who have lived in rural areas for decades encounter problems when they want to extend their homes, because they are not allowed to do so in green-belt areas. I was one of many hon. Members who embraced lovingly the green belt policy but now find that we must look at constituency problems from a different angle. My constituents complain that they want to build an extension or an extra house for their families. If the building is for agricultural purposes, that is fine, but they are not allowed to build for residential purposes. The Bill could take those matters into consideration.
  The Bill should also consider the right to object. When a planning application is turned down, the applicant has a

  871
  right to appeal to the Secretary of State, but if the local authority grants planning permission, those affected by the development have no right to approach the Secretary of State. That seems to be wrong.
  In my constituency, 90 per cent. of the workplace was underground because it was a mining district. We were happy to have a marvellous green belt policy because all the jobs were underground. Now, however, the collieries have gone and it is a different ball game. All new jobs involve building on the green belt and developers will build there only if the infrastructure is right. After so many decades of embracing the green belt policy, I now tell my constituents that I must take a different approach if we are to attract industry to the area and overcome our 15 or 16 per cent. unemployment rate. I do not like doing that, but it is the only practical thing to do.
  However, under the current system, the people who do not agree with me about granting planning permission have no right to object. Where can they go if the council and I agree that permission should be granted? All they can do is to set up a fighting fund so that barristers can object on their behalf. That system is wrong. There should be an avenue whereby they have the right to put their objections to the Secretary of State; that is only justice.
  During the passage of the Water Act 1989, I raised an issue about the pollution of the Rivers Dearne and Don from the workings of the Bullhouse colliery. The Minister in charge of the Bill promised to come back to me and say how that could he dealt with under planning regulations. I did not think that he could do so and, as he has not yet come back, I have turned out to be right. Any solution would be expensive and I raised the issue then because of the possibility of finance from the local authority, the Government and British Coal. The Government should consider such retrospective problems.
  The Bill should also consider the problem of partly developed sites. These days, people often overstretch their finances and go bankrupt, leaving a half-finished site with unmade roads and unfinished sewers. The local authority can do nothing about it and has no choice but to spend its money to tidy up the site for local residents. If the firm has gone bankrupt, it will have nothing to add. Unless the receivers can quickly find somebody else, there is a tendency for the site to become derelict and the rest of the houses to become blighted.
  It is wrong that a person should be able to develop a new site without taking into consideration dwellings that already exist. If there is a private bungalow site and a developer wants to build two and three-storey houses, it would break up the district—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon..Gentleman has run out of time.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: At the outset I declare two interests. I am a tax adviser to the Building Employers Confederation and I own some land and redundant farm buildings. However, my contribution will deal largely with matters which have come to my attention as a constituency Member.
  I welcome the Bill for a variety of reasons, not least because it enables us to examine in detail the planning system as it has developed. From my constituency experience of the past four years, I believe that the system is generally working satisfactorily. As my hon. Friend the
  872
  Minister will have seen from his recent visit, viewed from the railway, the Taunton skyline is acceptable. Only one modern building rivals the medieval church towers of Taunton—a development of Government offices. On the whole, the skyline has not been spoilt, and in the country areas there is generally harmony between development needs and the preservation of the countryside.
  I shall concentrate on three aspects of planning: enforcement, consistency and democracy. First, with regard to enforcement, various hon. Friends have raised the issue of criminalisation. As hon. Members, a number of cases are brought to our attention. I cannot give any particularly lurid examples of blots on the landscape, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) did, but I know of a number of cases, such as roof extensions which destroy or limit the view for next door neighbours, the illegal establishment of vehicle dumping yards and other nuisances. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) mentioned the building of houses 1·5 m higher than planned, with intrusive windows. I know of such a case in the Staplegrove district of Taunton.
  I support further enforcement and the proposal made by Sane Planning in the South East that there should be a general duty of enforcement enacted on local authorities, which have too often in the past been reluctant to take action against even flagrant breaches of planning control. However, someone who is well experienced in running the planning system recently advised me that "magistrates are odd when it comes to planning: and tend to believe that a property owner should be allowed to do what he wants with his property". As we examine the issue in Committee, we should weigh up that aspect.
  Secondly, with regard to consistency, in our constituencies we encounter a variety of applications for barn conversions or the establishment of single caravan sites for individuals needed to work in the local economy, not always connected with farming. We would expect local authorities and planning authorities, including the Exmoor national park planning authority in my constituency, to operate with some consistency. That subject is linked to the proposal in the Bill to prevent vexatious repetition of planning applications.
  Will the Minister say whether the measures in the Bill will prohibit the applicant from submitting the same or a broadly similar application during a two-year period, or is that matter left to the local authority? A 'number of us want to see a total ban on the application coming forward within the two-year period. There have been cases in which applications which have been turned down by local authorities are agreed by the local authority a year later due to influence, pressure or persuasion being brought to bear. That is one of the weaknesses of our planning system, particularly at the lower levels.
  With regard to consistency I, too, must mention a matter raised by a number of other hon. Members—that of gipsies. Taunton Deane district council, like many others, has complained that the planning system permits gipsies to develop sites when other citizens are prohibited from doing so. The best example involves Bishop's Hull in my constituency. In 1985, before I was elected, someone asked for permission to establish a caravan site. It was turned down and the applicant lost on appeal. Shortly after that, a gipsy applied for a caravan site. He was turned down by the authority, but won on appeal to the Department because he was a gipsy. That is a scandal. I

  873
  hope that we can pursue this problem. Since I was elected similar cases have arisen involving neighbouring sites in the village of North Curry and Ford Street, near Wellington in my constituency.
  I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I also raise the scandal of the long delay involving the Middlezoy gipsy encampment application, about which I have asked questions in the House. Last July, a constituent wrote to me saying that the inquiry had been completed in March 1989. Residents were not only still awaiting the Secretary of State's decision on the inspector's recommendations, but all inquiries had been fobbed off for months with assurances that the result would soon come. That was in July last year. This month—March 1991—we shall celebrate the second anniversary of the inquiry's completion. We should have a major celebration of that remarkable event. It is disgraceful that development and the planning system with regard to gipsies in the east part of my constituency should be jeopardised by this delay.
  Thirdly, on democracy, I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking action on deemed planning permission. My constituents lobbied the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), strongly on the subject because ill feeling had been caused when the county council used its ownership of a site in South road, Taunton to deem itself planning permission for a school. There was a good case for the educational reorganisation in the town and I shared the doubts of the county council about alternative sites, but the process was undemocratic. That is why we are pleased that the Government are now taking action to sort out deemed planning permission.
  Another issue related to democracy is being tackled by recent ministerial circulars, but I should be grateful if the Minister could comment if he has time. Great ill feeling was caused in Hatch Beauchamp in my constituency in 1987 and 1988. A site was allocated in the local plan, there were numerous objections from villagers and the local authority said that there would be an inquiry. But before that inquiry began, a developer entered an application, which the local authority could not resist because it could not be faulted on planning grounds. That was a negation of democracy, because there was no way in which the objections could be entertained as the inquiry had not been held. Will that matter be addressed? We do not want to be placed in the same position in relation to the West Deane local plan which now involves the western part of my constituency.
  I support the proposals made by Sane Planning in the South East for better notices and information, and a longer period for publicity. It suggests that it might be helpful to extend the statutory period for public comment to 28 days. One such case occured in, I think, Wiveliscombe in my constituency. Notices were published just before Christmas and before people could become aware of what was happening, the time allocated for public comment had elapsed. That is not satisfactory. If the planning system is to work satisfactorily, it must be seen to work by parish councils and by constituents.
  I am delighted that the Department and the Secretary of State now regard county councils as retaining a role in structure planning. It is important that the sub-regional element and the role of district councils should be
  874
  co-ordinated. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) was far wide of the mark when he said that the whole of the south-west should be run by regional planning from Bristol.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) referred to gipsy sites. Hon. Members will recall that we had a debate six or seven months ago on the designation of sites for gipsy encampments, during which the Minister promised that the matter would be pursued and that local authorities which had designated sites would be asked to get on with developing them, while those which had not would be persuaded to produce or prepare sites in their area. It is disappointing that, in today's debate on planning, hon. Members have again pursued the issue of caravan sites when promises were made about sites six or seven months ago. Hopefully, the Government will take notice of the anxieties expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on the matter, the provision of sites will be speeded up and we shall see some progress.
  I am worried not by what is in the Bill, but about what is not in it. We must welcome the updating of some planning laws, but I am worried about the law on change of use. There are statutory obligations on change of use, but if a challenge is made, it is for the applicant to prove that a property was used for the current trade as from 1 April 1964.
  I can give an example. A person purchased a grocery business 18 years ago, which had a business selling hot and cold sandwiches attached to it. That person wanted to sell the business to someone who wanted to turn it into primarily a hot food takeaway business. The person who was selling the business had to prove that it was a hot food takeaway on 1 April 1964, and it was difficult to prove that after such a long time. The law on change of use should be updated.
  If the Bill is to make provisions that will work for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century, we should consider issues which give rise to anxiety. Reference has been made more than once to the vexed question of third-party concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred to that, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) during the Minister's speech. The Minister said that it was generally accepted that members of the planning authorities represented local communities.
  If there are anxieties about a planning application which may be approved by the planning authority, aggrieved people who live in the area which will be affected have no redress. That significant and important matter should be addressed in Committee.
  I have no doubt that many planning authorities represent their constituents' interests, but the structure of local authority planning procedures, especially in shire counties where counties are responsible for strategic plans, is such that the centre of administration may be remote from the areas affected by a planning proposal which is causing concern. Constituents may feel that their case is not being properly presented. Therefore, there is a justification for considering third-party concern.
  I understand that, in another place, third-party concern was raised, but the problem, examples of which were given from many areas, was not resolved. I hope that

  875
  consideration will be given in Committee to people who may be genuinely aggrieved by a planning decision but have no recourse to the Secretary of State.
  Perhaps the Minister would consider one proviso. If a planning application before a local authority requires an environmental statement—which must be drawn up as part of a public exercise—the Secretary of State has the right and the responsibility to make a judgment on the environmental factors. If it is possible that environmental problems could be created by the proposed development, there could be a public inquiry. Against that background, local people could have an input into a planning application which is causing anxiety in a community.
  Perhaps we should also consider in greater depth when an environmental study should be made of the effects of a planning application. We should also address the need to consult parish councils, town councils and the com-munities which will be affected by any problems that may develop. While planning authorities have a statutory responsibility to consult parish councils, there is a general feeling in communities that it is simply a question of tolerance, and that meaningful consultation is not undertaken.
  The Committee should consider the possibility of strengthening the role of parish councils, town councils and the community councils in Wales. Their role should be strengthened to give that branch of local Government more involvement in planning decisions.
  Many planning applications and decisions affect people's standard and quality of life and the destiny of an area. Therefore, there must be meaningful consultation. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, we shall consider strengthening the process of consultation.
  If the Secretary of State feels that an environmental statement gives cause for concern and that there should be a public inquiry, local people can have a say. As more information is made available by various organisations undertaking studies on environmental issues such as traffic movement, noise, dust or lighting, the Secretary of State should call for an environmental statement to be updated before the final decision is taken.
  There is some provision for overhead cables in existing legislation, but it is not sufficient to give the reassurance that people in development areas need, particularly those near power stations, where there is genuine concern about the effects of such cables. Therefore, I hope that that matter will be taken into consideration.
  The Minister for Housing and Planning referred to the importance of unitary development plans and the fact that they should be considered in greater depth by local authorities. He stressed the importance of public participation. I hope that the Committee will consider the involvement of the community and the public in unitary development plans.
  Hon. Members have dealt more than once with the use of recreation land for housing or industrial development. If local people protest about permission being given to build on a football pitch or a cricket field, they are told that the decision was taken when the local plans were being considered five, six or seven years previously. Local people should be in no doubt about provision in local plans for recreational areas to be developed for housing or commercial or industrial premises.
  The same should apply to common land. For the past three years, the Government have promised to introduce legislation to protect common land, but so far nothing has
  876
  been done. The protection of common land is another issue that the Committee should consider, despite its absence from the Bill. There is too much encroachment on common land, in many cases without planning permission. That matter should be given serious consideration and, where there is such encroachment without planning permission, immediate action should be taken to restore the land to its previous use.
  Developers, particularly residential developers, often submit planning applications and then make changes during the development of the site resulting in cramming rather than planning. New planning rules should be in the best interests of the people who will live in such areas, and should also take into account the general improvement of the area. The environmental impact of a residential development should be considered. We should see better planning and less cramming.
  It is what is not in the Bill that is important, not what is in it. The issues that I and other hon. Members have dealt with should be given serious consideration, so that the legislation will take us into the next century and provide better planning provisions for people in generations to come.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I appeal for brief speeches in the limited time remaining. A number of hon. Members have sat throughout the debate, and I hope that they will not be disappointed.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Before I welcome the Bill, I should declare an interest. I used to make my living as a house builder and I still have an interest in what, due to the current state of the housing market, is inevitably a fairly dormant building company.
  More importantly, my constituency of Wyre Forest has a large green belt which is subject to the depradations of, among others, the occupants of Hagley hall and their noble friends. We have a large road building programme —the west orbital route, and a number of areas of special scientific interest and of great natural beauty. We also have the second largest concentration of caravans in the country and a great deal of quarrying and excavation.
  I therefore welcome the Government's adoption of the Carnworth proposals, which make it more difficult for developers who irresponsibly try to circumvent the planning system. I welcome, too, the right of the local authority to ignore persistent applications and the more flexible powers of enforcement available for authorities, particularly planning contravention notices and the breach of current condition notices. I also welcome the fact that stop notices can now be applied to residential caravan sites which have been developed without planning permission. Too often in my constituency people try to put pressure on the planning authorities, saying, "We will put gipsies on the land—try and get us off if you can."
  I would not go so far as some hon. Members, who have said that they would make the contravention of planning permission a criminal offence, although I think that it is vandalism of a particularly permanent sort, but I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that there should be a general duty on local planning authorities to uphold and enforce the planning laws. If an authority refuses to enforce the planning regulations in an

  877
  area, the only way to make it do so is to take it to court. That is often beyond an individual landowner, and certainly beyond an individual householder. I urge the Government to do something about that.
  I am pleased that, under clause 18 and schedule 1, county councils can directly control the development of quarrying and waste, and can make reinstatement orders to ensure that the land reverts properly to its original condition. That is logical, given that county councils are responsible for mineral plans.
  I am concerned about a possible conflict of interest between county councils—which may not have people on the ground to ensure that the provisions that they lay down are properly monitored—and the detailed environ-mental policies of district authorities. Lickhill quarry in my constituency has been quarried for many years, and many people have reservations about the amount of topsoil that has been put on. The county council does not seem to be monitoring the position adequately. If county councils are given total control, I am concerned that their provisions and restrictions may contradict the policies of the district, leading to confusion and to a coach and horses being driven through planning policy.
  It is all very well to provide for after-care after tipping, but what happens if quarry companies go into voluntary liquidation deliberately before the after-care is done, so that they do not have to carry it out? The county council will have to pick up the bill. A strong case could be made for performance bonds to be lodged by quarrying companies or their insurance companies so that people will know that money will be available for after-care when it is needed.
  Interim development orders have been the subject of a consultation paper by the Department of the Environment. I was pleased to hear what the Minister said today. The position is scandalous. I am glad that the Royal Society for Nature Conservation has drawn to our attention the fact that there are no fewer than 1,000 IDOs, 330 of which pose a major threat to the environment.
  As the demand for sand and gravel grows with the road programme, particularly in my area where various major road schemes are about to come on stream, the threat from IDOs grows. Of course, permissions for IDOs last as long as the minerals. Brant farm in my constituency has not been developed for a long time, but with new quarrying techniques, previously unmined quarries can now be mined. Quarrying companies can go back to a quarry and mine to a deeper level, and because of the IDO the planning authorities have no control over that process.
  There is a strong case for proper legislation and for compensation for home owners where IDOs are discovered next to their homes. We should insist that all IDOs that have not been worked for 10 years should be the subject of environmental assessment before they are allowed to be revived. If the sites are redeveloped, they should be subject to performance bonds to ensure that the ground is properly reinstated.
  On compensation, I am pleased that home loss payments of 10 per cent. above market value are to be instituted by the Bill, and also that, if there is a change of use after the compulsory purchase order has been made, the resulting difference in value must be paid to the former landowner under clause 52.
  878
  On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), £ 15,000 is peanuts for many properties. For instance, in my constituency which will be affected by road schemes, properties are worth £ 300,000 if they are worth a penny. When a person pays 2 per cent. stamp duty to move, which is £ 6,000, and when he has paid his moving costs, there is scant recompense from the state for the compulsory purchase of a property which the person may have lived in for years. The compensation above market value should be at least 25 per cent., or possibly even 50 per cent. Certainly the Government should consider that point carefully.
  Tenants should get compensation for home loss, particularly if they are lessees under long tenancy agreements. A tenant may have a 50-year tenancy which may be worth more than many freeholds. As I understand it, under the Bill tenants will not be entitled to compensation above £ 1,500. That should be put right.
  There is a case for a better rate of compensation for the forced sale of commercial premises to reflect the goodwill inherent in the properties. If a person has been in a property for 20 years, he may get the value of the business from the city council that is taking over the property, but he will not get any payment for goodwill. Premiums should be paid, as in France, for forced sale of commercial premises in order to reflect the scarcity value.
  Overall, the Bill is a worthwhile measure and I shall have pleasure in supporting it tonight, if necessary, or on Report. I say that advisedly. I wish the Bill the best, because it will make a significant improvement to planning and will stop up many of the holes which the less scrupulous developers have previously ridden through.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Subject to—[Interruption.] In view of the murmurings from the Conservative Benches, I should point out that I was in the Chamber until about 7 o'clock and that I came back at 8 o'clock—
  Mr. Vaz: Do not explain to them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I feel the need to put right the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen); he has lost a few moments of time because I had to do that. It will be his own fault if he fails to be called.
  There is much to be welcomed in the Bill. Apart from a few provisions that we should like to see amended, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, the major problems are the matters that have been omitted, particularly when we bear in mind the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". I should have thought that the Bill provided an excellent opportunity to take up some of the environmental issues that rely on European Community legislation or on planning guidance and notes, sent out by the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office.
  It was surprising to find nothing specific about environmental issues when the Bill was introduced in the Lords. Although the Government made sympathetic noises in the other place, when it came to substantial amendment, there were no concessions. I hope that in Committee we shall take the opportunity to make additions that will display to the public the Government's

  879
  real commitment to enact in primary legislation many of their fine words on sustainable development and on handing over a better planet to future generations.
  Specific environmental duties should be laid on planning authorities. As was pointed out in the other place, the Government charge a wide variety of bodies with specific environmental duties. They cannot argue that there is no precedent. There can, therefore, be no real argument against the Government's including a provision in the Bill to impose on local authorities specific environmental duties when considering planning applica-tions. It would strike a positive note.
  At the moment, we have to rely on a European Community directive relating to projects that are deemed to have a major environmental impact on the environment. In the annexes to European Community directive there are lists of defined major developments that are subject to environmental impact assessment. An example was alluded to in the other place. Sewage treatment plants are subject to environmental impact assessment under the directive, but potable water treatment plants are not subject to such an assessment, even though they may have as damaging an impact on the environment as any sewage treatment plants.
  I hope that, instead of placing reliance on environmen-tal impact assessment directive, the Government will, as they promised, extend its application by tabling amendments in Committee. In particular, I hope that they will carry out their promise to subject private Bill legislation relating to major developments to environmen-tal impact assessments. At the moment, such developments are specifically excluded under the terms of the environmental impact assessment directive. For the purposes of the directive, private Bills are deemed to be public legislation.
  I echo the words of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and other hon. Members who have spoken convincingly about the need to end the scandal of interim development orders. The Government have already made a commitment to take certain measures, even before the full consultation process has been completed. That is a welcome step in the right direction, and it will be supported with enthusiasm.
  I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to widen the scope of planning controls to include farm buildings and major agricultural and forestry develop-ments. They ought to be the subject of appropriate planning applications. Unfortunately, all too often ill-considered developments disfigure the landscape. It is time that they were brought within the scope of the planning law, as happens with industrial developments.
  A statutory duty ought to be placed on local authorities to approach all neighbours who may be affected by a development. Many hon. Members have referred to the problems caused when neighbours feel that their views have been ignored during the planning application procedure. It leads to bad feeling. Perhaps planning decisions are then coloured by bad feeling between personalities rather than the issues involved being considered dispassionately.
  The Government ought to make a commitment to allow third-party planning appeals. After a planning application has been approved, people with a clear interest in the development ought to have the right to appeal, in just the same way as developers have the right to appeal when a planning permission application is refused.
  880
  On common land, I ask the Government to look again at their last election manifesto and to table amendments to the Bill to enable them to implement those commitments.
  I do not say that a particular organisation or institution ought to be responsible for coastal zone planning under our planning procedures, but the Nature Conservancy Council's report on our coasts and estuaries and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds' report and survey of our estuaries demonstrate that there is a pressing need for additional steps to be taken to protect our coastal zones. Just about every estuary worthy of the name is subject to development proposals. Whether they relate to tourism, energy, transport, commercial activities, or a combination of them all, we believe that they should be subject to the most rigorous planning procedures.
  Even if an estuary is not the subject of a development proposal, our planning procedures ought to include the steps that need to be taken to protect and enhance the estuarial environment. Estuaries are vital for migratory birds. The flora and fauna must be protected. Due to development pressures in the south, the south-west and Wales, planning authorities need to introduce coherent plans to protect long stretches of coastline that lie beyond the responsibilities of just one planning authority.
  I hope that all these issues will be considered in great detail in Committee and that on Report the Bill will include significant improvements that will help to preserve our common inheritance.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: May I reinforce two points so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs)? They concern mineral extraction, in particular mineral extraction from the Mendip hills in Somerset—part of my constituency. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and the principal source of crushed rock. It is the nearest source of supply for the south-east—the principal area of rock aggregate consumption in the United Kingdom. Millions of tonnes of stone are exported each year. Our exports are increasing rapidly. Any measure that affects the responsibilities of mineral planning authorities—in our case, Somerset county council—is of great importance to us.
  Two truisms are well known in this sphere. If the economy is to thrive, an adequate supply of minerals must be available to the construction industry. Minerals can be worked only where they occur naturally. Modern extraction of stone creates substantial environmental disturbance, especially in such confined areas as the east Mendips. Every effort must be made to minimise such environmental disturbance.
  Under the Bill, the planning rules on the depositing of mineral waste will be brought in line with those on mineral workings. Although complex provisions will be necessary, they should be supported by all hon. Members.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the Minister said, there is nothing in the Bill on interim development orders. Those orders go back a long time and were introduced in a hurry in the 1940s to pump-prime the industry at the end of the second world war.
  Most of the principal quarries in the east Mendips, of which there are about nine, are operated by major companies in or near areas that are subject to interim development orders. Minimal conditions are attached to the winning of minerals. Therefore, IDOs should be

  881
  registered as soon as possible. The Government are losing no time in ensuring that that happens. All IDO permissions will be known to the mineral authority and to those who must make official searches on behalf of people who wish to buy houses.
  Such certain knowledge would to some extent reduce the fears of individuals and groups who live in the area that further damage will be done to SSSIs if long-dormant workings were reactivated without conditions being imposed and a planning application being considered.
  The majority of mineral operators want good relations with those who live and work in the area. In the Mendips, the quarry advisory committee brings together represen-tatives of the quarry management and elected authorities, from Members of Parliament to parish councillors, so that they can listen to each other's point of view on the conflicting interests in quarrying.
  I hope that, when consultation on IDOs has taken place, the operators will take a reasonable view of the Bill's proposals. I believe that they will. However, they may not do so if, under the Bill, existing mineral working rights are appropriated without compensation. The Government could fall into a minefield of traps if they pursued that policy.
  The Government have undertaken to review all aspects of the compensation regulations. My hon. Friend the Minister will want to strike the right balance between meeting environmental concerns and ensuring that essential crushed rock resources are supplied to customers at a reasonable cost.
  The long-term restoration schemes of quarry workings was mentioned. Somerset county council, our minerals authority, has a long and commendable record of pioneering environmental conditions attached to planning consents and to IDOs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), it is concerned about funding and long-term maintenance responsibilities long after mineral workings cease. I should like to hear what solutions, if any, Ministers have in mind and whether long-term restoration funding has been seriously considered. It will not be easy to achieve the right balance in the controversial issues surrounding IDOs.
  I would welcome a visit from my hon. Friend the Minister so that he could see the extent of quarrying in a relatively small area. Huge holes have been dug in the ground by modern machinery, and to a large extent they are carefully concealed by banking and trees. Much long-term capital investment is involved, including major public road and rail links. Limiting environmental damage is of prime concern. The long-established work force in the area must be considered.
  If Ministers cannot achieve the right balance in the short time before the Bill is enacted, I hope that they will still take the opportunity to do so, because the matter needs to be treated sensitively for the future of the environment, and particularly for all those who live in the area.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I welcome the Bill and should like to make four points, three of which are covered by the Bill. The one that is not
  882
  covered, which probably would be better dealt with by a planning policy guidance, is the vexed subject of infill, which, more than any other planning policy, has destroyed the village structure of many rural communities. It has led to the concept that every square inch of available land in a village is built on, to the exclusion of stretching the village envelope.
  The traditional broken village frontage has gone, and many villages in my constituency have only a market town high street with no green space, orchards or gardens visible from the main road. That is a tragedy. I would far rather that we developed back lands, punched out the odd close, keeping development close to the centre but behind the village street rather than cramming it into every piece of available land. I am sorry that the Bill does not address that, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take my point on board.
  My second point, which is covered by the Bill, is to welcome the moves under clause 17 to deal with deemed planning consent and land owned by interested planning authorities. I noticed that, on Second Reading in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, a former leader of Cambridgeshire county council, referred to single-tier authorities that dealt with planning. Clause 17 also deals with county and district councils.
  It is reasonable to allow a county council to make a decision on use of its own land, perhaps to construct a school, but it is patently wrong, when county councils are understandably looking for capital receipts, that they should be able to give themselves planning consent for residential development and then sell it on the open market. Everybody has to apply to the district council to erect a porch, so it is wrong that county councils can do otherwise. Of course, the boot can be on the other foot: district councils can develop their own land. Although that is less common, it happens and it should be addressed.
  There is also the problem of local authorities wanting to use land for their own purposes. I have a particular problem in my constituency at the moment. The district councils proposals to build its own new headquarters are causing considerable local dissatisfaction, I shall write to my hon. Friend the Minister about it.
  I am also concerned about the date of implementing those provisions, which is not included in the Bill. If we are to change the controls over deemed planning consent, I believe that the date of implementation should be with effect from the date of the First Reading of the Bill, which is already being used in relation to compensation; otherwise, between now and the Bill coming into force, authorities seeking to get around the provisions will cause a rush of deemed planning consents.
  My third point has already been covered several times, but I have a particular angle on gipsy and traveller encampments. We in Cambridgeshire have suffered badly at the hands of travelling people, who have simply turned up and parked anywhere, on roadsides, in laybys, in parking places and on private land without any "by your leave".
  I have two district councils—one is designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968; the other is not, but is seeking designation. As I said in an intervention, the number of travellers in the area is constantly increasing. I am not saying that the county councils are getting the job absolutely right at the moment, but the proposals in the

  883
  Bill to extend their legal powers and to introduce stop notices so that they can deal more quickly with such contraventions are an important addition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said that gipsies appear to get favourable treatment. That is a common belief. People all over my constituency are under the impression that gipsies are getting away, in planning terms, with things which ordinary law-abiding citizens would not get away with. That is not acceptable. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the fact that the powers to deal with that problem will have to go beyond what is in the Bill. The Department of the Environment will have to instruct its inspectors to take a much sterner attitude to unauthorised developments by gipsies, which are then the subject of late applications or appeal.
  Over and over again in my constituency, a gipsy has applied for planning consent for a caravan and been turned down by the district council, but has then gone to appeal and been granted consent. Three years later, the same gipsy applies to build a house on the site, goes to the district council, is turned down, goes to appeal and is granted that consent. The result is a property in the back of beyond where nobody else would have a chance of getting planning consent. When implementing the provisions of the Bill, it is important that the Government ensure that they get other factors right, as well as the legal language of the Bill.
  My fourth and final point relates to compensation. I very much welcome the Government's decision to address this issue in the Bill, but I am disappointed at the way in which it has been dealt with—
  Mr. Steen: It is not enough.
  Mr. Paice: As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) says, the outcome is not enough.
  It is a pity that the Government rejected a number of amendments that were tabled in another place. Their resistance to offering sweeteners to people who will be affected by planning applications and developments is short-sighted. As several of my hon. Friends have said, we must bear natural justice in mind. It costs a lot of extra money when one loses one's home and has to move—not just the 10 per cent. that is provided for in the Bill. There are also the other associated problems. However, the effect of having one's farm cut in half or losing part of one's garden goes far beyond the simple value of that piece of land and we need to recognise the case for natural justice.
  A sensible case for offering sweeteners can also be made on the grounds of expediency. This country spends far too much money in the delay associated with and the execution of public inquiries. While it may not sound high-minded, I believe that there is a substantial case for stuffing people's mouths with silver if it means that the development can be achieved.
  Of course I feel for those people who are affected. If my property was affected, I would probably oppose the development, object to it and take the matter to inquiry. That is totally understandable, for the simple reason that, if one does not do so, one gets nothing out of it. As several of my hon. Friends have said, the present arrangements are simply not adequate. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reconsider their proposals and stance on compensation.
  884
  I appreciate that the hand of the Treasury is firmly involved in this matter, as in so many things. We cannot get away from that, but the cost of the delays and of the inquiries that inevitably result from the objections is far too great and must be taken into account. Now that compulsory purchase powers are held by private sector bodies, many of which were formally in the public sector, it is important that we ensure that those powers are used properly. In my own constituency, the dualling of the A11 in the near future is causing big problems. I believe that greater compensation could have short-circuited many of them.
  The Bill goes a long way to resolving many of the planning problems that we are all acquainted with from our mail bags. I have outlined one or two points, but I emphasise my particular concern about compensation. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will look at that matter again.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have 25 minutes left and four Back-Bench Members are still seeking to catch my eye. The arithmetic is fairly obvious.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Patrick Ground: I must declare an interest in this debate in that I have practised at the planning Bar for more than 20 years.
  I generally welcome the Bill and should like to make four short points about it.
  First, the provisions for planning contravention notices, breach of condition notices, and the right to apply to the High Court and county court for injunctions are useful additions to the enforcement powers of local authorities. They are likely to be effective because they are sensibly based on the practical experience of operating the existing system of planning control.
  Secondly, I do not believe that it would strengthen planning control to make a breach of planning control a criminal offence. I welcome the increase in penalties for existing criminal offences, but local authorities have always had discretion and have had to consider not only whether there has been a breach of planning control, but whether it is expedient to enforce the provisions. That element of discretion remains an important part of planning practice.
  The role of the criminal law in planning matters should be as narrow and circumscribed as possible. The criminal courts are not good at handling matters involving planning judgments or estimations about planning policy and the present pattern of enforcement in planning control is right in seeking to separate all judgments about planning policy from the implementation of criminal sanctions. The system is sensible in giving the local authority and the Minister power to make all the necessary planning judgments and then leaving it cut and dried for the criminal courts when it comes to prosecution.
  I recall when things were otherwise and we had the most disastrous series of adjournments in the magistrates courts because they did not want to consider the criminal aspect of the case while there were applications for planning permission to the local authority and possible similar appeals relating to planning merits already pending. That would be the wrong path to follow.

  885
  Thirdly, I greatly welcome the changes that have taken place in what was clause 24 and is now clause 25 of the Bill. I am pleased that the Government have changed those provisions. I welcome discretion being given to the Minister in dealing sensibly with pre-appeal procedures and the sanction of costs for unreasonable behaviour.
  It was undesirable to penalise someone for asking for a public inquiry simply because that person had exercised a right. Time and again, I have seen people who were inarticulate on paper and who made no impression in the written procedures subsequently attend and transform the whole course of the planning inquiry by explaining the issue to the inspector and answering questions in a way which dazzled and completely answered expert cross-examination.
  It is important that that right to a public inquiry should be preserved, not only for the appellant but for local authorities, which often have a series of local residents wishing to put their points of view about a development. That would be lost if the matter were dealt with solely by way of written representation. I am therefore pleased that people will not be penalised in the way that was proposed. What is now in clause 25 seems a sensible way of dealing with one aspect of unreasonable behaviour.
  Fourthly, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) said about clause 17. The area about which I am least happy in planning practice and law is the position when a local authority is making a decision on planning policy permission in relation to its own land or a development in which it is involved. I have several examples in my constituency. The local authority gave itself planning permission for council offices on land acquired for a public park. It allowed housing on land that was acquired or used for public open space. Recently it promoted a hostel jointly with the health authority when it clearly runs the risk of breaching planning control. Certainly seven people will be in residence. It is difficult to believe that matters would follow the course that is being pursued if a private developer were involved.
  I welcome clause 17, but I shall be looking hard at it, because I am far from satisfied that it completely lays to rest a problem which I regard as one of the greatest difficulties and weaknesses of the present planning system.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am pleased to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), and shall endeavour to emulate the dispatch with which he made his points.
  I welcome the Bill. It is seldom that an opportunity arises to alter and, one hopes, to improve the planning and compensation laws, so it is essential that we get the Bill right. I wish to focus on two aspects in particular—those dealing with enforcement and compensation. I will begin with compensation.
  I support those who have argued that compensation for compulsory purchase should be higher, for all the reasons that they have eloquently stated, but particularly for reasons of speed in getting an application through and saving the money that is otherwise spent due to the huge cost inflation of projects. We now often have compulsory purchase not simply for the provision of what used to be
  886
  solely a public service but for commercial gain, so it seems right that the individual losing his property—not just his home but, in the same category, possibly farmland— should have a beneficial gain, as well as those who will benefit from holding the land and developing it in the future for whatever purpose.
  My right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) specified the particular problem of blight and the importance of amending the Bill to enable people to be bought out for future development of roads and, in my case, the high-speed rail link. Such people should not suffer years of blighted property, as a result of which their whole life style may be broken because they cannot sell their home and move.
  We must look abroad. For example, French railways pay 125 per cent. of the value of property. That is an extremely sensible policy. As a result, people who are about to be or will be bought out for the development of a railway line in France cannot understand why we in Britain have difficulties over such matters. The reason, of course, is that under our arrangements for buying out, compensation for compulsory purchase is far too low.
  I shall now deal with enforcement in the case of unauthorised development. Here we deal with buildings, tipping and gipsy sites. I am extremely uneasy about the improved enforcement powers in the Bill, because I think that they will prove to be inadequate. Perhaps, after much consultation, lengthy work in Whitehall and many parliamentary hours, the Bill will still be toothless in terms of enforcement.
  I have high hopes for the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, he is dealing with his first major Bill, and I am sure that he does not want to produce toothless legislation. He wants red-meat legislation and I look to him to respond to the many concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who opened the debate, has already made clear his conversion—whether on the road to Wigan pier I do not know—to the case against criminalisation of unauthorised development. I regret that view, and I shall be one of those who will continue to argue vigorously for a change in the Bill. We ought to listen to the District Planning Officers Society, which knows the problem. I appreciate that my view contrasts with that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston who has a strong legal background and is familiar with the issue. We should be open-minded and ready to appreciate the force of the argument advanced by those who are desperately trying to carry out enforcement orders on the ground in our constituencies for the benefit of the people who live there. We should give them the powers they seek.
  Legislation exists to protect the environment, both urban and rural, which belongs to us all. When an individual or an organisation succeeds in flouting those valid constraints, it sets a serious precedent for others to follow. It also brings the law into serious and deepening disrepute. People naturally say to themselves, "If he can get away with it, why shouldn't I? Is it really worth being law-abiding?" The national situation is serious. There is a major problem of unauthorised development. In an

  887
  intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke about that and gave figures. I am convinced that it should be made a criminal offence.
  Local authorities encounter a multitude of difficulties when trying to exercise their enforcement role. The enforcement notice is almost inevitably followed by an appeal which takes months or years to achieve. It is then necessary to go for a confirmed notice followed by prosecution in the courts for non-compliance. That is not cheap, and the public are paying the price. So far, the penalties have been derisory. The Bill will increase the penalties, but they will still not be enough.
  Understandably, the public accuse councils of allowing the transgressor to get away with it, and the credibility of the system is therefore badly damaged. Although some of the difficulties have been fully explored in the Carnwath report and are addressed in the Bill, I do not think that the proposed legislation goes far enough.
  I share the view that the deterrent effect of immediate court action is needed to restore proper public credibility to the system. Unless we have that, the deliberate offender —there are a number of them, and they are often well known at local level—cannot be effectively dealt with. Such offenders should be branded, publicly, as criminals.
  My comments refer to unauthorised development of buildings, to tipping and to gipsy sites. I want other hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak, so there is not time to detail the problems that we have had with gipsy sites in my constituency. An authorised site for two caravans exists but, since 1987, there have been up to 30 caravans on it at one time. That is not good enough, and it is not for want of the local authority's trying to get the law enforced.
  9.10 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this important Bill. From what I have heard in the past five hours, I am one of the few Members of Parliament who, broadly speaking, welcomes development in my constituency, and is generally quite pleased about the changes happening in south Derbyshire.
  Like the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) opposite, my constituency used to be a coal-mining constituency and many of the old developments—for example, the pits and the clay-taking which took place at the same time and in the same place —occurred long before planning law. The result was a terrible mess in much of my area, and there are now a large number of planning applications to clear the land, which cover thousands of acres, which I welcome. The applications are to clear the tips and to clean up old clay areas, and often involve opencast mining for minerals such as coal, and gravel. I have therefore experienced all the problems that have been mentioned tonight. However, I am convinced that, if this work is done, the net result will be a great improvement in south Derbyshire.
  As I listened to Opposition Members speaking tonight it occurred to me that, if they were a little less negative about some of the suggestions for their areas and a little more positive, they might have what we have managed to achieve in south Derbyshire, despite the closure of pits —an unemployment rate below the national average, and I hope we shall keep it there.
  888
  Nor is it any accident that most of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches have spoken strongly about two major issues—enforcement and delay—and I shall give them some brief, but strong, support. It is apparent that we all share the same problem. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that it is no use writing more legislation if we cannot get it enforced. We already have masses of planning legislation—more than the rest of the European Community put together, I suspect—but enforcement has turned out to be a problem that defeats many of our local councils.
  The gipsy problem is apparent in south Derbyshire. South Derbyshire district council is designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. There are only four gipsy sites in the county of Derbyshire, and two are in my constituency, which has been designated for years. We have all the powers that we are supposed to need, and all the powers that exist in English planning law to get gipsies off unauthorised sites, but it has proved to be virtually impossible to do so.
  My hon. Friends will be familiar with what happens. Someone—a Mr. Smith—buys a piece of land from an unsuspecting farmer. Overnight, a hard standing appears, as well as electricity, lighting, dogs and 24 caravans. Then it is heaven's own task to try to get these people off the land: residents will complain; planning permission is applied for and turned down; an appeal is submitted, which is turned down; residents complain again; an enforcement notice is served, which is accepted by the court; an appeal is offered and goes through the courts; and still nothing happens. Then residents complain again, and before we know it we are back in court.
  In one example that I can think of, this process has taken four years to the point that I am describing. The local newspaper is having a campaign against the district council, carrying headlines saying, "Family to be moved off their own land, says council", when there have been nothing but complaints from local residents about the fact that the "family" and its cohorts should never have been there in the first place.
  I to serve notice on my local council that, when the legislation is carried—either in its current form or, with the support of my hon. Friends, tightened up—it had jolly well better make use of it and get these people off land that they are not entitled to use in that way. We must bear in mind the fact that they are exercising rights that the rest of my constituents—most of whom pay their community charge and all their taxes—do not have and feel aggrieved about.
  My other point concerns compensation. I am becoming convinced that my hon. Friends who have said that the compensation being offered under the Bill is not sufficient are probably right. That being the case, we give the Minister notice that, as well as coping with the Opposition's case, he may have to deal with pressure from his own side. I therefore hope that he will hearken to what has been said.
  The insufficiency of compensation is one of the main causes of the unhappiness, grief or distress that attend all planning applications in this country—especially major applications in respect of public works, such as the development of the Stoke-Derby M6-M1 link road, which will go right through my constituency, and in respect of which a planning inquiry is currently proceeding. That road is very necessary in the public interest—national as

  889
  well as local. The current road is really just a country lane and is extremely dangerous. There have been several fatalities.
  So far as everyone is concerned, the sooner the new road is provided the better. The problem is that the financial and personal interests of a substantial number of people will be damaged. I am quite sure that, if the compensation scheme were as generous as possible, I could help to sell the project. I think I could persuade people that they would do well by withdrawing their objections—and there have been 40 major objections.
  However, it is not sufficient to have a good compensation scheme; payments must be made as quickly as possible. The situation in respect of payments resulting from compulsory purchase orders leaves an enormous amount to be desired. I should be pleased to know whether the Minister has any plans to make local authorities, when they are involved, hurry up.
  In south Derbyshire, many compulsory purchase orders are made as a result of property being made unfit through mining subsidence. It is typical for a compulsory purchase order to be granted and for the price to be agreed, but for the seller to have to wait several years for payment. I am currently dealing with cases in which people have waited three years for compensation, having lost their homes and been rehoused by the council. When the money is eventually paid, it will not be nearly sufficient to take account of the increase in house prices in the interim.
  These poor people have been paying mortgages and have had to meet the cost of double glazing and so on. Interest has also accumulated. When the money comes eventually, it will not be sufficient, and these people will be left without homes, without a penny of equity, and with substantial debts. I am quite sure that, if compensation were paid more quickly, many of the problems would disappear. If that could be achieved by amending the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider introducing the necessary amendments.
  I hope that many of the faults about which we have heard today will be put right by this legislation, into which so much effort has gone. The extent of the consultation has been admirable. If the Bill works, it will be a most sensible and worthwhile addition to our planning law.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: It falls to me to wind up for Members on the Back Benches. I shall try to do so in the next eight minutes.
  This Bill provides us with a wonderful opportunity to deal with planning law. We have not had a planning Bill for 20 years. This one is supposed to tackle the faults of the planning system, but it does not do the whole job. It is really a very modest, tinkering Bill, which increases compensation for compulsory purchase. Although it incorporates some of the Carnwath recommendations, it does not make building without planning permission an offence.
  I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of the scale of this problem. In 1988, there were 64,381 complaints about unlawful development. In 1989, the number went up to 74,979—an increase from 380 to 405 in the number of complaints per authority. Where else can people cock a snook at the law and, as often as not, get away with it?
  890
  Other hon. Members have concentrated on whether it should be a criminal offence to build without planning consent. I propose, in the brief time available, to dwell on two matters that the Bill should, but does not, deal with. The first is the national scandal of vacant derelict public land. The register that was set up 10 years ago lists, even today, 82,400 acres of vacant public land—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The register is already limited by a number of categories, and estimates from reliable sources suggest that the amount of vacant land is nearer 150,000 acres. The documentation of land in the register is as extensive as a large London telephone directory. Public authorities are not property developers; few know how to market the land, and there is little incentive for them to do so.
  While all that public land lies waste, however, developers are constantly exerting pressure for the building of more houses that will encroach on green-field sites—because, they say, no other land is available. That constant pressure on the countryside causes outrage and concern in the shire counties represented by a vast number of Conservative Members, which is understandable in view of the vast tracts of publicly owned land that are lying idle in urban areas.
  I know that not everyone wants to live in the inner city, but inner London alone contains 136,000 "homeless households". The damage being done to those people and their children is incalculable, and it is a disgrace that so much good land should lie idle for want of Government action.
  For the past 12 years, I have campaigned for such action. I have proposed the auctioning of public land, and I have also suggested that the land should be transferred to regional property development companies which could market and sell it, in a scheme affectionately known as PLUMS. The idea is that the land bank will not be reduced without new initiatives from the private sector, with the possibility of profits to spur the companies involved into action.
  Mention of the need to help the homeless brings me to the issue of housing and local plans. The Bill will make local plans compulsory everywhere in Britain. That is a welcome move: only 25 per cent. of rural areas, in regard to population, are now covered by local plans, which can enable future housing needs to be discussed and incorporated into an area's development plans. England alone contains 1·25 million "homeless households"; surely one of the chief purposes of the planning system is to facilitate the provision of sufficient homes in the right places.
  Household formation forecasts are made by four people at the Department of the Environment, and are based on population forecasts provided by six people at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The forecasts are then handed down to the counties, which then draw up structure plans in, as it were, tablets of stone. The counties apportion the figures among the districts.
  However, by the time that the houses are being built in those districts, the Department is revising its forecasts. In my county, Devon, 32 per cent. fewer households will be formed in the last five years of the 1990s than in the first five years of the 1980s; England will experience a total overall drop of 45 per cent. The earlier forecasts, however, have already been incorporated in the Devon local plans,

  891
  and the districts are already building houses to suit the earlier projections based on the 1980 figures. The entire programme has been distorted.
  Surely it would be more sensible to base local house building plans on local, rather than national, figures. The district council in Totnes has a far better idea of how many houses will be needed in Aveton Gifford, in my constituency, than anyone in Holborn or Whitehall. Local plans should also take into account the state of the infrastructure: that is more important than the simple issue of development. No houses should be built unless planning applications explain how the extra infrastructure is to be provided.
  It is not just sewerage but gas, electricity, water, hospital beds, doctors, police cover and so on. No new estate should be given the go ahead until the infrastructure to support the increased population is in place. In Roborough in my constituency, for example, a new estate was built but no extra school places were provided. In South Milton, so many new houses have been built that the sewage now backs up into the village. In Stokeham, so many houses have been built that the local electricity substation is frequently overloaded and the pub regularly plunged into darkness.
  Not only must we get numbers and infrastructure right; it is just as important to get the houses to look right. Often it is the shape and design of buildings that offend people. There are quite a few monstrous carbuncles on the face of well loved Devon villages which caused an outcry when first built and which still appear intrusive and out of scale. When I mention design, I am always told that it cannot be regulated, that it is too subjective. That is a cop-out. Aesthetics and design must be discussed and guidance given in local plans, so that local people and local officials have at least some say in the way in which new buildings affect their area, especially when these are specially designated conservation areas.
  I have mentioned some of the glaring omissions from the Bill, but they can easily be amended. With my suggestions and the good will and the drafting of the Government team, we can make positive and constructive progress. The planning system is crying out for improvements, and we have the opportunity in this Bill to put things right.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I suspect that, when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) entered the Chamber this afternoon, he expected a somewhat warmer welcome for the Bill. In the speeches at the various stages of consideration of the Bill in the other place, there was a much more comprehensive welcome for the legislation than we have heard today. I will come to a general welcome for some aspects of the Bill in a few moments. I will just say now that no one speech from the Government Back Benches has welcomed the Bill in its entirety; in every case, the speeches have been critical not of what is in the Bill, which we all welcome, but of the omissions from the Bill and the faults in the current system that right hon. and hon. Members feel will not be put right by the Bill as it now stands.
  We generally welcome the Bill, particularly clauses 1 to 11, which improve the enforcement procedures arising out of the Carnwath report mentioned by several hon. Members. The publication "Enforcing Planning Control"
  892
  was widely welcomed and well consulted on and, on the whole, we think that the Government have translated it intelligently into legislation.
  There has been some discussion about criminality and whether transgressions against planning law should be criminal offences. On the whole, the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is a good one—that, where the development without permission is irreversible, as in the case of open-cast mine workings or listed buildings, it should be a criminal offence. There is a logic in that. In other cases it should be a matter of simply returning the site to what it was before. The Minister of State took some interest in that suggestion. If he wanted to co-operate with us in bringing in an amendment in Committee, we would want to co-operate with him on it.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) not go further than something which is "irreversible" and look at the question from the point of view of blatant breaches of planning control? They are perhaps not irreversible but, by golly, the way things are now, it takes years to get anything done, and the way in which the Government have phrased the Bill does not improve it as much as we would like.
  Mr. Howarth: I am always more than happy to accept an invitation by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). I think that he is referring to the rate at which things can be changed. If the development can be reversed, we should concentrate on speeding up the process by which it can be reversed rather than going for criminalisation. However, if the hon. Gentleman differs from his ministerial colleagues, I have no doubt that he will take up those differences through the other channels available to him.
  In response to an intervention, the Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that the Government intended to move towards a plan-led system rather than a development-led system. We welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) took us on a perambulation of the heinous crimes committed by developers in his constituency and he will also welcome the Minister's remarks. The points that my hon. Friend was trying to make were dealt with because a plan-led system is better than a development-led system.
  Having uttered those brief words of welcome, I shall spend some time dealing with the issues which we feel that the legislation as drafted does not cover in sufficient detail or covers in a way which does not make the best use of the potential available.
  One body of opinion feels that a general duty should be placed on local authorities to ensure that planning controls are properly and fully complied with. Certainly, the abuses mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East would be better dealt with in that context. With regard to enforcement, we accept by and large that complete criminalisation of the process would not be the best method. However, we believe that an exception should be made in the case of irreversible developments. We shall seek to deal with that in Committee.
  The Bill should also increase the importance given to development plans. They should be a major consideration, especially during the appeal stage. I have some sympathy with that idea because of what I have seen in my own constituency. At the moment, the problem is often that

  893
  local authorities' planning committees and the councillors who sit on them have to act on the advice that they receive from officers. That advice—certainly in my constituency —is sometimes based on the likelihood of the plan going to appeal. It is not straightforward planning advice about what would be good for the area and about what would fit in with the local plan. It often takes into account what would happen if a lawyer took the plan to appeal and if various statements were made. That is wrong—local plans should be the major consideration. I hope that the Bill will give inspectors a stronger context in which to consider recommendations and that the process of strengthening local plans can be developed more fully in Committee. That would answer some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) talked about the opportunities for and the justice of greater public participation in the planning process. We should like to see more thought given to how people can have more say in the planning process, not because of any NIMBY sympathy but simply because we believe that there are many vested interests in development, not least those of the people who live in the area. I should like to be convinced of the case for a third-party appeal system because it would be an obvious route for public objections.
  I know—and it is fairly evident from the speeches made by Conservative Members—that although when I was first elected to the local council in 1971, planning was usually not a matter of great concern, if one wants to fill a public meeting these days, one should have a meeting about a planning proposal. On one occasion in my constituency 1,000 people, unbelievably, turned up at a public meeting to discuss a planning proposal about an incinerator. There is widespread public interest, and we must take account of that as we deal with legislation and the reform of the present system.
  We believe that a new used class should be included in the planning system and we will raise that matter in Committee. We will raise especially the question of social rented housing, which could have significance in urban and in rural areas. It is unquestionably true that there is a widespread demand, which is largely recognised, for an increase in the supply of affordable rented housing. It is estimated that we require between 100,000 and 150,000 new units a year. Let us take the conservative estimate and say that the figure is 100,000.
  The affordability of land is an issue in trying to achieve those objectives. We believe that creating a new class of social rented housing would identify the land available that the local authorities felt could be used for the purpose, and would stop the escalation of value which occurs when land is turned over for general housing use, which means that social rented housing has to compete with other forms of development. We hope that that issue can be taken up in Committee.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) fully covered the lack of green issues and of environmental impact assessment in the Bill. Given the shortage of time, I will not detain the House on that in detail. The potential exists for taking a more comprehensive look in the planning system, at green issues, but that does not seem to be covered in
  894
  detail in the Bill. The Opposition will seek to realise that potential in Committee. There is considerable potential for green issues to be taken into the planning system, and the planning system should be used as a positive tool in that respect. We hope to use the opportunities available to us to table amendments through which to raise those issues.
  In parenthesis, I want to give one reason why green issues are important, and I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton). I invite all Ministers, before or during Committee, to look at the coal dust problem in the docks at Bootle. They would then realise the enormous problems with which people are confronted. Ministers would have to recognise that something should be done in the planning system. At present, the local residents, the Member of Parliament and Sefton borough council are frustrated in their efforts to do something about the problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South spoke about home loss payments. We accept that the Bill proposes a fairer system of payment for tenants and for owner-occupiers. In the case of tenants, the maximum payment would be £ 1,500. It is unjust that an owner-occupier, apart from the compensation that he is paid for the property, could expect to receive up to £ 15,000 whereas a tenant of any description would receive a maximum in home loss compensation of £ 1,500. There is little difference in the distress suffered by a tenant and by an owner-occupier. It does not justify a tenfold difference in the payments, and the matter should be considered again.
  In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), I believe that retrospection is important and we will raise it in Committee. The Minister is committed to going back to 13 November which is, I accept, the publication date of the Bill, so the decision is not entirely unreasonable on the surface. However, some cases that have been going on for some time before that date remain unresolved. We should consider including some such cases in the Bill. My two constituents, Mrs. Reid and Mrs. Davidson who were thrown out of Whitefield square in Kirby, would be grateful if we included retrospective measures to help them.
  The Bill's limitations have been so graphically portrayed by hon. Members that the welcome that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and I gave to the Bill almost pales into insignificance compared with the grievances and complaints highlighted in the debate. I hope that even if Ministers do not listen to Opposition Members in Committee they will at least listen to their hon. Friends, who feel that many grievances are as yet unresolved. I suspect that it will take a Labour Government to sort out those grievances.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): This has been a stimulating and wide-ranging debate, which I interpreted in an entirely different way from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). My hon. Friend and I welcome many of the constructive and useful suggestions from our hon. Friends, and the overall atmosphere of the debate could hardly have been more positive. It is gratifying to know that the wide acceptance that the Bill enjoys outside the

  895
  House has been reflected on both sides of the Chamber tonight. Many points have been raised, and I shall try to deal with as many as I can in the time available.
  I shall start with the issue of enforcement and criminalisation—making unauthorised development a criminal offence. The subject has been raised by a great many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), in a ferocious speech, for South Hams (Mr. Steen), whose views are well known, and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), most of whom prayed in aid the report of the District Planning Officers Society.
  Criminalisation was opposed in the debate, not only by Opposition spokesmen, to whom I am grateful, but by some distinguished practitioners, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground). The issue was looked at closely by Robert Carnwath, who concluded:
  "the margins between lawful and unlawful development are simply not sufficiently clear-cut to form an acceptable basis for a new criminal offence".
  The Government believe that there are serious and specific objections to criminalisation. Supporters of criminalisation make two conflicting claims. They argue that planning authorities would use the draconian measure only sparingly, in the most serious cases, but in the next breath, they maintain that the deterrent effect of such a power would be widespread. If planning authorities were to use the power so rarely, how effective a deterrent would it be?
  Criminalisation will not provide a quick remedy. An information may be laid quickly in the magistrates court by the planning authority, but there may then be a waiting period until the case can be heard. Throughout that period, the allegedly unlawful development would continue.
  Criminalisation would impose a heavier burden of proof on planning authorities by requiring them to show "beyond reasonable doubt" that a breach of control had occurred. At present, in enforcement appeals, decisions are taken on the basis of the civil standard of proof, which is the "balance of probability".
  Criminalisation does not provide any remedy. Even if an offence were successfully prosecuted, the breach of planning control would remain. Therefore, in practice, planning authorities would have to take formal enforcement action as well as prosecuting for an offence, so they would be involved in parallel proceedings in serious cases, involving considerable extra cost and complication.
  Mr. Bill Michie rose—
  Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, but I cannot give way; I have too many points to answer.
  If the other provisions in the Bill were properly used by local authorities, they could prevent, much of the unauthorised development to which hon. Members understandably object..
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised some environmental issues. I should remind the House that it is already an offence to knock down a listed building. Making irreversible, unlawful development a criminal offence has a superficial attraction but involves serious problems of definition. In any event,
  896
  if we could define that category satisfactorily, we would find that only a small number of developments could be classified as irreversible.
  As for my right hon. Friend's question about restitution costs, existing legislation provides, under certain circum-stances, for authorities to take action to enter a property and then to charge the owner for the cost of remedial action.
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) when he opened the debate for the Opposition, the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and others, have mentioned environmental considerations. An environmental impact assessment is already required for nine categories of major development, as provided under European Community directive 85/337. An environmental impact assessment is also required for a wide range of developments that are likely to have significant environmental effects.
  An amendment was moved in another place to enable that list to be extended. It is already pretty comprehensive and includes, for example, many projects on agriculture, the extractive industry and the metal processing industry. It includes aspects of the fruit industry such as the manufacture of dairy products, brewing and malting and infrastructure projects such as oil installations, yacht mariners and projects for hotel complexes and holiday villages. All such projects can already have an environmental impact assessment if the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect. However, we agreed to consider the amendment made in another place, and will report on our conclusions in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned environmental assessments for private Bills. We have just issued a consultation paper on the implementation of the recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure that there should be a requirement for environmental assessment for such Bills. The consultation paper was prepared in conjunction with the authorities of both Houses.
  The possibility of third-party appeals was mentioned by the hon. Members for Hammersmith, for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Eastbourne. Allowing third-party appeals would take more decisions out of the hands of local authorities. That is exactly the opposite direction to the one in which the Government are now trying to move. We should like more decisions to be taken locally. My experience leads me to believe that, were the third-party appeals procedure introduced, a significant number of such appeals would take place. If only one tenth of the applications now granted permission went to appeal as a result of that procedure, the number of cases appearing before my right hon. Friend for determination would immediately double. Therefore, the consequences of third-party appeal in terms of the extra cost and delay in reaching decisions are horrendous.
  Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I shall not give way, as we are short of time, and I would rather deal with the other points that were raised.
  In a characteristically robust speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) took exception to the approach outlined by my hon. Friend the

  897
  Minister for Housing and Planning for a planned philosophy in terms of determining planning policy and planning decisions. There has been no weakening in our policies for the protection of the green belt. One of the key functions of the development plan process is to work out, through a process that involves wide public consultation, how the need to provide new housing and other development is best reconciled with the need to protect green belts and other vulnerable areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes account of those factors in determining housing requirements for a particular area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove also mentioned the quality of the urban fringe. Again, I draw it to his attention that only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressed that we need to seek ways of improving the green belt by dealing with land that is too often brown rather than green, thus improving amenity and increasing the opportunity for quiet enjoyment. I hope that my hon. Friend is much reassured.
  The development plan system will be at the heart of our planning process in future. The provisions of up-to-date structure plans and local plans will guide the deliberations of local authorities and the decisions of inspectors and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the development plan system will help to promote the consistency that was so eloquently advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) in a forceful speech.
  I can also confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that local authorities can refuse to determine identical applications that are made within less than two years of the date of the previous identical application. My hon. Friend suggested that local authorities might be intimidated by applicants. That is not an issue which is easily dealt with in legislation.
  Many hon. Members, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and others, made it clear that they favoured bigger home loss payments. Let us be clear that our proposals in the Bill are considerably more generous than the present provision. We are increasing the maximum from £ 1,500 to £ 15,000.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred to the French system, but that is not as generous as it seems. Although it involves a figure of 25 per cent., it is subject to a maximum of FF100,000, which at the current exchange rate is just over £ 10,000. The maximum figure that can be claimed under the 25 per cent. rule is only £ 2,500—only one sixth of what we propose in the Bill.
  Our proposals will lead to a doubling of the payments for home loss from £ 47 million a year to £ 97 million a year, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said when he opened the debate. Of course, it has been difficult for us to decide on the right level for home loss payments. It is impossible to measure objectively the personal distress involved in the loss of a home, but our proposal is reasonable. We could make a choice only on the basis of a judgment of what was reasonable from the point of view of the claimant who loses his home, but we also had to take into account the burden that the taxpayer or local charge payer could be expected to bear.
  898
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South mentioned delays in the payment of compensation. Claimants are entitled to an advance of 90 per cent. of the estimated compensation as soon as they move. The precise amount then has to be negotiated. I am not aware that problems have been caused by payment being withheld after the amount of compensation was agreed. If my hon. Friend would like to draw any specific cases to my attention, I shall certainly follow them up.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and others made a point about tenants. It seemed to us that the home loss payment for owner-occupiers should be higher than that for tenants. After all, tenants are statutorily entitled to be rehoused by the local authority. They do not face the problem of searching for another home. They also stand to benefit from other aspects of our proposals. In particular, many tenants will be eligible for the home loss payment as a result of the reduction of the qualifying period of residence from five years to one year. Many people who would previously have been excluded from the scheme will now be included.
  Mr. George Howarth: The point that I made has not been adequately covered. I accept that there are differences between tenants and owner-occupiers, but the effect on home owners is not 10 times that on tenants. It is not the difference between £ 1,500 and £ 15,000.
  Mr. Yeo: The home loss payment is different, but not every owner-occupier will qualify for the maximum £ 15,000. The majority will have a much smaller figure—10 per cent. of the value of their house, which may be only £ 4,000 or £ 5,000. The difference is much less than the hon. Gentleman suggests. In addition, a tenant or an owner-occupier can claim complete removal costs, which nowadays can amount to a substantial sum.
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West that, under clause 53 and schedule 12, we are providing for additional compensation to be paid in future if, within 10 years of a compulsory purchase, there is further development on the land that has been acquired.
  In reply to an important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I can confirm that the extra power contained in the Bill can be used by authorities to help in cases of hardship. In reply to his request for news of when an announcement may be forthcoming about possible compensation for the intensification of existing railway lines, I can only say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to come to a conclusion soon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) rightly drew attention to our important proposals regarding interim development orders. His views on the need for conditions to accompany the registration process have been noted and, as he knows, the current consultation exercise ends on Friday.
  I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) that we have recently commissioned research on the important subject of whether performance bonds are needed to cover the cost of restoration schemes. I also compliment my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerset and Frome on his powerful speech; he drew attention to the impact of environmental disturbance resulting from mineral extrac-tion in the Mendips and I assure him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I will take his

  899
  points on board extremely carefully. I am acutely aware of the sensitivity of the issues he has raised, on which he has been in correspondence with me.
  I must apologise to hon. Members whose points I have not had time to answer in detail. I hope that many of them will take part in our deliberations in Committee, when I have no doubt that a number of the issues that have been covered briefly today will be explored at much greater length.
  I am sure that all hon. Members receive frequent requests for help about planning applications, planning appeals and even planning decisions, and in relation to the planning process generally. Long before I had any ministerial responsibility for planning matters, I concluded that the more certainty and coherence which could be injected into the process of reaching planning decisions and the decisions themselves, the easier life would be for all hon. Members and, much more important, the happier most of their constituents would be.
  The Bill is designed to promote that certainty and coherence. I know that many hon. Members and members of the public are worried about specific aspects of planning policy. Those anxieties frequently centre on the possibility that unwelcome or allegedly inappropriate development will take place. No legislation can remove such fears, but it can provide a framework within which planning decisions are made and enforced and in a way which promotes the formulation of policies designed to reflect the best long-term interests of the community. The Bill is a valuable step in that direction.
  The Bill is certainly varied, as the wide range of points with which I have just been dealing shows. It is also an important Bill. On many of the issues with which it deals, especially compensation, we have had no opportunity to update the law for many years. Efficiency and fairness require that the details of legislation are carefully looked at from time to time, but that does not detract form the importance of the new measures in the Bill.
  900
  I recognise that not everybody likes everything in the Bill. Many hon. Members have suggested that, in one respect or another, they do not think that it goes far enough, but I invite the House to consider the Bill as a package of measures which together strike just about the right balance; a balance which we have to strike between the needs of applicants and those of authorities, between the interests of conservation and the interests of development, between the reasonable demands of claimants and the protection of the public purse. I welcome the general support for the Bill. I look forward to a full discussion in Committee of the many issues raised. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  PLANNING AND COMPENSATION BILL [Lords Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords] ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment, and
  (b) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making payments by virtue of the Act of interest on compensation payable under any enactment or of amounts on account of such compensation or interest, and
  (2) extinguishing any right to recover any amount under section 148 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, or section 133 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including interest on any such amount.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

  War Crimes Bill (Procedure)
  9.59 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
  That if the War Crimes Bill is read a Second time, no order shall be made for the committal of the Bill and it shall be ordered to be read the Third time upon a future day; and upon a motion being made for Third Reading the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  The House will recall that the War Crimes Bill was first introduced on 8 March 1990, following debates on the principle of legislation, which had taken place in both Houses of Parliament the previous autumn—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to War Crimes Bill (Procedure) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or the end of a period of one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Mr. MacGregor: The House voted decisively in favour of action to implement the principal recommendations of the war crimes inquiry, and that support was sustained on Second Reading on 19 March, when the Bill was passed by 273 votes to 60, on a free vote. The Bill subsequently passed through its remaining Commons stages, and was sent unamended to another place. The House will also recall that the Bill was refused a Second Reading in another place, again on a free vote, by 207 votes to 74.
  My predecessor made clear, once the Government had had a chance to consider the implications of the debates and votes which had taken place, that we would be reintroducing the Bill this Session. That decision was reaffirmed in the Gracious Speech. We concluded that it was right for Parliament to give this matter further consideration. The Government recognise and respect the strongly held views, here and in another place, on the issues raised by the Bill, but the strength of support in this House was such that we believe that an opportunity for further reflection has to be provided.
  It would not be right for me to go over the issues again; that is for Monday's debate. I will deal solely with the procedure we propose.
  In bringing the Bill back before Parliament, we have inevitably kept in mind the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. My predecessor made plain the Government's hope that the Bill would secure the support of both Houses. That remains our clear objective. The Parliament Acts exist, none the less, as an instrument for the resolution of intractable disagreements between the two Houses of Parliament, and we believe that the possibility of their use should be preserved in this case. The view of this House was unequivocal on the last occasion, and if that remains the position this time, I believe that hon. Members will in the last resort expect their views to prevail.
  But the Parliament Acts place certain constraints on the freedom of action of this House in considering a Bill the second time. To attract the provisions of the Parliament Acts, for example, Bills must not pass this House until a clear year has elapsed since the earlier Second Reading. Moreover, and most immediately relevant to the motion before the House, a Bill returned to another place on a
  902
  subsequent occasion must do so in precisely the same form as before. A Bill cannot be amended beyond the purely technical changes necessary to reflect the passage of time since it was considered before. Thus, the Bill which has now been reintroduced, and to which we shall be giving substantive consideration next week, is the same Bill as the House considered last time, which it passed unamended. The House should not attempt to amend the Bill in any respect, if it wishes the Parliament Acts provisions to remain in reserve, in the event of unresolvable conflict.
  The Parliament Acts make provision for the House of Commons, if it thinks fit, to put forward suggested amendments which are not actually inserted in the Bill, but which the House of Lords is required to consider. If accepted by the House of Lords, such amendments would be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed by the House of Commons, but, if not accepted, the offer of suggested amendments would not prevent the Parliament Acts from being used to secure the enactment of the Bill in its original form, should the Lords reject it.
  The Government have carefully considered whether it would be appropriate to offer suggested amendments in this case and they have concluded that it would not. The Government's aim is that the Bill should implement the recommendations of the war crimes inquiry and should ensure that any prosecutions are well founded and well prepared, and that any defendants have proper and effective safeguards. We believe that the Bill, as originally presented and as reintroduced this Session, achieves that aim. As I have said, it was approved in this form by a substantial majority of this House last Session.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Although I have been a Member of Parliament for a long time, I have not often experienced this procedure. Therefore, it would help me, and perhaps other hon. Members, if the Lord President were to say what method is used to ascertain whether the House agrees with any specific suggested amendment.
  Mr. MacGregor: We are not proposing any suggested amendments. However, it has to be done on a motion that is outside the normal scope of debate. In other words, amendments to the Bill cannot be tabled. In this case, however, we are not proposing suggested amendments. The hon. Gentleman was probably not right when he said that he had not been here on a previous occasion.
  Mr. Maclennan: I did not say that.
  Mr. MacGregor: I agree that he did not quite say that. However, we are broadly following the precedent of a previous occasion when the Parliamentary Acts could have been brought into play.
  If the House of Lords wishes to suggest changes, it is open to it to do so. It would then be a matter for this House to consider, on a free vote, whether any such changes were acceptable. That is the right way to proceed —not to have suggested amendments in this case.
  It is against this background that I am moving the procedural motion before the House. It is unnecessary to preserve the formality of Committee and Report stages, nor do we need a further debate on Third Reading, when the issues will already have been fully considered on Second Reading as well as last year. Thus, the motion, which I commend to the House, provides that no order

  903
  should be made for the Bill's committal, in the event of it receiving a Second Reading, that it should be ordered to be read the Third time upon a future day and that the question should be put forthwith on Third Reading.
  I believe that this approach gives due recognition to the gravity of the issues raised by the Bill, while at the same time paying proper regard to the procedures of this House and the pressures of time on hon. Members. The War Crimes Bill has been exhaustively considered by this House already, but we think it is important to provide yet another full day for a Second Reading debate this as well as a further opportunity to debate the money resolution immediately thereafter. If the House remains of the view that the Bill should proceed, then I believe that this should happen as quickly as possible and without the imposition of unnecessary stages here. The important thing is to return the Bill to the other place as quickly as possible, once the statutory time limit has expired.
  Mr. Michael Latham: My right hon. Friend said that we are in untotally unchartered seas, but will he clarify one point? What exactly, if any, are the rights of the House of Lords to amend the Bill when it comes before it? My right hon. Friend referred to suggestions. Can the House of Lords amend the Bill?
  Mr. MacGregor: No. The suggested amendments would be for this House to consider, and we are proposing none. The other place can suggest any amendments it wishes and can vote, if it wishes, on any amendment. The amended Bill, if it were passed by the House of Lords in that form, would then return to this place.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is very exceptional? It breaches substantial precedent and principles of justice in this country. Therefore, it is not an ordinary Bill, in terms that I understand. The other place decisively rejected the Bill on Second Reading. The proposals before us would effectively silence the view of the other place. In those circumstances, what does my right hon. Friend believe to be the point of the other place?
  Mr. MacGregor: We are following the Parliament Acts, which have been followed on other occasions. It is perfectly appropriate for us to do so, if the House so decides. However, I have already made it clear that the Government hope that the Bill will be passed in a form that both Houses can accept.
  Sir Giles Shaw: There can.be little doubt that this is one of the most extraordinary measures that has come before the House. It was rejected by the other place. If I understand correctly my right hon. Friend, the other place can pass amendments, but he has already said that the Parliament Acts can be used. The measure is peculiar, and the proposed changes to the judicial system in order to deal with the issue are extraordinary. It is, to say the least, original for my right hon. Friend to suggest that the procedure should result in the Bill's passage through the House being accelerated.
  Mr. MacGregor: It is not original; with one tiny technical exception, it broadly follows the procedure when the Parliament Acts were last used. We are following that precedent. The House must decide, but given the vote in this House last year, the Government felt it right to give
  904
  hon. Members another opportunity to consider the Bill. The procedure that we are suggesting is the most appropriate for doing so.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend often quotes precedents. What were those precedents, what subjects did they cover and when were they?
  Mr. MacGregor: The last one was the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in 1976.
  Mr. David Winnick: What would be the purpose of the Parliament Act if it was not used when there was clear disagreement between this House and the other place, and when the Government had decided that the wishes of this House should prevail? Those who oppose the motion—they are prefectly within their rights to do so—voted against the Bill last year. They believe that those who are held to be responsible for monstrous crimes against humanity should not be brought to justice.
  Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman says, those who oppose the Bill are perfectly within their rights to do so if, for whatever reason, they believe that it is wrong to proceed with it. They will have an opportunity to vote on that next Monday.
  It is right to give the House the opportunity to use the Parliament Acts if it wishes to do so, but it is for the House to decide. It will be decided on a free vote, which is why I am proposing this procedure tonight.
  Mr. John Gorst: I support what my right hon. Friend has said. Would it be appropriate to argue tonight or on Second Reading why the House should prevail, if necessary by using the Parliament Acts?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend can use either this evening or the Second Reading debate on Monday. It may be appropriate to advance his argument at a later stage, if it is reached.
  It is important to return the Bill to the other place as quickly as possible after the expiry of the statutory time limit. I hope that it will be possible for Third Reading to be taken before Easter, thereby giving members of the other place an opportunity to reflect on the Bill. They may wish to table amendments. If so, this House will have to consider whether they are acceptable within the overall scheme and objectives of the Bill. It is important to initiate that process as quickly as possible within the time scale of the Parliament Act, and the motion seeks to achieve that.
  10.13
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Leader of the House proposes that the Bill be introduced under the procedure set out in the motion. The Bill will be introduced without change and will not be considered in Committee. It will have a formal Third Reading and will proceed to the other place.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, the presentation of the Bill raises the possibility—almost the certainty—that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 will have to be invoked. Looking back at the debates on those two Acts, I was struck by the extent to which these issues are enduring. What was said many years ago—40 years ago in the case of the Parliament Act 1949—applies to today's debate. The then Labour Home Secretary—James Chuter Ede, the Member for South Shields, said on behalf of the Labour Government:

  905
  "I noticed from the reviews in the Press yesterday and today that it is not anticipated that anything very new will be said in the course of this Debate, but it is essential that we should fully review the circumstances in which the Bill comes before us and consider again the arguments in its favour". —[Official Report, 31 October 1949; Vol. 469, c. 45]
  As hon. Members know, the Parliament Acts lay down special procedures whereby a Bill may be presented for Royal Assent when it has been passed by this House only. A non-money Bill, such as the War Crimes Bill, may be so presented where it has been passed by the House of Commons in two consecutive Sessions and where the Lords have failed to pass it in each of those two Sessions.
  As we know, this Bill was first introduced in the 1989 Session. It received its Second Reading in this House on 19 March 1990. Its Report stage and Third Reading were taken together on 25 April. The Bill then proceeded to the Lords and was thrown out by a very substantial majority on 4 June. Its reintroduction this Session is a clear signal to the other place that the Government are determined that it should be passed, even if that necessitates invoking the Parliament Acts.
  The content of the Bill is of undoubted importance. It raises fundamental questions of justice and of rights. Their Lordships rightly looked at these issues in detail and were helped in that task by two things. First, there is a great deal of legal expertise and experience among their membership. Secondly, they were able to draw upon the personal experiences of many of them during the second world war.
  The issues that were so fully debated by their Lordships have been overtaken by a more fundamental question, which we are debating today—the supremacy of this elected Chamber over the other place. The writ of that question runs far wider even than the important issues raised in the Bill itself—issues such as retrospective legislation and the reliability of evidence now 50 years old, especially evidence relating to identification.
  If the other place fails to pass the Bill in this Session, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 will, I assume, be brought into operation. That is, indeed, a serious matter. The Leader of the House was wrong to suggest that the Parliament Acts were invoked in 1976. That is not true. The then Labour Government accepted the amendments in the House of Lords on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and passed the Bill as amended by their Lordships. The Bill was not enacted by invoking the Parliament Acts.
  The procedure that we are discussing has been used only three times—on the Welsh Church Act 1914, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, and the Parliament Act 1949. It is that issue which is of supreme importance today. The principles on which the Parliament Acts are based have been debated at length. Unlike the Conservative party, the Labour party has consistently supported the supremacy of this House over the other place. The Conservative party has consistently ducked that issue. It was a Liberal Government—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may protest, but every time a Liberal or Labour Government have invoked the Parliament Acts, the Conservative party has opposed them. That is the record, and there is a supreme irony in the position of the Leader of the House today. I do not suppose that many of his hon. Friends envy him his task in creating a little political
  906
  history as a Conservative Government invoke the Parliament Act against their own inbuilt majority in the House of Lords.
  Mr. MacGregor: Let me make the position clear for the sake of accuracy. I said that the procedures that we were following now were the same as those followed in 1976, with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. I did not say whether it was necessary to invoke the Parliament Acts, because we do not know.
  Dr. Cunningham: We shall see. A Liberal Government introduced the 1911 Act, opposed by the Tories. A Labour Government passed the 1949 Act, opposed by the Tories. The principle that we support, and always have supported, was neatly summed up by, of all people, Winston Churchill. As Home Secretary in the Liberal Government of 1911, he succinctly stated:
  "The House of Commons, freely chosen to represent the electors, is the power which shapes policy and makes and maintains administration. The House of Lords, on the other hand, represents nobody".—[Official Report, 2 May 1911; Vol. 25, c. 262.]
  I could not have put it better myself.
  Mr. Latham: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to turn this into a partisan issue. Is he really telling the House that the Parliament Acts should be supported, and that he supports their use, whatever the merits of the Bill? I support the Bill, but surely it is exclusively a moral issue.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am talking not about the Bill but about the procedure that we are following tonight. We shall come to the Bill next week. My party will have a free vote on this issue, as we shall on the Bill itself. I shall be urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote, if there is a vote, with the Government because we assert, and have consistently supported, the supremacy of this House.
  I am sorry if the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and his hon. Friends find the record of the Tory party a bit embarrassing, but that is a matter for them. It is important for us to be clear about the record of the Tories on this issue. I quoted Winston Churchill. He got rather carried away when he said:
  "We regard this measure as territory conquered by the masses from the classes".—[Official Report, 15 May 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1772–72.]
  He was speaking as part of a Liberal Government. Unfortunately for democracy, he soon changed his mind when, as Leader of the Conservative party, he realised the huge advantages to be gained from the Tory majority in the House of Lords. When Leader of the Tory party, he opposed the use of the Parliament Acts, although he had supported their use when a Liberal.
  Opposition Members support today, as we did in 1949, the view that the House of Lords, unrepresentative as it is, should be allotted the subordinate role which must, in a democracy, be assigned to an unelected Chamber.
  I said that the procedure had been resorted to on only three occasions. On the first two, a Liberal Government were having trouble with the inbuilt Tory majority in their Lordships' House. On the third occasion, the Parliament Act 1949 represented a Labour Government from being obstructed. There have been a number of other occasions within the memory of some of us when, although there were confrontations, the direct application of the Parliament Acts was not, in the event, necessary.

  907
  I am thinking in particular of the difficulties put before the Labour Government on the nationalising of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in the 1970s following a specific manifesto commitment.
  Those efforts were continuously frustrated by the House of Lords.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: And Brian Walden.
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right.
  The stark fact is that it is almost always Governments on the left who have difficulty and are frustrated or undermined by the unelected and unrepresentative upper House—until now, that is. There is a double irony in the Government's sudden favourable disposition towards the use of the Parliament Acts. The first irony is their need to use a measure which in the past they have always opposed. That gives rise to a wry Opposition smile.
  There is a somewhat more bitter irony in that the Bill that the Government seek to force through is weak and fraught with difficulties and problems. Although I support the Government on the use of the procedure, I shall not support them on the War Crimes Bill itself. I hope that I make myself clear to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. Winnick: Why does my hon. Friend not support the Bill?
  Dr. Cunningham: I have reservations about it. We shall have a free vote on the issue, as we had in the past. I did not support the Bill when it was last before the House, and I shall not support it next time. There are valid reasons for my position.
  Few Conservative Members can feel pleased about the predicament in which the Leader of the House and the Government find themselves. They are creating a precedent for Tory Governments by invoking the right of this elected House to enforce the legitimate mandate of an elected Government. I support that principle without hesitation, as the Labour party has always done on such occasions, but it is a pity that that has to be done in support of a somewhat disreputable measure which, as I have said, I shall not support. I understand the arguments of those hon. Members who support the War Crimes Bill, and I appreciate that their view is as passionately held as mine.
  Mr. Winnick: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's sincerity. He has as much right to oppose the Bill as have to support it. Does he agree that, when there has been a vote on the Bill, the overwhelming majority of Labour Members have voted in favour and that much of the opposition came from Conservative Members? That should be placed on record.
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend's interpretation of the record. I concede without hesitation that my hon. Friend passionately, fervently and honestly holds some views which are different from mine.
  When, under a Labour Government, we debate the future of democracy in our country, perhaps we can at least hope that reform of the upper House—we can never accept an upper chamber based on the totally unacceptable principles of patronage and inheritance— will at long last be supported by Conservative Members.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the motion was about a very exceptional Bill. The motion is designed to set aside the normal process of parliamentary scrutiny. I was disappointed by my right hon. Friend's response when I asked him to quote the precedents for this legislation. He has often said that there are precedents, but in his reply he did not give one.
  I asked when this device for setting aside the judgment of the House of Lords had last been used, and my right hon. Friend quoted a case in which it had apparently been attempted but had not succeeded. That is not a precedent. My right hon. Friend ought to get his tackle in order and cite proper precedents. We have had to rely upon the Opposition to provide proper precedents when the process was used to a successful conclusion. Those are precedents.
  Mr. MacGregor: Tonight the point is whether the procedure that we are proposing has a precedent, and it has. There is a tiny technical difference, but the precedent —the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in 1976 —is very similar. I cannot say tonight what the House of Lords will decide to do, so that part of the argument is irrelevant to answering my hon. Friend's questions.
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is not the point—it is whether there has been a precedent in which the judgment of the House of Lords has been set aside on behalf of a special piece of legislation which has already been passed by this House. As we understand it, that was not the case with the 1976 legislation. One is interested to see that the cases quoted by the Opposition involved constitutional procedure—for example the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and the Parliament Act 1949, which restricted the delaying power of the House of Lords. It is self-evident that that is an important constitutional matter.
  This device to set aside the judgment, decision, wisdom and expertise of the House of Lords should be used only for a constitutional matter of that magnitude. It should not be used for this Bill, which involves extending the criminal law so as to confer jurisdiction upon British courts where it had previously not existed. Certainly that is an important matter. One might say that it is a breach of the good faith that everyone should have in the criminal law of this country. However, it is not a precedent in the same sense as the other cases quoted, as they were matters of great constitutional importance.
  That is why I am against the motion: in effect, it says that we should not seek to amend the War Crimes Bill ourselves. For example, we should not give ourselves the opportunity to consider how we might increase the chances of prospective defendants obtaining a fair trial, and we should not consider whether the limits set out, rather exceptionally, in the War Crimes Bill on the extension of jurisdiction should be extended.
  Many people might well have said that the War Crimes Bill that was produced last Session had one main defect: that it did not extend jurisdiction generally to cases of this kind, but was restricted to events that occurred during the war, in German or German-occupied territory. Those are severe limits on the jurisdiction to be conferred on British courts. There is a great weight of opinion to suggest that, if we confer jurisdiction upon British courts, we should confer it wholly, so that anyone who committed crimes

  909
  during the period to which we are referring and beyond, can now be tried, as well as anyone who has secured British nationality since the commission of the offence.
  Those matters are worth serious consideration, not merely by the House of Lords—although no doubt it will be considering them—but by this elected Chamber. By virtue of being elected, this Chamber claims to be superior in its wisdom and responsiveness to the electorate. As I am sure Opposition Members agree, we often rely upon the House of Lords to provide expertise and experience on what might otherwise be regarded as esoteric matters, so as to assist us in coming to a correct agreement and judgment on legislation.
  Many tributes have been paid to those in the other place for the amendments that they have tabled to Bills, especially to Bills involving technical matters. This is a technical matter—a matter of legal expertise. We have always been grateful to the other place for suggesting amendments of this kind, but in this case, the House of Commons, by its own motion, is preventing itself from considering any improvement. We are preventing ourselves from making any change that might make the Bill more acceptable to the House of Lords—which would be the proper way of proceeding—or more acceptable to the public at large.
  This will be bad law. The motion is totally misconceived. It runs against the grain of British fairness and common sense. What is proposed would deprive us of our own power in respect of legislation. That is utterly wrong, and I am very disappointed that the Government should proceed in this way.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I regret that the Leader of the House, in moving this motion, did not enlighten us on the procedures whereby the House might make amendments with a view to satisfying the other place. Thus, we might avoid invoking the Parliament Acts. I accept—and I believe that the members of my party, without exception, accept—that, if there is a straight clash of wills between the two Houses of Parliament, the will of the elected House must prevail. But this is a piece of legislation of great general, and of some constitutional, importance. It profoundly affects the jurisdiction of the High Court.
  During the debates on last year's Bill, a great weight of the argument in another place was deployed against it. That argument deserves very careful consideration. I do not feel confident that the Government, in concluding that in this case there is a direct conflict of wills between the two Houses, have ascertained that that is the settled mind of this House. If the House of Commons is not given the opportunity to consider detailed suggested amendments, it will not be possible for it to be so satisfied.
  I should have liked to hear the Leader of the House speak in his role as Leader of the whole House and not just as a spokesman for the Government, which is the role that he adopted at the Dispatch Box. I should have liked to hear from him suggestions about how we might take a course of action that would communicate to the other place the views of the House of Commons in respect of some of the matters with which the Bill deals.
  910
  There is no doubt that, when the previous Bill was debated in Committee, many matters were canvassed, and it was considered in detail. Some of the objections, including several of those to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred on Second Reading, were met. But time is very much of the essence.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the last Bill was not amended in Committee?
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is right, but provisions were incorporated in other legislation to take account of the objections that had been raised by several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  This is not a matter of such constitutional moment that opinion in the two Houses should be regarded as so deadlocked that the Parliament Acts could be invoked with propriety and good sense.
  The examples given by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—especially that of the most recent invocation of the legislation, in 1949—go to the heart of our constitution, and to the conflict between the parties. A minority party in the House of Commons tried to frustrate the will of the Government in the upper House. That is not in any way parallel with the present circumstances. We must ask whether it is appropriate to judge that the time has come for us to invoke the Parliament Acts, although no hon. Member, surely, would deny that in some circumstances it would be appropriate to do so.
  There is another Session of Parliament to run. The present Parliament, I understand, will not be exhausted until July 1992, and the Government surely do not consider it urgent to present their popularity to the arbitrament of public opinion at an early date. I do not see why we should not treat the Bill as a perfectly normal measure. If it meets the same fate as its predecessor in another place, the Government will be able to reintroduce it next Session, and that will be the time at which to bring the Parliament Acts into play.
  Mr. Winnick: I seem to remember that, in a debate in December 1989, the hon. Gentleman was very sceptical about the Bill. When his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke on Second Reading in March last year, he was passionately in favour of the Bill—unlike the hon. Gentleman, and far more than me, because I recognise some limitations in it. I wonder where the hon. and learned Gentleman is now?
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that I speak on this issue as a party man; nor, I think, did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Opinions were divided, as they are in the hon. Gentleman's party—almost as divided, perhaps, as the opinions of the hon. Gentleman and those of the hon. Member for Copeland.
  I am dealing with what I consider an essentially constitutional question: when is it appropriate to invoke the Parliament Acts? I would say that it is only rarely sensible and appropriate to do so, and that it should be done only when there is a clear and settled view in the House of Commons that its wish and will is being frustrated by another place. I suggest to the Minister that there is no evidence that that is the case now; indeed, I suspect that, if the Bill went through the House of

  911
  Commons again, the other place would exercise a self-denying ordinance—not opposing it in principle but seeking to ameliorate and amend it.
  That is the way in which the other place has operated for many years; only thus has it been possible to sustain the relationship between the two Houses—this House and the unelected House, which is so dependent on heredity and patronage. It is clearly an unsatisfactory means of composing such a House, if its authority is to be equal to that of the House of Commons.
  The Minister should test the opinion of the House of Commons again—test it on the detail of the Bill, as on the principle—before invoking the Parliament Acts. He should give it another year to see whether there is a change of mind. The opportunity to invoke the Acts remains; and, if the Government are correct in their view that the House of Lords is dead set on rejecting our opinion, let them invoke the provisions of the Acts next Session.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. John Gorst: It seems to me that this is an occasion not to argue the merits of the Bill. There is common agreement that it raises matters of morality and conscience—I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who made that point in an intervention. This seems to be an occasion on which to concern oneself primarily with the question, should the will of the House prevail in a matter such as this over that of the House of Lords?
  That really raises the question, what is the function in our constitution of this House and of the House of Lords? As I see it, each occasion on which the Parliament. Acts 1911 and 1949 are likely to be invoked will raise different questions. For me, the role of the House of Lords is basically one in which a collection of wise old men— sometimes, not necessarily always—of experience, not only judicial but in the wider world of business and commerce and many other areas, who have acquired a great deal of intellectual acumen, offer a second opinion.
  They are not required to make decisions. They can raise issues, of course, but decision making belongs to elected representatives, who are in this place. Our function is to represent, having first of all ascertained the popular sentiment. In other words, we are by definition more in touch with gut feeling than their Lordships. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to make decisions about public policy, and assessment of what is politic, necessary or expedient is not for the House of Lords but for us. Their Lordships can offer academically respectable opinions, but it is for us to reconcile practicalities. Therefore, I entirely agree again with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that this is a matter of morality.
  The question for us to decide tonight is: whose conscience matters most in our system of government? Is it that of the elected or that of the elite? In my view, it is the job of the elite to offer advice, and the job of the elected to make decisions.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 17.

  Division No. 93]

  [10.47 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert

  Ashby, David

  Alton, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Amess, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  912

  Batiste, Spencer

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Beggs, Roy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Bell, Stuart

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

  Key, Robert

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Boswell, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lamond, James

  Bowis, John

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Boyes, Roland

  Latham, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brazier, Julian

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

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

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lewis, Terry

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Carrington, Matthew

  McCartney, Ian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sydney

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cohen, Harry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Conway, Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  McWilliam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Mans, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Maples, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Curry, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Darling, Alistair

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Day, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Dixon, Don

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Nellist, Dave

  Eggar, Tim

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Hara, Edward

  Fearn, Ronald

  Paice, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Forman, Nigel

  Raffan, Keith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Redwood, John

  Forth, Eric

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Foster, Derek

  Rhodes James, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Gorst, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gregory, Conal

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Ground, Patrick

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hague, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hardy, Peter

  Snape, Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Squire, Robin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Stern, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hind, Kenneth

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

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

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Irvine, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Jackson, Robert

  Thurnham, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Vaz, Keith

  913

  Wakeham. Rt Hon John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Tom Sackville and

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  Yeo, Tim

  NOES

  Bellotti, David

  Mates, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Carr, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sir Hal Miller and

  Knox, David

  Mr. Jerry Wiggin.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That if the War Crimes Bill is read a second time, no order shall be made for the committal of the Bill and it shall be ordered to be read the third time upon a future day; and upon a motion being made for third reading the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

  REGISTERED HOMES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to
  914
  authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment in connection with—
  (a) the functions of registration authorities under the Registered Homes Act 1984, or
  (b) the supply of pharmaceutical services under the National Health Service Act 1977.— [Greg Knight.]

  ESTATE AGENTS (PROPERTY MISDESCRIPTIONS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Estate Agents (Property Misdirections) Bill that it have power to make amendments to the Bill extending the prohibition on the making of false or misleading statements in the course of estate agency business to the making of such statements in the course of related descriptions of business carried on by solicitors and builders.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  ESTATE AGENTS (PROPERTY MISDESCRIPTIONS) BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Estate Agents (Property Misdescriptions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  Green Labelling
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knight.]
  11 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: First, I thank Mr. Speaker for selecting the issue of green labelling for this Adjournment debate.
  It is the responsibility of the human race to hand on our planet in good heart for future generations. That means that each of us must behave responsibly and seek to ensure that in our daily lives we do as little damage as possible to our present and future environment. I know that millions of people in Britain share that view; I am pleased that a growing number of my constituents not only share it but act on it.
  Over recent years it has become clear that more and more people are seeking, where there is a choice, to buy products which are environmentally friendly. Since 1989, more and more manufacturers have tried to meet the demand for such products. Environmentally friendly products were at one time available in only a few specialist shops, but they have now moved into the supermarkets and corner shops of most of our towns.
  Some manufacturers and supermarket chains have sought to produce environmentally friendly products fairly. Others have shown more interest in quick profits and protecting their share of the market than in environmental honesty. Anyone who does the shopping will see a mass of green products. On close inspection, some of the products are anything but green. It would be wrong to attribute to them the term "green" as we use it now. The most that we can do is to use the term "green" as people used to use it—to mean naive. Some "green" products are little more than con tricks.
  The January edition of Which? set out some of the problems. It talked about exclusive claims, multiple claims, confusing claims, meaningless claims and unrealistic claims. For example, many labels say "environmentally friendly" or "ozone friendly" without giving any explanation of what the product does. One would almost think that the package smiled at the environment or the ozone layer. But in some cases, the product does nothing at all to help the environment.
  Other products claim that they do not contain any ammonia or any phosphates. To the uninitiated, that sounds impressive, but when one checks up one finds that the alternative products which do exactly the same do not contain any ammonia or phosphates either. The product line may never have contained those ingredients, so the claims are spurious.
  Then there are claims that products can be recycled. I am all for recycling of products, but it is somewhat disingenuous of certain plastics manufacturers to claim that their product can be recycled when they know perfectly well that in many parts of the country there are no facilities for collecting those plastics or recycling them.
  There there is the question of aerosols. An increasing number of aerosol manufacturers claim that their products are environmentally friendly and do not contain any chlorofluorocarbons. No aerosol is really environmentally friendly, however, and almost all aerosol products can be replaced with a non-atomising spray which will do exactly the same thing. It may be convenient to spray furniture with a polish, but there is little difference in the end result
  916
  if one uses a tin of polish and rubs on the polish. There are perfectly adequate alternatives to most of the deodorants and other products that come in aerosols, and these do not do any harm to the environment. Firm consideration should be given to not using aerosols.
  There has been a great deal of criticism recently of toilet roll manufacturers who have jumped on to the environmental bandwagon and claimed that they use recycled paper. That was true, but they were using recycled high-quality papar when there was a great deal of waste paper available as a result of newspaper collections. It is desirable that that paper should be collected and that it should find its way into toilet rolls. Toilet roll manufacturers who use low-grade waste pulp in their toilet rolls should be given credit for that. I am worried that there are still products on the shelves that claim to contain recycled paper. If it is high-quality recycled paper, there is no merit in the claims.
  Some manufacturers claim that their carrier bags are biodegradable. That means that some extra material is put into the bag which will later rot away, allowing the plastic to break down into small particles. I am not certain that that is a good use of resources. The alternative approach of making carrier bags that can be used for several journeys to the shops is a much better one. I could give many other examples, but I must be mindful of the time.
  It is unfortunate that some shoppers have become disillusioned as a result of the problems they face. Others want to do their shopping quickly and feel that they do not have the time to study carefully all the competing claims made on behalf of the products on the shelves so as to separate the genuine from the false.
  The Government, the Labour party and many pressure groups such as the Consumers Association and Friends of the Earth have all recognised that there is a problem. It is more than 18 months since the Government first consulted on the idea of introducing a Government-approved scheme of green labelling. The Germans had such a scheme as long ago as 1978. In January 1990, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced Government approval for a scheme. He said:
  "There is overwhelming support for an official ecolabelling scheme operating on a European Community-wide basis which is simple, flexible, transparent and commends public respect."
  He added:
  "We intend to work closely with the European Commission and our European partners to maintain the momentum for this initiative."—[Official Report, 9 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 589.]
  I am not sure how the Government define momentum, but I am not happy that, more than 12 months later, we still do not have a system in place. Perhaps the Government's definition of momentum is a little less vigorous than I would like it to be.
  In the past 12 months, the European Community has produced a document on green labelling which contains a number of proposals. It is not especially specific. It seems that the EC will not agree to a specific proposal until October at the earliest, and possibly later than that. It could be another year, or even two years, before the member states get around to introducing the labels and getting the operation going. That is unsatisfactory when Germany already has a system in operation and so have

  917
  Japan and Canada. Many other countries are far closer than we are to having green labels or a similar system in operation.
  My aim in the debate is to try to inject some urgency into the matter and tell the Government that we want green labels now. Otherwise, more and more people will become disillusioned and confused, and all the good will towards environmental labelling and environmentally friendly products will be dissipated. Already, opinion polls show that there is a growing cynicism among the public and a drop in the number of people purchasing environmentally friendly products and showing a preference for green products.
  I ask the Minister for a clear timetable for action and specific additional measures. I want the green labels quickly, but I also urge the Government, when they introduce the system, to consider a grading, starring or numbering system to show which products are extremely good, which are moderately good and which, while helpful, are not so good. That would help the public to compare the environmental effects of products, how they work, and their prices.
  The Government should also take up the question of trade description legislation. One of the most worrying things is that trading standards officers cannot bring prosecutions for misleading claims about environmental labels. It is important that the Government bring forward proposals in legislation to make enforcement of descriptions possible.
  It is also important that the label not only deals with the use and disposal of the product but also takes into account its manufacture. That would enable us to consider not just the impact of the product on its user and on the environment during and after use, but the nasty by-products of the manufacturing process.
  We must be concerned especially about the way in which bleaches are used. There is often unnecessary bleaching of materials. The Government should include in any green labelling scheme the whole process from the conception of the product right through to its use and disposal.
  I also stress that any scheme has to cover a wide range of products, including food packaging. It must address specific environmental issues such as the destruction of the rain forests, the depletion of the ozone layer, other aspects of global warming and the whole question of the efficient use of energy. All those issues have to be taken into account in developing a green labelling scheme.
  No doubt the Minister will claim that there are difficulties and problems in putting forward such a scheme within the EC. I recognise that there are problems about getting uniformity across the EC. One difficulty is the different approach to containers for liquids. Several European countries—France and Denmark are examples —have a much better system than we have. They insist that liquid containers be reusable rather than recyclable. I would look for green labels commending the return of bottles, in whatever form, for various uses, rather than a container which could be recycled. The preference of our manufacturers and supermarkets is for the one-trip container which can be recycled. It may be a glass
  918
  container which can be smashed to be made into new bottles, or an aluminium or tin can which can be recycled, or even a plastic container.
  I recognise that there are differences of approach among member states of the European Community, but that does not excuse Government inaction. I am convinced that, as soon as one product receives the Government's official seal of approval—the first genuine green label—and as soon as misleading advertisements are banned, green labels will become extremely popular and will serve to promote green products and protect our environment.
  When doing my family shopping I do not want to have to spend ages trying to read the small print on products to find out whether they are genuinely environmentally friendly, and dredging up my schoolboy science to work out whether a particular product is a safe and sensible buy. I want to be able to do my shopping quickly and take into account quality and price, but I also want to have firmly on the shelves products whose labels tell me that they are environmentally friendly and will not cause unnecessary destruction. Please, Minister, may we have a timetable for action, and can we start to take action now?
  11.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on securing this debate and on raising this important subject. I congratulate him, too, on his clear summary of the relevant issues. I am sure that he will be glad to know that, in the case of many of the bull points, he is pushing at an open door.
  We live in an age when environmental issues affect every aspect of our lives. It is not now enough simply to ask what the Government can do for the environment. We need to find ways in which each and every one of us can do our part to protect the world in which we live. Happily, many people have woken up to that fact and want to play their part. They have realised that one way in which they can do so is by taking environmental considerations into account when making their everyday purchases.
  The 1980s saw the growth of an important new force —green consumerism. As the public became more aware of environmental issues, they also showed a desire to buy goods produced by environmentally responsible manufac-turers. Retailers responded in turn by highlighting environmental issues and by demanding environmentally friendly goods from their suppliers. People have begun to appreciate that the decisions that they make as individuals can collectively go some way towards alleviating environmental problems. As the hon. Gentleman said, over its life cycle, any product will inevitably have an impact on the environment. It will consume energy, use raw materials and have to be disposed of, but it is possible to identify those products that are less damaging to the environment than others.
  The speed with which consumers moved away from purchasing aerosols that contained chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances is an excellent example of green consumerism, but there are others—the moves to lead-free petrol and to batteries without dangerous substances, such as mercury, and the increased demand for products made from recycled materials.
  The consumer market for these goods is enormous. However, it is not always easy for consumers to discover

  919
  and to know which are the less damaging products that they want to buy. Manufacturers have responded to the growth in environmental concern by making a bewildering assortment of claims about the environmental credentials of their products. Some of them are justified; some clearly are not. We are disturbed at reports of manufacturers who are making misleading or frankly irrelevant claims. Claims that are factually inaccurate can always be dealt with under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which we intend to amend—when parliamentary time allows—to put it beyond any doubt that it covers environmental claims. However, consumers need positive and clear guidance on which claims they can trust.
  We believe that an official scheme awarding labels to products on environmental grounds will provide con-sumers with such guidance and force manufacturers to consider the environmental effects of their products. It would be a system of positive labelling, showing which products had been scientifically assessed and found to do less damage to the environment than others of their kind. It must be easily understandable, so that it leads consumers through the maze of manufacturers' claims and therefore helps them to help the environment.
  The Government have made clear their intention to introduce an official eco-labelling scheme as soon as possible, which will provide impartial and authoritative guidance on which products are enviromentally less damaging than others. Consumers have said that they want such a scheme, retailers have said that it will be helpful and manufacturers realise that it could provide valuable marketing opportunities.
  An eco-labelling scheme must contain some fundamen-tal principles if it is to meet the objectives of protecting the environment, informing consumers and encouraging the development of environmentally less damaging products. First, we believe that it must take into account the impact of products on the environment over the whole of their life cycle—from the cradle to the grave. It is not enough to consider a single factor such as whether there are CFCs in an aerosol or phosphates in a washing powder, as that could ignore the many possible serious impacts of a product. A cradle-to-grave analysis would evaluate the impact of a product throughout its production, use and disposal.
  An enormous range of factors, which will necessarily vary between product groups, need to be considered, but areas for examination will include the use made of raw materials and whether they were recycled or non-renewable, energy use in production, pollution emissions during the production process, the packaging of the product, its distribution network, energy efficiency of the product in use, how it is disposed of and whether all or sections of it are recyclable.
  Such information would be used to establish criteria for the product group, against which the performance of individual goods would be assessed for the aware of a label. Only such cradle-to-grave analysis can give a realistic picture of the environmental friendliness of a product.
  We believe that such a scheme should be voluntary. It would simply provide information, but it would be in manufacturers' interests to apply for a label for their products, as all the available evidence suggests that, when given relevant information, consumers will choose goods that are shown to be less harmful to the environment.
  920
  If the eco-labelling scheme is to achieve genuine environmental improvements, it is essential that it is based on high standards. We are convinced that an eco-label should be awarded only to products that are towards the top end of what technology permits. We would also expect continual raising of standards and would look to revise criteria regularly to keep them in line with the state of technology.
  For an eco-labelling scheme to be credible, it must be clear and easily intelligible to manufacturers and the general public. Information about why a product has been awarded a label must be readily available, and manufacturers must know the criteria against which their products will be evaluated. Consumers and manufacturers must be involved at every stage of the labelling process. There must be a mechanism to allow them to feed in suggestions for possible product categories, and they should be involved in the consultation process for the development of criteria. If industry and consumers do not believe in or understand the scheme, it will not work. For clarity to consumers, a single label is preferable to a grading system.
  We do not believe that food, drink or pharmaceutical goods should be covered, as they are covered by other labelling schemes, but beyond that there is no limit to the goods that could be covered. Priority should be given to labelling products that have, relatively, the greatest environmental impact.
  Mr. Bennett: I understand the argument for not including food, but will the Minister take into account food containers and packaging?
  Mr. Baldry: As I have said, except for food, drink or pharmaceutical goods, there is no limit to the goods that could be covered. Concern has been expressed about the environmental impact of packaging, which is one of the reasons why we are discussing with manufacturers, retailers and others how we minimise the use of packaging.
  The Government are convinced that their association with the scheme will enhance its prospects of success. It is essential that the scheme should be viewed as impartial and authoritative—and therefore clear Government involvement should improve the credibility of the scheme for manufacturers and consumers. The consultation exercise that we conducted in 1989 on eco-labelling schemes demonstrated overwhelming support for a Government-sponsored scheme. Once the scheme is up and running, I believe that the Government should take a step back to ensure that they do not influence the decisions of the responsible organisation in any way.
  Introduction of an eco-labelling scheme should be an important incentive for manufacturers to develop "clean" technology. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is now more than a year since the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced our intention to introduce an official eco-labelling scheme. Since then, a good deal of progress has been made in determining how a scheme should be set up and how it could most effectively be operated. We decided that it would be sensible to involve various groups in the actual development of the scheme. The National Advisory Group on Eco-Labelling, known as NAGEL, was established last May to allow just this, and to provide the Government with valuable advice from people with an interest in, or experience of, the issue of

  921
  eco-labelling. We have been fortunate to have had the help of this group, whose members are drawn from wide-ranging backgrounds.
  In the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance", the Government said that they would press the European Commission to produce a proposal for a Communitywide environmental labelling scheme at the earliest possible opportunity. We still believe that that would be the best way forward. A European scheme would facilitate trade and prevent labels of individual national schemes proving an impediment to the development of the single market. We firmly believe that the establishment of a plethora of schemes within Europe would be confusing to the consumer and would hinder the development of the single market. A common European scheme must therefore be our aim. We have continued to press the European Commission to publish its proposals for such a scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside wrote to Commissioner Ripa di Meana in January, making that point clear.
  I am glad to report to the House that the Commission has now made a proposal for a regulation to establish an eco-labelling scheme, and discussions on the detail are under way. The proposed regulation will be on the agenda at the Environment Council next week. We are continuing to push for quick agreement on a proposal and will make this point forcibly at the Environment Council. Consumers want information on environmental questions — and they want it now. We would like to be in a position where the first labels could be awarded by the end of this year or early in 1992, and have told the Commission that, if agreement on the scheme is held up unduly, we will need to look seriously at the possibility of going ahead with a United Kingdom-only scheme.
  However, the Commission has at last issued a proposal, and I am optimistic about the chances of reaching agreement on it quickly. All 12 member states have indicated general support for the idea of a Communitywide eco-labelling scheme and are agreed on the basic principles on which such a scheme should operate.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the Commission's proposals are rather general and wide in outline, and that we need to get some flesh on the bones quickly?
  Mr. Baldry: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Commission's proposals accord with our view of what the basic principles of an eco-labelling scheme should be. It proposes a voluntary scheme, with criteria based on cradle-to-grave analyses and labels awarded only to products achieving high environmental standards. However, the Commission is proposing a much more centralised and complex structure for administering the scheme than we feel able to support. It suggests that much of the work on the development of product criteria should be carried out centrally, as should decisions on the award of labels to individual products. Those advising us from industry tell us that industry will not support such a scheme because it will not perceive advantages to itself in going through a time-consuming and expensive applica-tion process.
  The Commission also proposes that a jury, consisting of representatives from each of the member states and of other interested parties, such as industry and environmen-tal and consumer groups, should assess which products best meet the criteria for a label.
  There is thus much to discuss, but the fact that the Commission has at last come forward with its proposals, that they are now on the agenda of the Environment Council, that there is something to discuss and a broad consensus about the best way forward is all good news. Other member states clearly share our reservations about the complex nature of the structure that the Commission has proposed and about the use of a European environmental agency in determining the criteria for the award of labels. I am confident that we should now be able to work out a scheme on which we can all agree.
  The Government are therefore fully committed to introducing an official eco-labelling scheme as soon as possible. As I hope I have shown, we are working hard to get such a scheme in place as soon as possible. We have pressed the Commission to make good progress on the issue, and continue to do so. The position will become much clearer over the next month or two as negotiations on the proposed European regulation progress, but I am still optimistic that we will get a European scheme in place before too long, and that we shall have an eco-labelling scheme which is credible and which manufacturers, retailers and consumers will wish to support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in the Office of Arts and Libraries; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.

  Mr. Renton
  Staff of the Office of Arts and Libraries are employed at Horse Guards road, SW1 and in St. Christopher house annex, Sumner street, SE1. Neither has an on-site nursery or after-school child care facilities. A survey carried out in 1989 by the Cabinet Office, which provides personnel and welfare services to my office, found that there was a low level of interest in such facilities.

  The Westminster holiday play scheme operates in the Government offices, Great George street, however, and is available to the staff of my Department.

TRANSPORT

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in his Department; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department of Transport has 797 workplaces for civil servants, of which 43 house more than 50 staff each. An on-site nursery is provided at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea. Holiday playschemes will be available to DTp staff in Birmingham, Coventry, Exeter, Bristol, Manchester, Nottingham, Swansea and central London in or near the workplace. After-school child care facilities are not provided. Typical charges for holiday play schemes are under £5 per child per day. The nursery charges parents £44·50 per child per week. Net costs for the provisions of these facilities, most of which are run in conjunction with other employers, are modest but precise figures are not readily available. Departmental policy is to continue to expand provision in co-operation with other Government Departments and private employers where this offers value for money.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Her Majesty's Government was consulted by the European Commission over the grant of a £200 million loan to Eurotunnel; and if he will take steps to establish the conditions under which this loan was approved by the Commission.

  Mr. Freeman
  The European Commission has kept the Government informed of Eurotunnel's application for a loan and the conditions under which the loan would be made. Council approval is required before the loan is granted.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the new safety instructions issued to London Underground staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. These are revisions to existing safety instructions which London Underground has discussed with the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate and the London fire and civil defence authority, whose comments have been incorporated in the draft revisions.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to introduce a course by bicycle as part of the standard driving test, to ensure that drivers are aware of cyclists through experience; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  None, but a test candidate's awareness of the consideration required towards cyclists and other road users forms a critical part of the driving examiner's road safety assessment on test.

  London Red Routes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the map used in Committee on the Road Traffic Bill that showed likely red routes in Greater London.

  Mr. Chope
  I have arranged for copies of the map that was referred to in Committee to be placed in the Library. The map does not, however, show proposals for priority routes in central London. We shall be giving further consideration to these and other proposals before we undertake formal consultation on the priority route network. An explanatory note has been added to the map.

  Lower Lea Bridge
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state what features to facilitate bus services he expects to incorporate in the rebuilt roads on either side of the new Lower Lea bridge.

  Mr. Freeman
  The rebuilding of roads on either side of the Lower Lea road crossing is being carried out by the London Docklands development corporation and the borough councils concerned. It will be for them to decide what features to help buses should be provided.
  427
  In planning improvements on the nearby A13 trunk road at the Ironbridge and Canning Town we shall be consulting London Transport and the boroughs on the additional facilities that might be provided to assist buses and bus users without jeopardising safety.

  Auxiliary Coastguard Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to discuss the outcome of the review of the auxiliary coastguard service with the hon. Members for South Hams and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) before reaching any decisions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I will be ready to meet my hon. Friends to discuss the outcome of the review of Her Majesty's coastguard sector organisation and auxiliary coastguard service before reaching any decisions.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the progress of the Newbury bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the decision anounced in July 1990 to adopt a western bypass of the A34 at Newbury, the Department has consulted on minor modifications to the route and side road alterations and will announce the outcome shortly. This will be followed by the publication of further draft orders including a compulsory purchase order for the land needed for the scheme. The draft orders will be open to objection and representations in the usual way and if necessary a further public inquiry will be held. Subject to the satisfactory completion of these procedures the scheme is on target for tender invitation and the start of construction in 1993.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of authorisation for the provision of electrification and the provision of rolling stock from the Leeds to Bradford and Aire Valley railway system.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are reserving resources to enable a start to be made on the provision of the infrastructure, and are at present considering proposals for the acquisition of the rolling stock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Software Directive
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make it his policy to seek amendment to the EC draft software directive to ensure that computer interfaces do not become subject to copyright;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek amendment to the EC draft software directive to ensure that an interface is defined objectively and not by the computer or software manufacturer.

  Mr. Leigh
  The directive would oblige member states to extend copyright protection to the expression of a computer program but not to ideas and principle 428
  underlying the program. This corresponds with existing copyright law in the United Kingdom. Interface specifications will not therefore acquire copyright protection as a result of the directive. The directive already employs the term "interface" in an objective sense and does not therefore give the creator of a computer program the right to define what part of the program constitutes an interface for the purposes of the directive.

  Film Industry, France
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the provision of state aids to the French state-owned film and TV production company, Société Francaise de Production.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. Approval by the Commission for the recapitalisation of the Société Francaise de Production did not involve consultation with member states.

  Cross-Media Promotion
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received the report of Mr. John Sadler into standards of cross-media promotion.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today published the Sadler report into standards of cross-media promotion as Cm. 1436. I am very grateful for the careful research and analysis which Mr. Sadler has carried out in response to my predecessor's request and I welcome the publication of the report.

  Before I take a final decision on my course of action I should be very interested to hear views from anybody who wishes to comment, particularly those who would be affected by his recommendations. Comments should reach my Department by 19 April, after which I will announce my plans.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) of 5 March,Official Report, columns 88–89, what steps he proposes to ensure that the selected tenderers on his short list to take over the insurance services group of the ECGD have adequate capital resources;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 5 March, what consultations he has had with the parent companies of trade indemnity to make its status on the short list for the trade sale of the insurance services group of the ECGD conditional on additional capital resources being provided.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Shortlisted bidders have been requested to meet the DTI (insurance division) to discuss their plans for the business and capital requirements for the new company. The business will need sufficient capital to satisfy the regulatory requirements of the DTI and prudential requirements. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it would not be appropriate to disclose details of discussions with any of the companies invited to tender.

  Whisky
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the authorities in Taiwan in respect of the discriminatory effect of their tax regime on imports of Scotch whisky.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 March 1991]: The authorities in Taiwan are well aware of the United Kingdom's dissatisfaction. Her Majesty's Government have no formal dealings with the Taiwan authorities, but the British Overseas Trade Board's area advisory group for Taiwan, the Anglo Taiwan trade committee, takes every opportunity to draw our concerns on this matter to their attention, both in Taipei and London and will continue to do so. The Government have also raised the matter with the European Commission.

  Post Office Staff
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the extent to which the measures applicable to postal and catering executive grades, as set out in P1 U0012, have been followed in the Royal Mail's reorganisation of Quadrant.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: The appointment and, where necessary, both the relocation and termination of employment of Post Office employees are operational matters for the Post Office.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list for the constituencies of Tynemouth, Langbaurgh, Darlington and Stockton, South those companies granted regional selective assistance since June 1983, together with the amounts involved.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost. However, details of grant recipients were published quarterly in "British Business" up to September 1989 and thereafter in the Department of Employment "Gazette". The publication dates for the relevant issues of the journals are set out in the table.

  Dates when RSA offers were published in 'British Business' by financial year

  Date

  1983–84

  Q1

  —

  18 November 1983

  Q2

  —

  17 February 1984

  Q3

  —

  6 July 1984

  Q4

  —

  13 July 1984

  1984–85

  Q1

  —

  14 September 1984

  Q2

  —

  23 November 1984

  Q3

  —

  22 February 1985

  Q4

  —

  28 June 1985

  1985–86

  Q1

  —

  30 August 1985

  Q2

  —

  29 November 1985

  Q3

  —

  28 February 1986

  Q4

  —

  6 June 1986

  1986–87

  Q1

  —

  26 September 1986

  Q2

  —

  28 November 1985

  430

  Date

  Q3

  —

  27 March 1987

  Q4

  —

  19 June 1987

  1987–88

  Q1

  —

  28 August 1987

  Q2

  —

  27 November 1987

  Q3

  —

  26 February 1988

  Q4

  —

  13 May 1988

  1988–89

  Q1

  —

  2 September 1988

  Q2

  —

  9 December 1988

  Q3

  —

  3 March 1989

  Q4

  —

  30 June 1989

  1989–90

  Q1

  —

  1 September 1989

  Note:

  Publications contain details of all offers of £5,000 or more after a first payment had been made. Offers below that level are confidential.

  Dates when RSA offers were published in The Department of Employment Gazette

  Date

  1989–90 Continued

  Q2

  —

  January 1990

  Q3

  —

  April 1990

  Q4

  —

  July 1990

  1990–91

  Q1

  —

  October 1990

  Q2

  —

  January 1991

  Note:

  Publications contain details of all offers of £75,000 or more after a first payment had been made. Offers below that level are confidential.

  EC Grants
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the basis of the additionality conditions as applied by the United Kingdom Government in the context of the terms of EC grants and payments as set out in Community legislation; and if he will list those Community countries that follow the same procedures as the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  holding answer 11 March 1991]: the government take into account expected levels of Community receipts when setting their expenditure programmes, which are thus higher than they would otherwise be. The detail of public expenditure planning systems varies from member state to member state within the Community.

ENERGY

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if Her Majesty's Government will increase the United Kingdom grant to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The International Atomic Energy Agency's budget is agreed annually by the board of governors and is confirmed at the general conference. The
  431
  United Kingdom's contributions are calculated on the basis of the United Nations formula for establishing the scale of contributions to international organisations.

  Value for Money
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures of performance are employed by his Department to ensure value for money.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department of Energy ensures value for money by setting a variety of demanding financial and performance targets and monitoring the results. "The Government's Expenditure Plans Within the Energy Sector 1991–92 to 1993–94"—Cm. 1505—gives examples of the performance measures against which departmental programmes are evaluated. It also provides details of efficiency savings against administration costs. Targets relating to departmental purchasing are recorded in the "CUP Annual Targets and Savings Return".

  Mining Licences
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to review the current arrangements for governing the distribution of licences to mine coal(a) in deep mines and (b) in licensed mines.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Coal is reviewing its licensing procedures in the light of increases in the limits applicable to licensed opencast and deep mine operations introduced by the Coal Industry Act 1990.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 4 March,Official Report, column 17, how much of the plutonium arising from foreign spent fuel to which he refers was reprocessed prior to 1973; and what safeguards applied to civil nuclear materials at Sellafield prior to United Kingdom accession to the European Atomic Energy Community on 1 January 1973.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Approximately half a tonne of the plutonium referred to by the hon. Member was reprocessed before 1973. Prior to this date, civil nuclear material at Sellafield was subject to the United Kingdom's own system of accountancy and control.

  Electricity Generation
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost per unit of electricity generated at current fuel input prices(a) at National Power's coal-fired stations, (b) at National Power's oil-fired stations, (c) by National Power's gas turbine generators, (d) at Nuclear Electric's advanced gas cooled reactor stations and (e) at Nuclear Electric's Magnox reactor stations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Radioactive Wastes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 4 March,Official Report, column 17, whether the conditioned wastes to which he makes reference include both low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes arising from reprocessing foreign spent fuel.
  432
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The conditioned waste referred to in my reply to the hon. Member comprises high, intermediate and low-level waste. As I indicated, it is planned to return all high-level waste as soon as practicable after vitrification. In respect of some of the less radioactive wastes, however, there may be other options worthy of study—for example, whether it would be sensible to substitute an equivalent quantity, in radiological terms, of higher-level wastes.

  Licensed Coalmines
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he intends to revise upwards the maximum number of employees allowed to work below ground at licensed coalmines;

  (2) what are the maximum permitted numbers of employees to work below ground in a licensed coalmine (a) in any single shift, (b) in any 24-hour period and (c) in any production week.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Coal Industry Act 1990 raised the limit on the number of men that could be employed to work underground in a licensed deep mine from 30 to 150. The Government have no plans to raise this limit further.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are proposing to the United Nations Security Council regarding violations by the Israeli Government of(a) the Geneva conventions and (b) United Nations Security Council resolutions, regarding their treatment of Palestinian people.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Nations Security Council resolution 681 of 20 December 1990 provides a basis for continuing activity by the council on the protection of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories. As required under the resolution, the secretary general will shortly be reporting to the council on the matter.

  NATO
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of NATO towards applications to join it from former Warsaw pact countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None of the former Warsaw pact countries have applied to join NATO. There is, however, general agreement within the alliance that membership for former Warsaw pact countries is not a practical option. Nonetheless, the declaration of the NATO summit held in London in July 1990 invited the Soviet Union and all the other countries of the Warsaw pact to establish regular diplomatic liaison with NATO. All the countries concerned have taken up this invitation.

  Mecca Tunnel Disaster
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Saudi Arabian Government regarding compensation to the families of British citizens known to have died in the tunnel disaster at Mecca on 2 July 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any progress has been made with the Saudi Arabian Government in tracing British citizens missing since the tunnel disasters of 2 July 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Saudi Arabian authorities are still unable to trace the three missing British pilgrims. They informed the consulate-general in Jedda on 10 March 1991 that they had been able to produce better quality photographs of victims of the tragedy which may assist identification. The British embassy in Riyadh and consulate-general in Jedda have provided all available information to the Saudi authorities and continue to press them to pursue their efforts to identify the missing victims.

  Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings of the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold have been held since 29 May 1985; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There have been four formal meetings of the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold since the beginning of 1985. The proceedings of the commission are confidential.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much gold, by value and weight, is under the control of the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold: and where it is stored.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The tripartite commission holds a little over 7 tonnes of gold, in the Federal Reserve bank in New York and in the Bank of England. The total value is approximately US $85 million.

  Kurds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held with representatives of Kurdish political parties from(a) Iran, (b) Iraq, (c) Syria and (d) Turkey; what support has been offered to them; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards demands for Kurdish self-determination.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We believe that the Kurdish people should enjoy proper representation and respect for human rights in all of the countries in which they live. But as a signatory to the treaty of Lausanne of 1923, which established the present boundaries in the area, we cannot seek support for the establishment of a separate Kurdish state within these boundaries.

  Iraq
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since March 1988 Her Majesty's Government's diplomatic 434
  representatives in Iraq met the Government to discuss (a) human rights violations, (b) the rights of Kurdish people, (c) the arms trade and (d) trade between the United Kingdom and Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Until they were withdrawn on 12 January, members of the British embassy in Baghdad were in regular contact with the Iraqi authorities and took many opportunities to raise our concerns with them about human rights violations in Iraq, including in relation to the Kurds. They also discussed trade between the United Kingdom and Iraq and our concern about Iraq's alleged attempts to acquire arms illegally in the United Kingdom.

  Albanian Gold
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any recent discussions have taken place with the Government of Albania regarding the various claims in respect of the award of the International Court of Justice in 1949 following the incident in the Corfu channel and the Albanian gold held in the Bank of England.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British and Albanian officials met in November and December of last year to discuss outstanding bilateral issues.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with the Emir of Kuwait concerning representative democracy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 26 February, at column 463.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Payroll Giving
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an indication of the growth of the number of people taking advantage of the payroll giving to charity scheme since its inception, the corresponding amount of revenue forgone by the Treasury and the previous comparable estimates given by him.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates are as follows:

  Payroll giving scheme

  Year

  Donors (thousands)

  Donations (£ million)

  Cost of tax relief (£ million)

  1987–88

  55

  1·0

  0·3

  1988–89

  120

  3·5

  1·0

  11989–90

  190

  7·0

  2·0

  11990–91

  250

  10·0

  3·0

  1 Provisional.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in the Treasury, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces
  435
  provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Treasury

  Inland Revenue

  Customs and Excise

  Workplaces

  6

  668

  530

  On-site nursery

  Number

  14

  32

  13

  Proportion (per cent.)

  17

  0·5

  0·2

  Holiday play scheme

  Number

  1

  26

  24

  Proportion (per cent.)

  1

  3·9

  4·5

  After school care

  0

  0

  0

  1 The Treasury has no on site holiday play schemes at present, but it is involved in play schemes in the immediate vicinity of three of its workplaces.

  2 In addition Inland Revenue has one off-site shared nursery and a further two on-site and three off-site nurseries being developed.

  3 In addition Customs and Excise have reserved places in five other nursery schemes and a further three on-site nurseries are being developed.

  4 From 1 April.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many small businesses have registered for VAT in the northern region; how many have deregistered; and what is the surplus or deficit, for each year since 1983.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Statistics cover all businesses registering or deregistering for value added tax although in practice most could be termed small ones. The local VAT offices in Carlisle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Middlesbrough and Washington covers areas in addition to the northern region of Tyne and Wear, Cleveland, Durham, Cumbria and Northumberland. The number of VAT registrations and deregistrations processed by those offices was:

  Year

  New registrations

  Deregistrations

  Net change

  1985

  7,461

  7,521

  -60

  1986

  7,745

  7,343

  +402

  1987

  7,926

  6,652

  +1,274

  1988

  9,756

  7,232

  +2,524

  1989

  10,449

  7,594

  +2,855

  1990

  9,073

  7,819

  +1,254

  Records go back only to 1985.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many small businesses have registered for VAT in the constituencies of Tynemouth, Langbaurgh, and Darlington and Stockton, South; how many have deregistered; and what is the surplus or deficit, for each year since 1983.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Statistics cover all business registering or deregistering for value added tax although in practice most could be termed small ones. The local VAT 436
  offices in Newcastle upon Tyne, Middlesbrough and Washington cover areas in addition to those listed. The number of VAT registrations and deregistrations processed by those offices was:

  Year

  New Registrations

  Deregistrations

  Net Change

  1985

  6,051

  6,244

  -193

  1986

  6,303

  5,867

  +436

  1987

  6,345

  5,358

  +987

  1988

  7,854

  5,746

  +2,108

  1989

  8,409

  5,998

  +2,411

  1990

  7,290

  6,357

  +933

  Records go back only to 1985.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many petitions for bankruptcy have been originated by the VAT office for each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The following petitions for bankruptcy have been made by Customs and Excise for the years in question with orders made shown alongside:

  Petitions

  Orders made

  1985

  1,622

  883

  1986

  2,022

  1,082

  1987

  1,456

  895

  1988

  2,253

  1,025

  1989

  2,905

  987

  1990

  4,452

  1,259

  1991

  396

  1140

  1 (January only).

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each year that PEPs have been in operation(a) the number and proportion of people with PEPs who are on the higher rate of tax and the number on the basic rate and (b) the cost to the Exchequer in total of PEPs and per person with a PEP.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Information on personal equity plans is available only in respect of the number of plans and the amounts invested. Estimates of the direct revenue costs are as follows:

  Total (£ million)

  Per Personal Equity Plan £

  1986–87

  2

  2

  1987–88

  5

  10

  1988–89

  15

  35

  1989–90

  20

  25

  1990–911

  45

  35

  1 Provisional.

  2 Negligible.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year that PEPs have been in operation(a) the number of people with PEPs, (b) the average holding per person in a PEP and the distribution of holdings and (c) the distribution of PEP holdings by region.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Information is not available in the form requested.
  437
  The number of plans taken out since the introduction of personal equity plans is estimated as follows:

  Number

  1987

  270,000

  1988

  120,000

  19891

  580,000

  19902

  200,000

  Total

  1,170,000

  1 Includes the first quarter of 1990.

  2 Second and third quarters of 1990.

  The average value of the investment in each plan at the end of the year is estimated as follows:

  £

  1987

  1,650

  1988

  1,950

  1989–90

  2,900

  There is no information available on the distribution of the level of investments or the regional distribution of investors.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average income and the distribution of income of those in profit-related pay schemes.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Average annual earnings of participants, including those working part-time, in registered profit-related pay schemes were about £12,500 in February 1991. I regret that information on the distribution of earnings is not available.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 11 March 1991]: The no smoking policy in operation in my Department was set out in my reply on 7 February, at columns 171–72. Self-help groups have been run to support smokers who wish to give up smoking, but there are no plans to take any further measures in support of No Smoking Day.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the communications to his chief veterinary officer and to other Ministry officials by European Community veterinary inspectors about the common deficiencies of slaughterhouses they visited in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It would not be appropriate to publish this correspondence between EC Commission officials and officials in my Department, as the information requested includes confidential details of the commercial activities of certain companies. I will, however, write to the hon. Member further on this matter.

  Veterinary Investigation Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the numbers of(a) veterinarian, (b) scientific, (c) administrative and (d) other posts that will be lost as a result of his decision to close and reorganise the Veterinary Investigation Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  An estimated 13 veterinary, 14 scientific, 11 administrative and 14 laboratory support posts will be lost when the reorganisation of the VI service is completed in three or four years' time. Everything possible will be done to help staff find alternative jobs and to keep redundancies to a minimum.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ghana
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been provided to Ghana over the past two years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Information is as follows:

  £ thousand

  1988

  1989

  Gross bilateral aid

  32,976

  50,206

  Mulilateral aid attributable to United Kingdom

  11,890

  n.a.

  of which through EC

  2,130

  n.a.

  Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions have been attached to the granting of aid with regard to improvements in human rights in Ghana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made it clear to the Ghanaian authorities that our decisions on the allocation of bilateral aid funds for Ghana will take account of the extent to which they develop accountable and democratic institutions and respect for human rights. We shall continue to urge them to introduce the necessary reforms to obtain these objectives.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the figure of overseas aid provided over the last three financial years to the island of Cyprus; and what proportion of those sums has gone to the Turkish Cypriot sector.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Under the ODA's bilateral aid programme technical cooperation funds were provided as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  301,000

  1989–90

  231,000

  11990–91

  266,000

  1 (Estimate).

  About 42 per cent. of the allocations for the three years taken together were directed to the Turkish-Cypriot community.
  439
  In addition training awards were provided by the ODA under the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan:

  £

  1988–89

  242,000

  1989–90

  233,000

  1990–91

  216,000

  About 12 per cent. of the allocations for the three years taken together were for Turkish Cypriots.

  Support has also been provided from aid and trade provision funds for two projects in the Republic of Cyprus, with annual disbursements as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  184,000

  1989–90

  674,000

  1990–91

  25,000

  Iraq
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian aid has been provided to Iraq since 15 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In addition to emergency relief supplies provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross and funded from its Gulf appeal to which Her Majesty's Government contributed £2·5 million, the European Community has provided humanitarian aid through the ICRC totalling £2·5 milion. Britain's share of this is approximately £420,000.

  A multi-agency United Nations mission is currently in Iraq to assess humanitarian needs. It will make recommendations to the secretary-general on emergency actions the United Nations might take. We will consider responding to any subsequent appeal for funding launched by the secretary-general.

  Famine
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the number of people at risk from famine in Ethiopia and Sudan; how much British food aid has been made available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The World Food Programme estimates that in Ethiopia there are some 7·45 million people in need of food aid and in Sudan around 7·7 million. Since September 1990 the Government have committed a total of 60,300 tonnes of food aid to Ethiopia, and 35,550 tonnes to Sudan. A total of 35,300 tonnes will have been delivered to Ethiopia by the end of March and 15,550 tonnes to Sudan. The balance will be supplied over the coming months.

DEFENCE

  Gulf Fatalities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will break down the fatalities of service men in the Gulf conflict by country of permanent residence within the United Kingdom.
  440
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Because of the mobile nature of service life, the information requested is not available. The country of residence of the next of kin of those who died while serving in the Gulf area or following evacuation to the United Kingdom for medical treatment is shown below:

  Country

  Number of fatalities1

  England

  225

  Scotland

  4

  Wales

  23

  Germany

  4

  1 Figures comprise fatalities which occurred between. 2 August 1990 and 8 March 1991

  2 Figures include one civilian serving with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary

  Gulf Forces
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans are being made for the return of British forces from the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The withdrawal of British forces from the Gulf will continue progressively, following the return of the first personnel on 10 March. The precise timing of the return of units will depend on circumstances. During the next few weeks, some RN personnel, 7th Armoured Brigade group, and the bulk of RAF combat aircraft will return.

  Walter Somers Ltd.
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 224, what assessment was made by the Ministry of Defence metallurgical expert of the technical aspects of the steel tubes which Walter Somers Ltd. proposed to export to Iraq as a result of his two telephone conversations with the company.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The two telephone conversations did not establish that the steel tubes had a military purpose.

  Export Controls
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Ministry of Defence officials are involved in discussions with other countries as part of the co-ordinating committee for multilateral export controls.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes.

  Iraqi Defence Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the effect of British exports of non-lethal defence equipment on the Iraqi defence industry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is extremely unlikely that any United Kingdom defence equipment could have enhanced the capability of the Iraqi arms industry to any significant degree.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the present arrangements for blueys and parcels posted to members of Her Majesty's forces in the Gulf will continue until they return.
  441
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to change present arrangements.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Civil Scientific Research
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of gross domestic product the Government spend on civil scientific research; and what are the comparative figures in Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 1988 the United Kingdom Government spent 0·55 per cent of gross domestic product on civil scientific research. The corresponding figures for Japan and the United States of America were 0·45 and 0·39 per cent.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering for the reform of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council on proposals for new general principles to govern A-level and AS syllabuses. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications is reforming vocational qualifications. We want many more young people to take the vocational route to higher qualifications and better jobs.

  Students
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on financing the expansion of student numbers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We welcome the continuing expansion of student numbers which, promoted by our policies, is spreading the benefits of higher education ever more widely. We are committed to supporting this with appropriate levels of public spending. At the same time, we look for further improvements in the efficiency of provision and continued broadening of the higher education system's funding base.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to improve the quality of nursery education as suggested in the report "Starting with Quality"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  "Starting with Quality" is concerned with the educational experience of three and four-year-olds across various settings. Much of it addresses the needs and responsibilities of local providers of services. We have, therefore, sent copies of the report to local education authorities, local authority social service departments and other interested bodies. In addition, the Department of Health and this Department plan to issue guidance on the implementation of the Children Act which will draw, where appropriate, on the report.
  442
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of places available in nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect he has calculated the standard spending assessment for 1991–92 will have on the education service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education regarding training for the teaching of reading as part of initial teacher training.

  Mr. Fallon
  Department of Education and Science officials and Her Majesty's inspectorate have regular discussions with the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education members and officers regarding many aspects of initial teacher training, including the teaching of reading.

  Adult Education, Bury
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in relation to the provision of adult education in Bury.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has received one representation with 33 signatures about the possibility that the Bury arts and crafts centre might be closed.

  Further Education
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to extend the legislation for grant-maintained schools to include colleges of further education.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Education Reform Act 1988 introduced a number of significant changes in the funding, governance and management of colleges. My right hon. and learned Friend is watching carefully to see how those changes work out in practice. No possibility has been ruled out for the future.

  Education Authorities
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to move towards a system whereby education authorities are purchasers of education places other than providers thereof.

  Mr. Fallon
  Under local management of schools and more open enrolment, parents will now become the
  443
  effective purchasers of school education as funds follow pupils to the school of their choice. By April 1993 at least 85 per cent. of potential school budgets must be delegated to the school, and at least 80 per cent. of each budget must be allocated to pupil numbers.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of grammar schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The organisation of school provision is a matter for individual local education authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend considers any proposals to reorganise schools, including proposals for the establishment or closure of grammar schools, on their merits. He has said that he would look very carefully at any proposals to close grammar schools or end selective education, taking full account of expressed parental wishes.

  Scientific Research
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met Sir Mark Richmond to discuss the funding of scientific research; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend occasionally meets the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council. I have met Sir Mark Richmond twice recently. We discussed a number of matters including the funding of scientific research.

  Students' Unions
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the responses which have been received from students' organisations and Scottish universities with regard to the future of students' unions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have received a number of responses to my letter of 29 November 1990. As the consultations are still in progress, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  Secondary

  Primary

  Total

  Operating under GM status

  50

  0

  50

  Approved but not yet operating under GM status

  14

  0

  14

  Published proposals with decisions pending

  23

  2

  25

  Preparing GM proposals following ballots in favour of seeking GM status

  23

  11

  34

  Holding or committed to a ballot on GM status

  30

  13

  43

  Value for Money
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures of performance are employed by his Department to ensure value for money.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department ensures value for money from its purchases by setting demanding savings targets

  Education Budgets
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of local education authority budgets is on average spent on the provision of central services and administration; and which authorities are the three highest and the three lowest in this respect.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest information available relates to LEA spending on excepted items under local management of schools. According to authorities' budget statements, the average percentage of the LMS potential schools budget which is being withheld from schools in 1990–91, is some 16·2 per cent. Those budgeting to spent the highest percentages of the potential schools budget on discretionary excepted items are Westminster, 22 per cent., Kingston upon Thames, 21·5 per cent., and Haringey, 20·6 per cent. Those budgeting to spend the lowest percentages—so delegating the highest percentages to schools—are Bolton, 10·9 per cent., Berkshire, 12·3 per cent., and West Sussex, 12·5 per cent. Comparable information is not available for the FE or other education sectors.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average amount of external funding per pupil in grant-maintained schools for the current year; and what is the comparable figure for the last complete year before the same schools acquired grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Most recurrent funding for grant-maintained schools is paid through annual maintenance grant, the majority of which is a sum which seeks to replicate the amount which would have been allocated to the school had it remained under the control of the local education authority. Also within annual maintenance grant is a sum in lieu of central services previously provided by the authority which in the current financial year averaged an additional 16 per cent. The central services element of annual maintenance grant will be standardised at that rate in 1991–92.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have (i) applied for and (ii) achieved grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of primary and secondary schools which have become grant-maintained or are proceeding through the GM process is as follows:

  and monitoring the results. These are recorded in the central unit on purchasing annual targets and savings return.

  Hounslow
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what percentage of its potential schools budget the London borough of Hounslow is delegating to schools in the current financial year; and how much it will need to delegate to meet the proposed requirements in the draft circular on local management of schools;

  (2) what effect the proposals contained in the draft circular on local management of schools will have on the amount delegated to schools by the London borough of Hounslow as against the current financial year.

  Mr. Fallon
  Hounslow local education authority is currently delegating to schools 81·6 per cent. of its potential schools budget. The draft circular issued in December 1990 proposed that from April 1993 a minimum of 85 per cent. should be delegated. On the basis of Hounslow LEA's 1990–91 budget statement, that would add about £1·76 million to school budgets—an average of about £23,000 per school.

  Compulsory Schooling
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those countries which have compulsory schooling starting for a younger age group than in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fallon
  Compulsory education age limits are listed in the "UNESCO Statistical Yearbook 1990". Of the 170 countries for which limits are given, Gibraltar is the only one where compulsory schooling starts at an earlier age than in the United Kingdom.

  Purchase and Distribution
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people in his Department are wholly or substantially involved in purchasing stores and distribution activities.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department employs a central purchasing unit comprising six full-time purchasing staff and a publications distribution centre with 13 operatives.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the full annual cost, including overheads, of his Department's purchasing activity.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department's central purchasing unit's full annual costs are approximately £165,000.

  Welsh Plant Breeding Station
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present state of the Welsh plant breeding station, Gogerddan, Aberystwyth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Progress in establishing the new Agricultural and Food Research Council institute of grassland and environmental research centred on the Welsh plant breeding station is well under way. Construction of new laboratory and associated facilities at the Aberystwyth site costing £5·1 million is now in progress.

  The institute also includes sites at North Wyke in Devon and Bronydd Mawr near Brecon. An additional
  446
  site at Trawsgoed will be purchased from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Buildings and facilities at the North Wyke and Trawsgoed sites are planned at costs of £1·6 million and £1 million respectively.

  The new institute will provide the strategic science base to meet the environmental and land use challenges of the next century, and will be capable of attracting research supported by industry on the milk, beef and sheep sectors.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on physical education and sport in schools.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend's response to the interim report of the national curriculum physical education working group, a copy of which is in the Library. The Government's policies on physical education and sport in schools were also set out in my response to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) in the debate on the Adjournment on 28 February,Official Report, column 1211.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Homeless Claimants
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions have been given to the staff on the use of the Thames North and Thames South offices in handling homeless claimants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Staff engaged on income support operations have been advised that the offices at Thames North and Thames South cater for single men and women without a settled way of life or who normally reside in certain hostels or resettlement units. The offices are not intended for use by temporarily homeless or unemployed people who do not normally have an itinerant way of life and who have come to London and the south-east in search of work.

  Order Books
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 7 March, when he expects to complete his consideration of a redesigned benefit order book.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We expect that a redesigned benefit order book will be available in 1992.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of social security expenditure was met by national insurance contributions for each of the years since 1961 for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on future trends in this figure.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 February 1991]: The table shows the percentage of social security benefit expenditure met by national insurance contributions for each year from 1960–61 to 1989–90, and the planned figure for 1993–94 which is taken from the 1991 departmental report. There are no figures available for later years.

  447

  Year

  percent

  1960–61

  69·2

  1961–62

  72·3

  1962–63

  72·5

  1963–64

  74·3

  1964–65

  74·7

  1965–66

  77·0

  1966–67

  76·1

  1967–68

  75·2

  1968–69

  73·2

  1969–70

  72·5

  1970–71

  72·6

  1971–72

  72·7

  1972–73

  72·6

  1973–74

  74·5

  1974–75

  76·0

  1975–76

  75·2

  1976–77

  73·1

  1977–78

  70·7

  1978–79

  67·5

  1979–80

  65·7

  1980–81

  66·2

  1981–82

  63·0

  1982–83

  59·8

  1983–84

  58·6

  Name

  Remuneration £

  Current appointment ends

  CARDIFF BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  Chairman:

  Mr. Geoffrey Inkin OBE

  27,305

  2 April 1993

  Deputy Chairman:

  Councillor Lord Brooks of Tremorfa

  15,406

  4 May 1992

  Members:

  Mrs. Mair Barnes

  4,347

  2 April 1993

  Mrs. Honor Chapman CBE

  4,347

  2 April 1992

  Mr. Alan Cox CBE

  4,347

  2 April 1993

  Mr. Hugh Hudson-Davies

  4,347

  2 April 1993

  Councillor T. Hunter Jarvie

  4,347

  1 May 1991

  Councillor Paddy Kitson

  4,347

  4 May 1992

  Councillor John Phillips

  4,347

  1 May 1991

  Councillor Ron Watkiss

  4,347

  1 May 1991

  Professor Richard Silverman

  4,347

  2 April 1992

  Mr. James Beveridge

  4,347

  2 April 1992

  There is one vacancy on the Board at present

  WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

  Chairman:

  Dr. Gwyn Jones

  59,340

  30 September 1991

  Deputy Chairman:

  Sir Donald Walters

  19,165

  31 July 1992

  Members:

  Mr. E. Glyn Davies

  5,425

  31 March 1992

  Mr. Richard Brewster

  5,425

  30 September 1993

  Mr. John Foley MBE

  5,425

  28 February 1994

  Mr. Ralph Phillip Vinson Rees

  5,425

  31 December 1992

  Mr. David Griffith Roberts OBE

  5,425

  31 December 1992

  Mr. David Colyn Gardner

  5,425

  31 December 1992

  Mr. David Malpas

  5,425

  31 December 1992

  COUNTRYSIDE COUNCIL FOR WALES

  Chairman:

  Mr. Michael Griffith CBE

  25,000

  5 November 1993

  Deputy Chairman:

  Professor David Q. Bowen

  8,615

  5 November 1993

  Members:

  Professor Dennis Bellamy

  5,385

  5 November 1993

  Councillor Morgan Chambers

  5,385

  5 November 1993

  Dr. W. Allan Evans

  5,385

  5 November 1993

  Mr. John Harrop

  5,385

  5 November 1993

  Dr. Merylyn Hedger

  5,385

  5 November 1993

  448

  Year

  percent

  1984–85

  54·6

  1985–86

  53·9

  1986–87

  53·6

  1987–88

  53·2

  1988–89

  53·9

  1989–90

  54·4

  1993–94

  54·7

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following appointments are salaried. All are part-time posts.
  449

  Name

  Remuneration £

  Current appointment ends

  Mr. Tom Jones

  5,385

  5 November 1993

  Mr. Merfyn Williams

  5,385

  5 November 1993

  DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR RURAL WALES

  Chairman:

  Mr. E. Glyn Davies

  27,242

  1 April 1992

  Members:

  Mr. Robert Gee

  5,385

  1 April 1992

  Mr. Ian A. Jones

  5,385

  1 April 1993

  Councillor Veŕonica Hollis

  5,385

  1 April 1992

  Councillor Andrew M. Leonard

  5,385

  1 April 1991

  Mr. Jeffrey Morgan

  5,385

  1 April 1992

  Mr. Edward Rae OBE

  5,385

  1 April 1993

  Mr. Hywel Roberts

  5,385

  1 April 1992

  Mr. Peter Saunders

  5,385

  1 April 1991

  Councillor Michael W. Shaw

  5,385

  1 April 1991

  Sir Donald Walters

  5,385

  1 April 1993

  Councillor Roger Williams

  5,385

  1 April 1992

  WALES TOURIST BOARD

  Chairman:

  Mr. I. Prys Edwards

  30,000

  31 July 1993

  Members:

  Mrs. Lorna Minors

  5,385

  16 September 1991

  Mr. Christopher L. Pollard OBE

  5,385

  14 April 1992

  Mr. E. Glyn Davies

  5,385

  31 March 1992

  Mr. David H. Griffith

  5,385

  16 September 1993

  Mr. John Dunscombe

  5,385

  31 October 1992

  Mr. Chris R. Jackson

  5,385

  18 December 1993

  LAND AUTHORITY FOR WALES

  Chairman:

  Mr. Geoffrey D. Inkin OBE

  26,990

  25 November 1992

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. John D. Allen CBE

  7,660

  29 December 1993

  Members:

  Mr. R. P. V. Rees

  5,385

  29 December 1993

  Mr. Graham Jones

  5,385

  29 December 1993

  Mr. Ronald F. Watkiss CBE

  5,385

  29 December 1992

  Mr. Walter Rhys-Webb

  5,385

  29 December 1993

  Mr. Ray G. Owen

  5,385

  29 December 1992

  Mr. Alan Edwards

  5,385

  29 December 1993

  SPORTS COUNCIL FOR WALES

  Chairman:

  Mr. Ossie Wheatley

  13,600

  31 March 1993

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. Tom Baxter-Wright

  7,395

  31 March 1993

  HOUSING FOR WALES

  Chairman:

  Mr. John Allen CBE

  24,880

  1 December 1991

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. Jonathan Evans

  7,703

  31 March 1991

  Members:

  Mrs. Anne Mainwaring

  3,372

  1 December 1991

  Mr. James Procter

  3,372

  1 December 1991

  Professor Peter Williams

  3,372

  1 December 1991

  Mr. Gilbert Lloyd

  3,372

  1 December 1991

  Registration takes effect 31 March 1991

  CURRICULUM COUNCIL FOR WALES

  Chairman:

  Mr. Hywel I. Evans OBE

  15,588

  1 August 1991

  TRAINING ENTERPRISE AND EDUCATION ADVISORY GROUP FOR WALES

  Chairman:

  Sir Mel Rosser

  11,300

  31 March 1992

  450

  451

  Name

  Remuneration £

  Current appointment ends

  HISTORIC BUILDINGS COUNCIL FOR WALES

  Chairman:

  The Marquess of Anglesey

  3,535

  31 March 1993

  PLACE NAMES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

  Chairman:

  Professor Gwynedd Pierce

  350

  Member:

  Mr. Tomas Roberts

  250

  FAMILY HEALTH SERVICE AUTHORITIES

  CLWYD

  Chairman:

  Councillor Tom W. Jones

  10,705

  31 August 1992

  Non executive members:

  Mr. Thomas Birchall

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Councillor Neil A. Formstone

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. Paul D. M. Griffith

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mrs. Lynne Hughes

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mr. William J. Ridgway

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. Christopher B. Swale

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mrs. Irene J. Train

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mrs. N. P. (Patsy) Woodward

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Dr. Peter Wykes

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  DYFED

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Vanessa J. Bourne

  10,705

  31 May 1994

  Non executive members:

  Mr. David Bentham

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mrs. Anne Bowen

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mrs. Brenda L. Davies

  5,000

  30 November 1991

  Mr. Thomas Lloyd

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. T. O. S. Lloyd

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mrs. Anne M. Morris

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Councillor Edwyn P. Parry

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. W. J. C. Roberts

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. David P. Williams

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  GWENT

  Chairman:

  Mr. Kenneth R. C. Rew

  10,705

  31 May 1994

  Non executive members:

  Mrs. Estelle Blake

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. David H. W. Davies

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. John A. Gallimore

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mr. Stuart Geddes

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Dr. Gregory I. Graham

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. John F. Ingledew

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. D. Jones

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Councillor Peter J. Law JP

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mrs. Patricia A. White

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  GWYNEDD

  Chairman:

  Dr. John E. A. Kenrick

  9,903

  31 May 1994

  Non Executive Members

  Mrs. E. Barlow

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. G Morris Jones

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mr. T. Jones

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. Barry J. Owens

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Dr. Ian Ellis Roberts

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mrs. Lorna Scharer

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. Gwyn T. Thomas

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mr. Richard N. Thomas

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. Richard Webb

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  MID GLAMORGAN

  Chairman

  Mrs. Kathrin E. Thomas

  10,705

  31 August 1992

  452

  453

  Name

  Remuneration £

  Current appointment ends

  Non executive members:

  Mrs. Bridget Caroline Dimond

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. Peter Jenkins

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. Raymond W. Martin

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mr. Ian Price

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mrs. Dorothy Richardson

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. Victor Rizzo

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Dr. Bipin K. Shah

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. Edward H. Tiltman

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Dr. Eira Williams

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  POWYS

  Chairman:

  The Hon. Anthony T. Lewis JP

  9,903

  31 May 1994

  Non executive members:

  Mrs. Patricia A. Antill

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. David S. Baird-Murray

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mr. Paul G. J. Davies

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mrs. Margaret J. Dodd

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Miss Barbara Hughes

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. Hywel Davies

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. J. D. Roberts-James

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Dr. Ainsley Reid

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mrs. Jean Ryder

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  SOUTH GLAMORGAN

  Chairman:

  Dr. Richard G. Lloyd

  10,705

  31 August 1992

  Non executive members:

  Mr. David Adams

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. Richard C. Daniel

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mrs. J. Edwards

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. James H. Leighton

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. Illtyd R. Lloyd

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Miss Elizabeth J. Muir

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. Ian Phillips

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. Gerald Rapport

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Dr. Michael T. K. Wheeler

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  WEST GLAMORGAN

  Chairman:

  Mr. Graham L. Jones

  10,705

  31 August 1992

  Non executive members:

  Mrs. Jane V. Davies

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. Robert J. Davies

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mrs. Margaret M. Evans

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. Alan L. Jones

  5,000

  31 March 1994

  Mr. Gerald Lawler

  5,000

  16 September 1994

  Mr. William G. Rees

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Mr. Gerald Thomas

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  Mr. Douglas S. Williams

  5,000

  30 November 1992

  Dr. Eleanor M. Williams

  5,000

  31 March 1993

  DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITIES

  CLWYD

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Anne Lloyd Roberts

  17,610

  31 July 1994

  Non executive members:

  Professor T. M. Hayes

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Trefor G. Jones

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Terence J. McAllister

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mr. John R. Slater

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mrs. Angharad Waters

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  EAST DYFED

  Chairman:

  Mr. James S. Thomas

  15,659

  31 July 1992

  Non executive members:

  Mrs. Lynette George

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Emrys W. Jones

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Peter G. Price

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  454

  455

  Name

  Remuneration £

  Current appointment ends

  Mr. John Williams

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Owen J. Williams

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  GWENT

  Chairman

  Mr. Roger Newton

  17,610

  31 July 1994

  Non executive members:

  Mr. Richard J. Dilnot

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Dr. Gareth Jones

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mrs. Fiona N. Peel

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Professor Alan Richem

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Roy C. Stevens

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  GWYNEDD

  Chairman

  Mrs. Noreen L. Edwards CBE

  15,659

  31 July 1992

  Non executive members:

  Mr. Dilwyn O. Evans

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mr. R. Hefin Davies

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Graham Hulse

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Richard H. P. Oliver

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. John L. Williams

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  MID GLAMORGAN

  Chairman

  Mr. Bryn Davies MBE CBE

  17,610

  31 July 1992

  Non executive members:

  Dr. D. Eurof Evans OBE

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mrs. Sandy Grant

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Professor Oliver P. Gray

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mr. Derek W. C. Morgan

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. O. Graham Saunders OBE

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  PEMBROKESHIRE

  Chairman:

  Captain Henry W. Phillips

  13,812

  31 July 1991

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs. Rachel P. James

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. John E. Lloyd

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Rev. Thomas A. Thomas

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Dr. Edward R. Verrier Jones

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mrs. Margaret Thomas

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  POWYS

  Chairman:

  The Hon. Mrs. R. H. P. Price

  13,812

  31 July 1994

  Non-Executive Members:

  Major Michael W. F. Dyer

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mr. Hugh Hudson Davies

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. David G Margetts

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Richard G. S. Mills

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mr. C. J. Owen

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  SOUTH GLAMORGAN

  Chairman:

  Mr. Alun S. Jones

  17,610

  31 July 1992

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. Nigel J. Butcher

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Professor Sir Herbert L. Duthie

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Simon M. Jones

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mr. John W. Phillips

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Lady Roisin M. Pill

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Professor Norman R. I. Robertson

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  WEST GLAMORGAN

  Chairman:

  Professor William M. Williams

  17,610

  31 July 1991

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. Peter D. Allen CBE

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Professor Arthur L. Bloom

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  456

  457

  Name

  Remuneration £

  Current appointment ends

  Mrs. Carolyn Kirby

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Mr. Colin C. Lea

  5,000

  31 August 1994

  Mr. Mike Rosser

  5,000

  31 October 1992

  Foster Parents
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in each Welsh county are currently(a) foster parents and (b) adult family placement carers.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Old Age Psychiatry
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) of 19 February,Official Report, column 90, what factors caused the increase in hospital bed provision for old age psychiatry in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In 1989 the Royal College of Psychiatrists formally recognised the psychiatry of old age as a separate sub-specialty. Consequently, consultants have been appointed to sub-specialist posts and a significant proportion of beds which prior to 1 April 1989 were classified generally under "mental illness" have been designated as "old age psychiatry" beds. In addition, there has been an underlying growth in the number of people over 75 cared for in mental illness hospitals, reflecting the increasing number of very elderly people in the population at large.

  Fishing, Ceredigion
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the present state of the fishing industry in Ceredigion.

  Mr. David Hunt
  About 70 licensed vessels operate out of ports in Ceredigion, the majority on a part-time and/or seasonal basis. Over the period 1985 to 1989 the quantity of fish landed has remained fairly constant at around 50 tonnes, but the value has increased from £88,000 in 1985 to £216,000 in 1989.

  Dentists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists have left the national health service in Wales since the introduction of the new contract.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Numbers of dentists withdrawing from family health service authority lists are collected centrally only on an annual basis. A survey conducted in January and February of this year collected information on the provision of dental care. Out of 562 dentists contacted, which represents 62 per cent. of those on family health service authority lists at the time, three had ceased to provide NHS services since 1 October 1990.

  History
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from teachers of history concerning the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.
  458
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Representations have been made from time to time on a variety of matters concerning the national curriculum by individual history teachers, or via the Association of History Teachers in Wales.

  More recently representations have been made by 10 individual history teachers or teachers responding through their local education authority and the Association of History Teachers in Wales on the draft order for history in the national curriculum and on the proposals for the study of all national curriculum subjects by pupils aged 14 to 16 years—key stage 4.

  Following the extensive consultation which has taken place, an order for history will shortly be placed before the House under the provisions of the Education Reform Act. In due course proposals for the study of all national curriculum subjects at key stage 4 will be published for consultation.

  Shotton Steelworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an official visit to Shotton steelworks in Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I regularly visit the Clwyd area, but I have no present plans to visit Shotton steelworks.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health service trusts there are in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None yet.

  Welsh Office Initiatives
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation of the urban programme, urban development grant, the programme for the valleys and the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I am pleased to announce the publication of the 1988–89 annual report of the urban programme, urban development grant, programme for the valleys and Cadiff Bay development corporation. The report details the contribution these schemes are making towards alleviating the problems of economic and social deprivation in Wales. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Constructors Tern
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funding he proposes to make available to South Glamorgan health authority to compensate for additional borrowing costs arising from the receivership of Constructors Tern.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There is no question of the South Glamorgan health authority having to borrow money as a result of Constructors Tern being taken into receivership.

  Hospitals, South Glamorgan
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority concerning a review of his approval of the authority-proposed third major district general hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the numbers employed in each Welsh regional health authority's administration office.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information, on a comparable basis, on the numbers of staff working in district health authorities' headquarter units is not available centrally.

  NHS Land Sales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funding he proposes to make available to South Glamorgan health authority to compensate for the level of surplus land sales being below expectations.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. Under current arrangements South Glamorgan health authority has full responsibility for the sale of surplus property. It is for the authority to manage its land sales programme and realise its expectations.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funding he proposes to make available to South Glamorgan health authority to compensate for additional costs arising from bed disposition arising from the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department has written to the relevant district health authorities inviting them to submit substantiated claims for compensation for preparations made for possible receipt of Gulf war casualties. This is in line with undertaking given previously by the Government. South Glamorgan health authority has submitted a claim which is currently being considered by the Welsh Office.

SCOTLAND

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will apply the non-fossil fuel obligation to Scotland as it is applied in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the terms of transfers of employment currently being offered by Scottish Enterprise to Training Agency staff; whether these meet the terms of guarantee given; and if he will make a statement.
  460
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend approves, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Treasury, certain specific aspects of the terms of employment which will apply to Scottish Enterprise staff. It is a matter for Scottish Enterprise itself to ensure that the terms of individual offers of employment, taken as a whole, comply with paragraph 16(3) of schedule 1 to the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990. The 1990 Act provides for any dispute as to whether the terms of paragraph 16(3) have been complied with to be resolved by an industrial tribunal and this is not, therefore, a matter for my right hon. Friend's consideration.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the categories of hospital and the aspects of their work, which enjoy Crown immunity.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The NHS and Community Care Act 1990 provides for the removal from 1 April 1991, with limited exceptions, of those Crown immunities currently applied to hospitals managed by health boards and the state hospital. The exceptions are as follows:

  (a) exemption from the requirement to carry insurance against injury or disease sustained as a result of employment as required by the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 since the NHS makes equivalent arrangements for staff under the NHS (Injury Benefit) Regulations 1974;

  (b) immunity from motor vehicle taxation for NHS vehicles under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971;

  (c) the retention of Crown status for the purposes of Section 48 of the Copyright, Designs and Patients Act 1978 which relates to Copyright on material communicated to the Crown in the course of public business;

  (d) immunity from the requirement to effect third party insurance under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  NHS trusts will not be Crown bodies, but any hospitals under their control will also benefit from the remaining immunities listed above with the exception that immunity from the requirement to effect third party insurance is limited to ambulances only. Hospitals in the private sector will continue, as at present, to be required to meet all relevant statutory obligations.

  Achondroplasia
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of hospitals in Scotland providing facilities for the treatment of achondroplasia.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Treatment for those who suffer from this disease will be provided in a number of departments of major acute and children's hospitals, particularly orthopaedic departments. There is, however, no one unit dedicated to the treatment of this particular disease.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what share incentives will be offered to employees and pensioners when the two Scottish electricity companies are privatised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government attach particular importance to the opportunity which privatisation will provide for employees to become shareholders in Scottish Power plc and Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. The special offers to employees will comprise:
  461
  A Free Offer

  Employees will be offered free shares to a fully paid value of about £140, plus shares at a fully paid value of about £2 for every year of continuous service in the electricity supply industry up to a date close to flotation.

  A Matching Offer

  Employees will also be offered two free fully paid shares for every share bought at the offer price on a matching basis up to a maximum fully paid value of about £460 worth of free shares. Under this element of the package, if an employee bought shares with a fully paid value of £230, he would receive free shares to a fully paid value of £460.

  A Discount Offer

  Employees will be able to buy shares up to a maximum fully paid value of about £1,250 of additional shares at a discount of 20 per cent. from the offer price.

  A Priority Offer

  Employees applying for shares will be treated on a priority basis, over the general public, up to an individual fully paid limit of shares worth about £15,350. This may be subject to scaling down if the number of shares in either company applied for by employees and pensioners exceeds a prescribed proportion of the total number of shares on offer.

  The free and matching share offers will be available to employees who satisfy certain minimum qualification periods of length of employment and hours worked per week. The discount and priority offers will be available to each person employed at a date close to flotation.

  We have decided that pensioners of the companies should be able to apply on a priority basis, over the general public, for shares up to a fully paid limit of about £15,350, subject to any necessary scaling down.

  We have also made special arrangements for employees and pensioners of Scottish Nuclear Ltd., which will not be floated on the stock exchange. Employees and pensioners of Scottish Nuclear will receive offers of shares in Scottish Power plc. on terms similar to employees and pensioners of ScottishPower.

  Further details of the share offer arrangements will be made available to employees and pensioners in due course, including those resulting from Inland Revenue, stock exchange and other requirements applying to these offers.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any works of art have been accepted in lieu of inheritance tax since he last made an announcement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that the following works have been accepted in lieu of inheritance tax:

  Item

  Amount of tax satisfied £

  Four old master drawings (by Mirola, Barocci, Cortona and Reni)

  64,490

  Harpsichord by Burkat Shudi

  35,000

  Portraits of Charles Hope and Professor Hill by Sir Henry Raeburn

  48,439

  The four old master drawings have been allocated to the National Gallery of Scotland. The Raeburn portrait of Charles Hope has been allocated to the Scottish national portrait gallery. The Shudi Harpsichord and the Raeburn portrait of Professor Hill have yet to be allocated.

  Child Care Law
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes legislation to implement any of the recommendations of the committee set out to review child care law in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 March 1991]: Once we have assessed the recommendations of the review in the light of the many comments received we shall decide which can be accepted and how they can be implemented, by primary legislation, by regulations or by guidance.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following upon the publication of the report of the committee set up to review child care law in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 March 1991]: To date, a total of 83 responses have been received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. We are analysing these responses carefully before making any decisions on the individual recommendations of the review.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the representations that have been made to the European Community by his office in order to ensure that the provisions of Community regulations on additionality are fully met in respect of RECHAR programmes in eastern and western Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: My office has made no representations to the European Commission on this matter. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has written to the European Commission on the question of additionality and RECHAR.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Property Indentification
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is the policy of his Department to mark property with an indelible mark or similar means of identification.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Where practicable, certain items of value are marked and serial numbers recorded.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Office last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In June 1988 the home civil service completed a four-year programme of ethnic origin surveys covering all staff then in post. The Northern Ireland Office has continued to monitor staff who join the home civil service group in the Department and to update its records. The Northern Ireland Office is an equal opportunity employer and this is emphasised in all recruiting
  463
  campaigns and advertising. The Northern Ireland civil service is not required to monitor the ethnic origins of staff, nor has it plans to do so.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1 to 7) and overall in the Northern Ireland Office are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Northern Ireland civil service employs 12,416 female staff which constitutes 42 per cent. of the service. The Northern Ireland office—NIO—now employs 86 women in the Home Civil Service—HCS—staff group which constitutes 43·6 per cent. of the total.

  The detailed information sought is as follows:

  Grade

  Number of females

  Percentage

  NICS

  HCS

  NICS

  HCS

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  2·5

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  14

  —

  7·6

  —

  6

  51

  —

  28·4

  —

  7

  74

  3

  8·3

  5

  Twenty-one full-time members and one part-time member of staff—11 per cent.—in the home civil service group of the NIO are from ethnic minorities. The Northern Ireland civil service is not required to monitor the ethnic origins of its staff.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at the Northern Ireland Office.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The home civil service and the Northern Ireland civil service are fully committed to ensuring equality of opportunity for all applicants including any from ethnic minorities. The Northern Ireland Office is an equal opportunity employer and this is emphasised in all our recruiting campaigns and advertising. If direct recruitment for certain senior posts in the NIO were to be necessary, it would be conducted with guidance from the Civil Service Commission. Within Northern Ireland itself, religion is a more significant equality of opportunity consideration than ethnic origin. Consequently the Northern Ireland civil service has not taken any specific action to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many of the civil servants employed by his Department were born in a foreign state;

  (2) how many civil servants in Northern Ireland, other than those in the Northern Ireland Office, were born in a foreign state.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions operate in the employment of(a) foreign nationals, (b) Commonwealth
  464
  citizens and(c) citizens of the Irish Republic, as (i) civil servants, or (ii) public servants in Northern Ireland; and whether such restrictions are uniformly applied throughout the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  To be eligible for appointment to the Northern Ireland civil service, a candidate must be a Commonwealth citizen, although the Civil Service Commissioners may in exceptional circumstances decide to grant exemption from this requirement. The discretionary powers exercised by commissioners have included recruitment to scarcity occupations where suitably qualified candidates were not available and where an applicant has been closely associated with Northern Ireland or where the post is considered not to be covered by article 48(4) of the treaty of Rome.

  To be eligible for appointments in the home civil service, candidates must be Commonwealth citizens, British protected persons or citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the intensity of radioactivity present in the(a) soil, (b) peat, (c) grasses and (d) heather in the areas of (i) Glenshane, County Londonderry, (ii) Belraugh, County Londonderry and (iii) Glenwherry, County Antrim when the effect of the radioactive discharges from Chernobyl were first measured and showing the present levels in each of those areas; and what is his estimate as to when those levels will have fallen to the point where all restrictions on the movement of sheep can be removed.

  Mr. Hanley
  The soil-to-plant-to-animal transfer of radio caesium is complex and influenced by so many factors that vegetation levels would not be a reliable indicator on which to base firm conclusions. It is only through systematic monitoring of sheep populations in the restricted areas that appropriate data can be acquired to manage a restricted area. It is on the basis of such data that the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland was able to reduce the size of areas under restriction in Co. Londonderry. It is not possible to predict how long restrictions will remain in place. They will be lifted as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising the food chain, but we might still have to wait a considerable time before that is possible.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the acreage in each of the areas of Glenshane, County Londonderry, Belraugh, County Londonderry, and Glenwherry, County Antrim named in SR(NI), 1991, No. 8 Public Health, Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1991; if he will indicate the reduction in acreage in each case from the order superseded by this order, and the acreage at present under forestry plantations which were planted (i) before and (ii) since the discharge of radioactive material from Chernobyl; and if he will show for each of the designated areas the number of sheep kept on them.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:
  465

  Glenwherry

  Glenshane

  Belraugh

  Acreage in areas designated in SR 1991 No. 8

  8,620

  10,487

  1,305

  Reduction in acreage from SR 1987 No. 367

  —

  247

  943

  Number of breeding ewes in current restricted areas

  7,000

  14,000

  1,300

  Acreage under forestry in current restricted areas which was planted—

  (i) Before Chernobyl accident

  165

  1,099

  —

  (ii) After Chernobyl accident

  172

  195

  —

  Fish
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what information he has as to the present stocks of(a) salmon, (b) sea trout, (c) brown trout, (d) pollan, (e) perch, (f) bream and (g) pike in (i) Lough Neagh, (ii) upper Lough Erne and (iii) in lower Lough Erne; and what were the comparable figures five, 10, 20 and 30 years ago;

  (2) if he will publish a table to show (a) the number and type of nets or other commercial fishing engines in freshwater lakes and rivers operating in Northern Ireland in the 1990 season, (b) the species taken by each such engine, or from each fishery and the weight of each species taken, (c) the value of such fish by species from each fishery and (d) the comparable figures for 1985, 1980 and 1970;

  (3) what size of (a) salmon, (b) sea trout, (c) pollan, (d) brown trout, (e) perch, (f) bream and (g) pike could escape through the mesh of the net mesh sizes allowed for use in the commercial freshwater fisheries of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally but I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the information has been obtained and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to(a) the minimum, (b) the maximum and (c) the average size and weight of brown trout from Lough Neagh which spawn in the lough's catchment area; and whether such fish spawn annually or biannually.

  Mr. Hanley
  The minimum size of spawning trout corresponds to the minimum size at maturity for males. This is of the order of 20 to 25 cms in size and 5 to 6 oz in weight. No data are available on maximum or average sizes or weights. These trout tend to spawn annually.

  River Dun (Breakwater)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the breakwater at the mouth of the River Dun was erected, when planning permission was sought, and granted; and whether any objections were made to his Department about this structure.

  Mr. Hanley
  The breakwater at the mouth of the River Dun was constructed in 1987. Planning permission for the breakwater was sought on 14 January 1988 and attracted six objections. This planning application was withdrawn on 27 April 1988. A new planning application was submitted on 16 January 1989. Four objections to this application were received. Planning permission was granted on 5 July 1989.

  Social Security
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of benefit payments paid by(a) order book, (b) Girocheque, (c) automated credit transfer and (d) payable order during the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  (a) order books

  29,589,904

  (b) girocheques

  3,999,309

  (c) automatic credit transfers

  492,579

  (d) payable orders

  83,780

  The payable order figure relates only to payments of retirement and widows benefits. Another 118,724 payable orders were issued but benefit payments cannot be disaggregated from the total of administrative and benefit payments.

  Fair Employment Agency
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of discrimination against(a) Roman Catholics and (b) Protestants the Fair Employment Agency has found in each of the years since its establishment.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Findings of unlawful discrimination made by Fair Employment Agency

  Year

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  11976–1979

  1

  4

  1979–80

  —

  3

  1980–81

  —

  2

  1981–82

  2

  2

  1982–83

  —

  4

  1983–84

  2

  5

  1984–85

  2

  6

  1985–86

  4

  1

  1986–87

  —

  12

  1987–88

  —

  3

  1988–89

  —

  6

  1989–90

  1

  6

  1 In the first three years of the agency's existence composite figures only were produced (end March).

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of supporting the Fair Employment Agency in each of the years since its foundation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The costs of supporting the Fair Employment Agency and Fair Employment Commission over the period 1976 to 1991 were as follows:
  467

  £

  1 September 1976–31 March 1977

  40,850

  1 April 1977–31 March 1978

  81,605

  1 April 1978–31 March 1979

  116,000

  1 April 1979–31 March 1980

  154,000

  1 April 1980–31 March 1981

  189,000

  1 April 1981–31 March 1982

  201,000

  1 April 1982–31 March 1983

  226,300

  1 April 1983–31 March 1984

  228,000

  1 April 1984–31 March 1985

  258,000

  1 April 1985–31 March 1986

  288,000

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  383,000

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  512,000

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  769,900

  1 April 1989–31 March 19901

  1,309,000

  1 April 1990–31 March 19912

  1,519,000

  1 The Fair Employment Agency was renamed Fair Employment Commission by Section 1 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989 with effect from 1 January 1990.

  2 First full year of the Fair Employment Commission.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many allegations of discrimination have been referred to the Fair Employment Agency in each of the years since its foundation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Complaints of Unlawful Religious and/or Political Discrimination received by the Fair Employment Agency

  Year

  Number

  11977

  120

  1978

  120

  31979

  120

  1979–80

  42

  1980–81

  49

  1981–82

  50

  1982–83

  33

  1983–84

  71

  1984–85

  81

  1985–86

  81

  1986–87

  86

  1987–88

  87

  1988–89

  125

  21989–90

  138

  1 In the first three years of the agency's existence composite figures only were produced.

  2 The Fair Employment Tribunal is empowered to hear complaints of acts of alleged discrimination against individuals, on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, where those acts occurred on or after 1 January 1990. The Fair Employment Agency's power to adjudicate in such complaints relates only to those complaints where acts of alleged discrimination occurred before 1 January 1990.

  3 End of March.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of discrimination have been found against(a) Roman Catholic and (b) Protestant employers by the Fair Employment Agency in each of the years since its foundation.

  Mr. Hanky
  The commission does not keep statistics about whether employers involved in individual complaints of discrimination are perceived to be Protestant or Roman Catholic.

PRIME MINISITER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12 March.

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

  Private R and D
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will outline the reconciliation between the figure for expenditure on research and development in private industry made by the Ministry of Defence of £1,202 million for 1988–89 as shown in table 2b of the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development 1990" and the amount received by industry from the Department in 1989 of £630 million according to table 7 of the Central Statistical Office's "Business Bulletin" issue 14/91.

  The Prime Minister
  Reasons for the apparent difference between the two estimates of defence research and development expenditure are provided in the Cabinet Office's "Annual Review of Government Funded R and D 1990" (page 18, paragraph 2). As indicated in paragraph 18 of the Government's reply (Cm 1467) to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on Definitions of R and D (HL Paper 44), we intend to pursue further with industry the reasons for these differing assessments.

  UN Children's Organisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's contribution to the United Nations Children's Organisation.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom made a voluntary contribution of £8·5 million to UNICEF's core budget in 1990. This was our largest ever contribution.

  In 1990 we also paid £1·52 million to UNICEF in response to special appeals.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Act (Covenants)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions he has had an opportunity to enter into a covenant with a company holding an appointment under chapter I of part II of the Water Act 1989 for the purposes set out in section 152(7) of that Act; how many covenants have been entered into; on how many occasions he has declined to enter such covenants; and what were the reasons in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State has not entered into any covenants under section 152(7) or declined any recommendation that he should do so. The Department does not hold information on cases determined by the Countryside Commission under the general authorisation dated 1 September 1989 which do not require the Secretary of State's specific approval.

  Land Disposal
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions the conditions of a consent or authorisation for the disposal of land, or an interest or right in or over that land, have been made in accordance with section 152(5)(a) of the Water Act 1989 to direct the disposal to a specified person where that land is situated in a national park, the Broads, an area of outstanding natural beauty or a site of special scientific interest and has not been acquired compulsorily.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State has not received any recommendation from the Countryside Commission to direct disposal to a specified person under section 152(5)(a).

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any requests from(a) water undertakers, (b) statutory bodies or (c) voluntary bodies to revise or amend the general authorisation dated 1 September 1989 issued under section 152 of the Water Act 1989 concerning the disposal of land in a national park, the Broads, an area of outstanding natural beauty or a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Office of Water Services have all expressed the view that the general authorisation should be revised. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has written to us to the same effect; but we have not received any letters from water undertakers.

  Water Quality
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the supply areas and parameters for which the drinking water inspectorate has made provision to allow drinking water supplies to exceed the water quality standards laid down under the Water Act.

  Mr. Trippier
  Copies of relaxations authorised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment under regulation 4 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what levels of increase in water charges have been agreed between the Government and the water companies over the next nine years;

  (2) what estimate of inflation has been used in the calculation of water charges for the next nine years.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set limits (K factors) on the extent to which water charges may be increased over and above the increase in the retail prices index for the 10 years from 1 April 1990. Lists of the K factors for each water and water and sewerage company were deposited in the Library of the House. In determining the K factors assumptions were made about future inflation levels, but the K factors themselves would have been affected very little by alternative inflation assumptions. Responsibility for overseeing water charges and for any amendments to the K factors for a company falls to the Director General of Water Services.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when general guidance notes for local authorities on the implementation of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department intends to send pre-publication copies of general guidance notes for the implementation of part I of the Environmental Protection Act to local authorities this month, and I will send a copy to the hon. Member. The notes will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if special financial resources will be allocated to local authorities to enable them to implement the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act.

  Mr. Baldry
  An additional £11 million in capital allocations has been allocated in 1991–92 to waste disposal authorities in England for improvements to landfill sites and other disposal facilities to enable them to meet the higher standards that will be required by the Environmental Protection Act. Further provision is planned for future years. As with all new duties falling on local authorities, the revenue consequences of the Environmental Protection Act, have been reflected in the 1991–92 revenue support grant settlement.

  Landfill Sites
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish(a) the number of landfill sites in England and (b) a list of those sites that have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, together with the dates of those visits.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is the responsibility of waste disposal authorities to issue waste disposal licences and to ensure that any conditions of the licences are met. Information on the number of landfill sites in England is therefore not held centrally.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the second part of her question.

  Water Pipes
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of placing responsibility for all water pipes with the water companies.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have no plans to make water companies responsible for any water pipes other than those already vested in them, and have therefore not prepared any estimates of the cost of doing so.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information on genetically modified organisms, which have been released to the environment, is currently available to the public; whether this information is available.; centrally; and whether the information includes a description of the genetically modified organisms, the name and address of the releaser, the purpose of the release, the location of the release, a summary of the risk assessment, methods and plans for monitoring, and methods and plans for emergency response.
  471
  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has no current arrangements for making such information available to the public. Provision for public registers of information about genetically modified organisms is, however, made in part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The location of such registers and the particulars of the matters to be included on them will be prescribed in regulations under part VI on which my right hon. Friend will consult later this year. Meanwhile the operative regulations for the control of all activities using genetically modified organisms are the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Site Authorisation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who has responsibility for issuing authorisation to sites with a mixture of part A and part B processes.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991, which were laid before the House today, contain a series of rules for determining the control authority in cases such as those where there is a mixture of part A and part B processes on the same site. It will depend, among other matters, on whether the processes are undertaken by the same operator and whether they fall within the same section of schedule 1 to the regulations. The rules are explained in "Integrated Pollution Control—A Practical Guide" which was published on 28 February and a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may, exceptionally, direct, under section 4(4) of the Environmental Protection Act, that processes are transferred from local authority to national inspectorate (air only) control.

  Cryptosporidiosis
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive reports from the communicable disease surveillance centre and the drinking water inspectorate in connection with the recent outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Humberside.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that a report from the outbreak control team is imminent. When it is available the drinking water inspectorate can continue its investigation.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether planning permission is required to allow helicopters to land on the tops of buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  This will depend on the details of what is proposed, and is for the local planning authority to judge in the first instance.

  Recycling
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the supplementary credit approval scheme for funding recycling projects in England and Wales was established; what funds are available to it; and over what time scale the scheme operates.
  472
  Mr. Baldry
  Supplementary credit approvals for investment in recycling facilities are being made available from 1991–92 for local authorities in England only. We have made provision for a further £30 million of such supplementary credit approvals in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors he considered before deciding not to review the permissible level of lead in drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend considered whether any new evidence or considerations had become available.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what time scales are to be afforded to water suppliers in order to meet(a) the informal standards on pesticides, and (b) all other health-related, toxic or microbiological, standards in the EC drinking water directive, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, solvents and lead.

  Mr. Trippier
  The standards set in the EC drinking water directive have been incorporated into the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. Most water supplies already meet most of the standards in the regulations. The supplies that do not yet comply are the subject of remedial action which will generally bring them into compliance by 1995. This remedial action is set out in undertakings given by the companies under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 and copies of these are in the Library. The only standards set by the regulations in respect of pesticides are the ones in the EC directive and it is to those standards that the actions specified in the relevant undertakings relate.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many authorisations have been granted for departures from his Department's regulations for drinking water quality; and if he will list these departures, together with time scales for their remediation.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has authorised 719 relaxations under regulation 4 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. Most of them contain provision for work to be carried out to achieve the relevant standard by, at latest, 1995. The remainder are subject to review by 1994. Copies of the relaxations have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Access to Information
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to implement the EC directive of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government fully support the directive. Indeed, we played a full part in the discussions which resulted in its formulation. The United Kingdom is committed to implementing the directive in domestic law by the end of 1992, and my Department will shortly be issuing a consultation paper on ways of achieving this.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to prevent ships carrying cargoes of dangerous disposable waste from entering British ports.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. There are already effective safeguards in respect of the import of hazardous waste. Under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 a disposer may not accept an import of hazardous waste unless his disposal authority has approved the dispatch of the waste from the country of production.

  Nitrogen Oxide (Monitoring)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the number of nitrogen oxide monitoring stations.

  Mr. Trippier
  Plans to expand the monitoring of air quality in the United Kingdom were announced in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" last September.

  As a first step an enhanced urban monitoring network is to be put in place this year. It will include an increased number of stations for monitoring nitrogen oxides.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public expenditure in total will be available for housing action trusts in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 and in subsequent years; and how much specifically has been earmarked for housing action trusts if they proceed in(a) Waltham Forest, (b) Hull and (c) elsewhere.

  Sir George Young
  Present planned public expenditure provision for housing action trusts is £10·3 million in 1991–92, £67·3 million in 1992–93 and £69·0 million in 1993–94. Planned provision for 1994–95 will be announced in autumn 1991 following the 1991 public expenditure survey. Specific annual allocations for individual trusts have not yet been made. The amount needed by a trust in a particular year can be determined only when the trust has been established and has drawn up its corporate plan.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many qualified environmental health officers are currently employed by local authorities in England; how many vacancies for such officers exist; and what action he is taking to ensure that a sufficient number of officers will be available in future.

  Mr. Key
  Information on the numbers of qualified environmental health officers is not collected by my Department. It is for each local authority with powers in this field to decide how many officers are needed and to make arrangements for recruiting them.

  Leybucht Bay Judgment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 7 March,Official Report, column 243, when he expects the official English translation of the Leybucht Bay judgment to be available to him.
  474
  Mr. Trippier
  Responsibility for the production of the official English translation of the judgment rests with the European Court of Justice. I cannot forecast when this will be available.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many residents in Wolverhampton in the current financial year have benefited from transitional relief in the payment of their community charge;

  (2) how many residents in Wolverhampton will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Key
  About 16,500 people in Wolverhampton are benefiting from transitional relief in 1990–91. Information on the number of people in each charging authority area who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme in 1991–92 will be available once authorities have submitted their grant claim forms.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if police officers living in section houses in the metropolis where the rates were paid by the receiver are eligible to receive a reduction in their community charge.

  Mr. Key
  Entitlement to the automatic reduction is not affected by the fact that the rates had been paid by another person.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer has been given in Lewisham, Hammersmith and Fulham and Ealing.

  Mr. Key
  Government grants, consisting of revenue support grant, specific grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, are per head of relevant population in 1990–91, £738 in Lewisham, £765 in Hammersmith and Fulham and £667 in Ealing.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by Chorley, Pendle, West Lancashire, Chester, Blackpool and Swindon.

  Mr. Key
  Government grants, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, are per head of relevant population in 1990–91 as follows:

  Government grants per head of relevant population

  £

  Chorley

  255

  Pendle

  329

  West Lancashire

  297

  Chester

  213

  Blackpool

  290

  Thamesdown

  237

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many standard poll tax payers are registered in(a) Wigan, (b) Salford, (c) Bolton and (d) Westminster.
  475
  Mr. Key
  The available information reported by local authorities is as follows:

  Number of unoccupied properties on the community charges register subject to a standard community charge at 1 June 1990, including properties subject to a standard charge with a multiplier of zero

  Number

  Wigan

  4,302

  Salford

  3,006

  Westminster

  18,607

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by(a) Liverpool, (b) Wirral and (c) Sefton.

  Mr. Key
  Government grants, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, are per head of relevant population in 1990–91, £814 in Liverpool, £439 in Wirral and £325 in Sefton.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by Bradford local authority and Wandsworth local authority for 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  Government grants, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, are per head of relevant population in 1990–91, £613 in Bradford and £677 in Wandsworth.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Key
  Government grants, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, are per head of relevant population in 1990–91, as follows:

  Government grants per head of relevant population

  £

  Bolton

  416

  Bury

  278

  Manchester

  866

  Oldham

  505

  Rochdale

  459

  Salford

  565

  Stockport

  267

  Tameside

  347

  Trafford

  349

  Wigan

  306

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by(a) each of the four metropolitan local authorities in South Yorkshire and (b) each of the Scarborough and Bridlington local authorities.

  Mr. Key
  Government grants, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, are per head of relevant population in 1990–91, as follows:476

  Government grants per head of relevant population £

  Barnsley

  323

  Doncaster

  338

  Rotherham

  275

  Sheffield

  309

  Scarborough

  180

  East Yorkshire

  260

  London Borough of Ealing
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 967, what is the total additional assistance that has been given to the London borough of Ealing towards its housing revenue account; which Ministers took part in the negotiations; and under what authority and for what specific purposes the assistance was given.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has agreed to advance the London borough of Ealing £5 million of housing revenue account subsidy from 1992–93 to 1991–92 to give the council more time to overcome the problems created by the previous Labour administration's setting of a totally unrealistic budget. The advance of subsidy is being provided under sections 80 to 87 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) considered and approved the London borough of Ealing's request.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage level of rent increase has been applied in Ealing since May 1990 for council house tenants.

  Mr. Yeo
  I understand that since May 1990 the London borough of Ealing has increased council rents once, in January 1991 by 38·6 per cent., eqivalent to £10·77 per week.

  Employment Land
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, for the purpose of county structure plans and local plans, employment land is deemed to include land for all types of employment such as industry, retail, commercial and leisure.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 11 March 1991]: No. Plans should make distinctions between different types of employment-generating development, to the extent that they have different implications for land use. Retail development, for example, will often have different implications from industrial use. Further advice is given in the relevant planning policy guidance notes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dangerous Criminals
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how he intends to ensure that offenders who are a persistent danger to women receive tougher sentences.
  477
  Mr. John Patten
  The Criminal Justice Bill strengthens the court's powers to protect the public from persistent violent and sexual offenders. Courts will be able to impose a custodial sentence or a longer one than justified by the seriousness of the offence upon a sexual or violent offender who poses a risk of serious harm to the public. They will also be able to order longer and more intensive supervision for sex offenders following their release from custody or when they are sentenced to a community penalty.

  Gambling
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures, expressed in £ million per annum and per head of the population, for gambling in the United Kingdom on(a) off-course and on-course betting, (b) amusement machines, (c) casinos, (d) bingo, (e) football pools and (f) small lotteries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Estimated figures for gambling turnover (i.e. amount staked) in the financial year 1989–90 are tabulated below. Those for off-course betting, pool betting and bingo are based on returns to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Those for casinos and lotteries are taken from the annual report of the Gaming Board for Great Britain, although the latter includes only those lotteries registered with the board. The estimates for on-course betting and gaming machines cannot be calculated directly and should be treated with extreme caution. The turnover per head per annum is based on an estimated population of 57·2 million.

  Estimated turnover/year £ million

  Turnover/ head/year £

  Off-course betting

  5,734

  100

  On-course betting

  743

  13

  Gaming machines

  3,494

  61

  Casinos

  1,881

  33

  Bingo

  807

  14

  Pools

  715

  12·5

  Lotteries

  23

  0–4

  Lotteries
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the completion of the internal market in the European Community after 1992 will have any impact on the controls imposed by United Kingdom law on the distribution and sale of lottery tickets produced by other member countries;

  (2) whether it is the policy or Her Majesty's Government, in the context of the completion of the single market, to maintain national legislation on gambling games on grounds of public morality and consumer protection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commission's White Paper programme for the completion of the single market does not contain proposals for the harmonisation of gambling legislation. So far as we are aware, the Commission does not at present have plans to bring forward any such proposals. It is Her Majesty's Government's policy that controls on gambling are matters for national authorities.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has contacted the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the distribution of 478
  Suddeutschen Klassenlotterie tickets in the United Kingdom; and whether he has asked that Government to withdraw authorisation of that lottery in Germany.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have discussed with the Federal Republic of Germany possible means of preventing the distribution of Suddeutsche Klassenlotterie tickets in the United Kingdom. The director of the lottery has drawn to the notice of the lottery's agents that the mass promotion of the lottery in another country where that is unlawful is contrary to the rules under which the agents operate. We shall continue to liaise with both the director and the relevant authorities in Germany about examples of agents promoting the Suddeutsche Klassenlotterie in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures he has taken to prevent the unauthorised sale of foreign lottery tickets in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what representations he has recently made to Governments of member countries in the European Community to prevent the unauthorised sale of lottery tickets in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Together, where appropriate, with the Gaming Board for Great Britain, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a number of measures are taken to prevent or curtail the promotion of foreign lotteries in the United Kingdom.

  Representations are, if necessary, made to the authorities in the country concerned. Of European Community countries, such representations have been made to the Federal Republic of Germany. Representations have also been made to the authorities in Austria, as a result of which that country's national lottery has undertaken to cease their promotional activities in this country, and to the authorities in British Columbia, Canada.

  If advertisements for foreign lotteries appear in magazines published here, the provisions of our law are drawn to the attention of the publishers who have previously undertaken not to publish such advertisements again. In addition, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have seized substantial quantities of promotional letters intended to be posted individually here but imported in bulk.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on lottery sales, in £ million per annum, in EC countries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do from time to time receive information about expenditure on gambling in other EC countries, but we do not at present have any consistent or reliable figures for lottery sales. Such figures may in due course be available as part of a study now being conducted on behalf of the European Commission.

  Visitors
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of visitors admitted to the United Kingdom in each month of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table:
  479

  Ordinary and business visitors1 admitted to the United Kingdom 1990

  Month

  Total

  January

  338,000

  February

  351,000

  March

  472,000

  April

  508,000

  May

  645,000

  June

  793,000

  July

  896,000

  August

  726,000

  September

  636,000

  October

  534,000

  November

  422,000

  December

  398,000

  Annual total

  6,720,000

  1 Excluding European Community nationals.

  Immigration (Carriers' liability)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount paid(a) by airlines and (b) by ferry operators under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in each month of 1990: and how much remains outstanding in unpaid penalties in respect of notices served in (a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The accounting system does not differentiate between airlines and ferry operators; the analysis requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The total amount paid by all carriers in each month of 1990 was as follows:

  £

  January

  234,000

  February

  198,000

  March

  368,000

  April

  59,000

  May

  339,000

  June

  250,000

  July

  202,000

  August

  221,000

  September

  210,000

  October

  415,000

  November

  670,000

  December

  241,000

  Total

  3,407,000

  The following amounts remain outstanding in respect of notices served in each of the following years:

  £

  1988

  1,203,000

  1989

  2,201,000

  1990

  5,943,000

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate(a) how many notices were served under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, (b) in how many cases representations were made and (c) in how many cases discretion was exercised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total number of notices issued to carriers (for example airlines and sea operators) to 31 January 1991 was 26,604. Representations were made by carriers to the ports in 7,179 cases. Discretion was 480
  exercised in 5,627 cases, either as the result of written representations made by carriers after receipt of a notice or on subsequent review at immigration service headquarters.

  Asylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has on the number of applications made for asylum in each European Community country in (i) 1980, (ii) 1988, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table:

  Applications for asylum in European Community countries1

  1980

  1988

  1989

  19902

  Belgium

  2,700

  5,100

  8,100

  12,950

  Denmark

  50

  4,650

  4,600

  5,300

  Federal Republic of Germany

  107,800

  103,100

  121,300

  193,050

  France

  13,700

  31,600

  58,750

  56,050

  Greece

  1,800

  8,400

  3,000

  4,400

  Italy

  2,450

  1,300

  3,350

  4,750

  Netherlands

  3,200

  7,500

  13,900

  17,600

  Portugal

  n.a.

  350

  150

  100

  Spain

  n.a.

  3,300

  2,850

  6,850

  United Kingdom

  2,350

  5,250

  16,300

  30,000

  1 Information is not available for the Republic of Ireland and Luxembourg.

  2 Some of the 1990 figures are provisional estimates.

  n.a. = not available.

  Criminal Responsibility
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has any plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years;

  (2) what factors were taken into account in deciding to establish the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It was raised from eight years to its present level of 10 years by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is giving any consideration to changing the age of criminal responsibility to fall into line with other European member states after 1992.

  Mr. John Patten
  The arrangements for dealing with young offenders differ between the member states of the European Community. There is no common age of criminal responsibility.

  Wormhoudt Massacre
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr of 13 December 1990,Official Report, column 490, if he has received a report from the German prosecuter following interviews with survivors of the Wormhoudt massacre of 5 October 1989, and other statements provided on 20 June 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the German prosecutor has not yet reached a decision on this case.

  Immigration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have been held with other European Community Governments concerning the entry of Iraqi and Palestinian people to any member state since 15 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the hostilities there was a continuing exchange of information between European Community governments about the terrorist threat and measures to counter it, including the deportation or exclusion of individuals judged to pose a threat to security.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is given to electoral registration officers on production of non-English language materials to promote electoral registration.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1988 and 1989 we issued to electoral registration officers sets of model explanatory notes on the registration process in a number of ethnic minority languages, together with guidance on their use. The 1989 revision remains extant. In general, registration officers are themselves best placed to assess the needs of the local ethnic minority population and to produce their own material accordingly.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the rates of juvenile offending per head of population in all EC countries in ascending order.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraqi Nationals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi nationals have to undertake weekly reporting to police stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Four Iraqi nationals who are the subject of either deportation or illegal entry action are required to report weekly to the police; one other is required to report twice weekly. In addition, a number of Iraqis will have been instructed to report to the police at weekly intervals by immigration officers at ports and airports. Details are not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Government proposes to make a statement on changes in immigration rules in respect of refugees and asylum-seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Asylum arrangements are under review, but it is too early to say when or in what way changes might be introduced.

  Children and Young Persons Act
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are plans to implement sections 4 and 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
  482
  Mr. John Patten
  No. These provisions, which have never been implemented, will be repealed by the Criminal Justice Bill.

  Mr. Les Huckfield
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Merseyside as to the cost so far of investigations into the conduct of Mr. Les Huckfield.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Merseyside on civil actions outstanding against him or his officers relating to Mr. Les Huckfield.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Children
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the steps the Government has taken to endorse parents' responsibility for their children's behaviour.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Criminal Justice Bill contains provisions designed to bring home to parents their accountability when their children offend. It contains provisions for parents' attendance at court with their children, for parents' payment of their children's fines and for parents to be bound over to look after their children properly.

  Shop Squatting
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the practice known as shop squatting in vacant retail premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received representations from a number of hon. Members and others about squatting in vacant shops. We are examining the law as it affects the unlawful occupation of buildings generally to assess whether any change is needed, but we have not yet reached conclusions.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek a report from the chief constable of Hampshire on the total number of police involved in policing New Forest hunts on Boxing day and new year's day 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that 23 uniformed officers and six special constables were in attendance when the New Forest hunt met on Boxing day 1990 and that 10 uniformed officers were deployed on new year's day 1991.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek a report from the chief constable of Hampshire on the number of occasions in 1990 when police video cameras were used to film hunt protesters in the New Forest.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that the police used video cameras at 14 hunt meetings in 1990.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests for financial assistance to be given in 1990–91 and 1991–92 he has received from Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless.

  Mr. John Patten
  Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless, supported by the West Glamorgan probation service, has applied for funding for five bed spaces for offenders in 1991–92. This is being considered. I am told that we received no request for 1990–91.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in his Department; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office employs staff in some 320 workplaces throughout the country. Nursery provision is generally focused on areas which have considerable concentration of staff: it is already available in Croydon and in Bootle and will shortly be available in Westminster and north London. Holiday play schemes are also available in Croydon, Bootle and Westminster as well as at Peterborough, but there is no current provision for after school child care. The Department contributes to the cost of the existing provision and would expect to continue to so subsidise any future similar initiatives in which its local managers are prepared to invest. There is no central record of costs nor estimate of future costs.

EMPLOYMENT

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

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment has continued to rise, and the work force in employment is now over 27·3 million, the highest ever level, over 2·3 million higher than in June 1987. Unemployment is just under 1 million lower than at the June 1987 election. The United Kingdom continues to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community. Only Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal have lower rates. The number of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months has fallen by 59 per cent. since July 1987. Unemployment among the 18 to 24s is also down by over a third since October 1987. In December 1990 under-25s EC unemployment rate for the United Kingdom is 10·5 per cent. compared with the EC average of 16 per cent.

  Over the last three years, the Government have radically reformed the framework within which training and enterprise are supported in Britain. We have created a network of local training and enterprise councils to give business a leading role in local training and economic
  484
  development. We have stimulated the development of a comprehensive system of industry training organisations. Through the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, we have made substantial progress with the reform of vocational qualifications, producing a ladder of opportunity for individuals to climb to higher levels of competence.

  The Government's training measures, now under the local direction of TECs, have helped substantial numbers of people. In recent years 2·7 million young people have benefited from youth training; 900,000 unemployed adults from employment training; and 850,000 from the technical and vocational education initiative. 84,000 students annually are now benefiting through the enterprise in higher education initiative. The growth of training in Britain in recent years is demonstrated by the 70 per cent. rise shown by the labour force surveys 1984–89 in the numbers of employees receiving training from their employers.

  The technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) has helped schools in all LEAs to make their curricula relevant to the world of work and has provided a substantial increase in the numbers of students obtaining a record of achievement.

  Compacts, which are bargains between young people from inner city areas, schools, employers and training providers, are operational in 47 areas; 15 more are planned. In the first 29 areas over 50,000 students are covered by the job with training guarantee; over 300 schools are participating; over 5,000 employers are actively involved; and 25,000 jobs with quality training have been pledged for successful compacts graduates.

  The education business partnerships initiative was launched in 1990 with plans to set up single partnerships in each TEC area to improve work relevant education opportunities and widen business involvement.

  Following a successful pilot programme, career development loans were made available throughout Great Britain in July 1988 to help individuals pay for vocational training of their own choice. By the end of January 1991 over 15,000 people had invested some £44 million in their own future through training. More than four out of five people paying for their training using a career development loan go into or are already in jobs on finishing their training.

  The number of small firms in Britain and the level of self-employment continue to rise rapidly. In 1988 and 1989 the number of VAT-registered firms grew by 152,000. The number of self-employed people rose by 520,000 between June 1987 and June 1990. Early indications for 1990 based on VAT registrations are that there continues to be a significant increase in the number of businesses.

  Since 1987 we have continued our step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations and trade union law, which has helped to bring about the significant improvement in industrial relations during the 1980s.

  The Employment Act 1988 gave union members the right to restrain their union from calling on them to take industrial action without a proper secret ballot, the right to inspect union accounting records, the right to elect all principal union leaders by secret postal ballot under independent scrutiny, and the right not to be unjustifiably disciplined by their union. The Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members was established to assist union members taking certain proceedings.
  485
  Employees were protected, in all circumstances, against dismissal for membership or non-membership of a trade union, and organising industrial action to establish or maintain any closed shop practice was made unlawful.

  The Employment Act 1989 promoted equality of opportunity for women in employment, removed unnecessary restrictions on young people in work, and paved the way for the removal of the weight of Industrial Training Board bureaucracy from major sections of British industry.

  The main industrial relations and trade union law provisions of the Employment Act 1990 came into force on 1 January 1991. They give anyone refused a job on the grounds of membership or non-membership of a trade union a right of complaint to an industrial tribunal, make a trade union responsible in law for a call to take industrial action by any of their officials, and make it unlawful to organise secondary industrial action or action in support of an employee dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action. In addition, any employee taking unofficial action will know that they risk losing the right to claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed. New requirements on union election and strike ballots enhance union members' democratic rights, and the powers of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members are extended to enable her to assist proceedings arising from a breach, or possible breach, of a union's rule on certain matters.

  A new statutory code of practice "Trade Union Ballots on Industrial Action" came into operation on 11 April 1990. The code promotes desirable practices in relation to the conduct by trade unions of such ballots.

  As a result of the abolition of the highly restrictive dock labour scheme by the Dock Work Act 1989, the efficiency and labour productivity of the former scheme ports has been transformed and new business opportunities in and around the ports are flourishing.

  The employment service (ES) was created in October 1987 by bringing together in one organisation both job placement and payment of benefits to unemployed people, in order to provide a more coherent and effective service to those in need of help to get jobs and thereby fill employers' vacancies. In April 1990 the ES was established as the largest "next steps" agency to date.

  In 1989–90 the ES placed in jobs 1–85 million people, 80 per cent. of whom were unemployed. The ES is continuing to improve its services and programmes with the introduction of back to work plans for all unemployed people, the establishment of a unified advisory service, and extra help for those unemployed for over six months.

  The ES has made a successful start to the process of combining the functions of job centres and unemployment benefit offices under one roof, so that clients can benefit more easily from the full range of ES services. The Government are investing £70 million in the new network of 1,100–1,200 offices, which will be completed by 1994.

  In 1990 my Department issued a consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", setting out proposals to increase the effectiveness of the services which assist people with disabilities to prepare for, gain and retain employment. Responses to this document are now being considered.

  The Department has continued to play an active role in the discussions of EC social affairs policies and the United Kingdom, as shown in a recent report by the European Commission, is the only member state to implement all 18 existing measures in the social field.
  486
  We have also continued our programme to modernise and update the law relating to health and safety at work, in particular by a major revision of the law governing the control of substances potentially hazardous to health in the work place.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recourse is available to disabled people who consider they have been unjustifiably discriminated against in the field of employment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Where people feel that discrimination in employment arises from their having a disability they can discuss the matter with the Disablement Advisory Service or a disablement resettlement officer who, where appropriate, can contact the employer and seek to overcome any prejudice or misunderstanding, including providing guidance on the wide range of help available for integrating people with disabilities into the work force. If they meet the qualifying conditions they may be able to complain of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal. Along with other employees, in the appropriate circumstances they can also complain to an industrial tribunal about discrimination on grounds of sex, race and membership or non-membership of a trade union, for which there is no qualifying period of service.

  Registration
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement outlining those occupations in the United Kingdom at risk from member states of the European Community due to the lack of mandatory registration.

  Mr. Forth
  Member states in the Community are bound by the treaty articles and associated legislation concerned to achieve the free movement of persons, services and capital. These requirements affect all occupations. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular risk in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the criteria by which TECs will be paid their output-related funding for 1991–92 for(a) youth training, (b) employment training or (c) the enterprise allowance scheme; on what evidence their performance will be assessed; who is responsible for collecting and evaluating this evidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  For youth training (YT), TECs will be paid output-related funding in 1991–92 for national vocational qualifications (NVQs), or equivalent qualifications, at level II and above gained by those trainees who have remained in training for a minimum period of one month. Additionally, payment will be made for NVQs, or equivalent qualifications, gained at level I by some special training needs trainees.

  For employment training (ET), TECs will be paid output-related funding for NVQs, or equivalent qualifications, gained by those trainees (other than trainees in skill shortage occupations or who are returning to the labour market) who have remained in training for a minimum

  487
  period of one month. Payment will also be made for such trainees who are in a job, self employment, or full-time education or training three months after leaving ET.

  Payment will be made for trainees in skill shortage occupations or who are returning to the labour market who gain NVQs, or equivalent qualifications, at level II and above and are in a job, self employment, or full-time education three months after leaving ET.

  For the enterprise allowance scheme, TECs will be paid output-related funding for scheme entrants and for 12 week and 26 week business survivors.

  Evidence that outputs have been achieved will be collected and held by TECs and training providers and will be available for audit by the Employment Department.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a summary of the information that has been collected by his Department from area offices and TECs about the employment training recontracting that has taken place showing(a) which TECs or area offices have reduced or terminated ET contracts, or plan to, giving the number of contracts involved and (b) which TECs or area offices have had problems finding alternative places for trainees who have been displaced from training programmes as a result of recontracting, giving the number of trainees involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department is currently negotiating contracts with training and enterprise councils (TECs) for the delivery of employment training (ET) in 1991–92. Decisions on contracts with individual training providers are a matter for TECs.

  Information is not held centrally on numbers of ET contracts which are reduced or terminated nor on the numbers of ET trainees transferred to alternative training providers.

  My right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 26 February provision of an additional £120 million for ET in 1991–92. This additional resource will enable ET to continue to play its important role in helping long term unemployed people back to work.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the allocated budget of each of the operational TECs for 1991–92, showing the amounts contracted for(a) youth training, (b) employment training and (c) the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Contracts with TECs are still subject to negotiation.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were self-employed in the Northern region in February 1981, June 1987 and February 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of self-employed in the northern region is available only on a quarterly basis up to September 1990. The information is as follows:

  Self-employed in Northern Region

  Number

  March 1981

  83,000

  June 1987

  108,000

  September 1990

  114,000

  Purchasing and Distribution
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the full annual cost, including overheads, of his Department's purchasing activity.

  Mr. Forth
  On the latest information available the annual cost of the Department's purchasing activities including overheads is £2·14 million.

  This information is taken from the report submitted to the Central Unit on Purchasing for the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in his Department are wholly or substantially involved in purchasing stores and distribution activities.

  Mr. Forth
  On the latest information available the Department has 111 people wholly involved full time in purchasing stores and distribution services.

  Accurate figures for staff who are substantially involved in these activities are not available.

  This information is taken from the report submitted to the central unit on purchasing for the financial year 1989–90.

  Restart Courses
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether an unemployed person who has been required to attend a restart course and fails to do so, or fails to complete the course, is entitled to a copy of the mandatory attendance at restart courses form RC3, which is completed by the claimant adviser; whether they can refuse to sign the RC3 if they disagree with what the claimant adviser has written down as their reason for non-attendance; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether, after two years unemployment, an unemployed person who is on a waiting list for either (a) an employment training place, or (b) any other education or training course, or (c) waiting to start on the enterprise allowance scheme or (d) waiting for a place on a jobclub would be recognised as having good cause for not participating in a compulsory restart course; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the employment service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred these questions for reply.

  Value for Money
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures of performance are employed by his Department to ensure value for money.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has a wide range of performance indicators designed to measure value for money. The recently published departmental report lists the performance indicators used in the Employment Department group and includes specific sections on value for money initiatives and the cost effective use of resources. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Each part of the group identifies annual efficiency gains of at least one and a half per cent. of running costs. In 1989–90 the total gain across the group was £30 million, more than 3 per cent. of running costs.

  Power Station Emissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the emissions of particles contaminated with legionella feeli and E. coli organisms from power station cooling towers.

  Mr. Forth
  No definitive data on the microbiological emissions in the drift from power station cooling towers have been produced in the United Kingdom. However, I am not aware of any epidemiological evidence for cases of human disease associated with the emission of these or any other organisms from such towers.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give details of his policy with respect to access by disabled people to employment service facilities;

  (2) if he will make arrangements to allow for access by people with disabilities to the employment service office at Malton, North Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what account he takes of travel distance and available transport systems in making a decision to approve closures of jobcentres in rural areas;

  (4) what special measures he takes to ensure access to, and information about, jobcentre services in dispersed rural areas;

  (5) if he will introduce five-day working at the employment service's office at Malton, North Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the employment service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred these questions for reply.

  Training
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the representations he has received from Mr. T. L. Cox, on behalf of the Leicestershire employment training managers' forum, dated 26 February; what reply he has sent; and what specific training arrangements he envisages for ethnic minority groups or disadvantaged persons.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received the letter from Mr. T. L. Cox on behalf of the Leicestershire employment training managers forum dated 26 February 1991. I will reply to Mr. Cox shortly.

  The Leicestershire training and enterprise council (TEC) will have responsibility for specific training arrangements including training for those with special needs when it becomes operational from 1 April 1991. The TEC's plans will have to include an assessment of those needs and a description of how the TEC intends to meet them.

  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he intends to make to the Employment Committee's recommendation in its first report of Session 1990–91 that the number of disablement resettlement officers and the resources made available for their work should be the subject of a Government review.
  490
  Mr. Jackson
  In its report, the Employment Committee said that it would draw attention to various particular concerns which it expected the Government to address when considering the response to the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities". My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State, has written to the Chairman of the Committee to express his pleasure at the participation of the Committee in the consultative process, to say that the Committee's comments will be given full consideration along with all others received and to commit himself to keeping the Committee informed on progress on all the issues they raised. We are still considering the responses to the consultative document.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the budget for the Devon and Cornwall TEC in youth training will be notified; what is the reason for the delay; by how much it will be above or below the total for the previous year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 11 March 1991]: The contract with Devon and Cornwall TEC is at present subject to negotiation. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the contract is finalised.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date his director of field operations first contacted the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC concerning the procedure for carrying out the construction of the new TEC headquarters.

  Mr. Jackson
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 February 1991]: I regret that the information given in my reply of 26 February at column 480 was incorrect.

  The first contact took place on 7 December 1990 and was in the form of a telephone conversation.

HEALTH

  Food Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) companies, (b) trade associations, (c) individuals and (d) other organisations (i) who have submitted written evidence and (ii) whom his Department has met in relation to his Department's draft food hygience training consultation document issued in relation to the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A list of organisations that responded to the consultation document has been placed in the Library. Seven individual members of the public also responded.

  Representatives of the Department have discussed proposals on hygiene training for food handlers with outside bodies on numerous occasions.

  St. Paul's Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he will meet a delegation from the community health councils for central and southern Liverpool, the rector of Liverpool parish church, and a cross-party group of hon. Members and local councillors to discuss the future of St. Paul's hospital, Liverpool;
  491
  (2) what representations he has received from the rector of Liverpool parish church concerning St. Paul's eye hospital; and if he will publish his response.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received from Canon Frayling a copy of the submission he made to Liverpool health authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to him explaining that under the procedure for consultation it would not be appropriate to comment while the matter is still under consideration by the Liverpool health authority and the Mersey regional health authority. For the same reason it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to meet a delegation at this stage.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he issues any guidance about(a) the number of midwives and (b) the number of other staff required for the adequate staffing of an ante-natal clinic.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. This is a matter for local management. Staffing levels are likely to vary depending upon the type of service that is provided locally and the catchment areas which clinics serve.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been done on the use of epidural anaesthesia in childbirth, other than caesarean deliveries, relating to(a) maternal satisfaction, (b) percentage requiring forceps deliveries, (c) effect on babies' sucking ability and (d) any other matters.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has provided core funding to the national perinatal epidemiology unit in Oxford since 1978. Since its inception, the unit has been conducting a systematic assessment of evidence about the effectiveness and safety of perinatal care. This has involved conducting a systematic review of controlled trials in overviews (meta-analyses) which culminated in the publication in 1989 of "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" (Oxford University Press) part of which reviews the evidence relating to epidural anaesthesia, a copy is available in the Library.

  In addition, the Department has provided part-funding to a confidential enquiry into pain relief in labour undertaken by the National Birthday Trust in June 1990 and has also funded research on the postpartum consequences of epidural anaesthesia as part of a programme of work on postnatal maternal health at the health care research centre, University of Birmingham.

  We do not keep a central register of research funded by other agencies.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which research projects relating to ante-natal care have been funded by the Government in the last 10 years; and what information he has on other ante-natal research projects which have been undertaken in that period.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has funded numerous projects on antenatal care in the last decade. It has provided core funding to the national perinatal epidemiology unit in Oxford since 1978. The unit undertakes a wide programme of research including surveys and other studies using observational data, randomised controlled trials and syntheses of the results of research evaluating the effects of care. The unit has 492
  produced nearly 500 publications, of which probably more than half relate to care during pregnancy. The Department has also funded a midwifery research initiative based at the unit since February 1988.

  The Department does not keep a central register of research on specific topics funded by other Government Departments or their agents.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any health authority now maintains a flying squad for use in connection with home confinements.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All health authorities must ensure that they have satisfactory arrangements for an immediate response to any obstetric emergency occurring outside hospital.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in his Department; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has 46 work places. The majority of staff are based in London at the Elephant and Castle and in Westminster. A holiday play scheme which has been run at the Elephant and Castle since 1989 is now part of a wider Westminster holiday play scheme. No after-school care facilities and, at present, no on-site nursery facilities are provided. The Department has arranged seven places at a private day nursery in the Elephant and Castle area. Plans for further child care provision include a 25-place nursery as part of redevelopment at the Elephant and Castle, and a 30-place nursery at Quarry house, Leeds.

  The Department subsidises the costs of both holiday play scheme and nursery places. Current costs to parents are: play scheme: £10 annual registration fee and a daily charge of £5; nursery places: £50 per week. The subsidy for the play scheme in 1989 was approximately £4,200 in 1990, £4,600 and in 1991 it is estimated at £5,200. The departmental contribution to nursery places for 1991 is estimated at £24,000. The Department has a provisional child care budget for 1991–92 of £82,000.

  Children's Eye Services, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's ophthalmic beds are currently provided in Liverpool, and at what hospitals; and what proposals have been made to alter these arrangements.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Michael Emberton, the chairman of the Liverpool health authority, for details.

  Caring Occupations
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the member states of the European Community which operate a system of registration for employees involved in caring occupations.
  493
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on registration systems for the health care professions is currently being collated by the European Commission from data provided by member states. We do not anticipate full details being available before 1992.

  Traffic Casualties
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about section 155 of the Road Traffic Act 1972; and if he will consider bringing forward proposals to annul that section of the Act.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provisions of section 155 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 were consolidated into section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Representations about this section of the Act are received from time to time from, among others, hon. Members, motoring organisations and the public. The Government are on record that they intend to abolish the right of hospitals (but not general practitioners) to collect the emergency treatment fee, when a suitable legislative vehicle becomes available.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has made any analysis of the relative change in remuneration of health service ancillary staff as compared with medical, nursing and other groups of staff;

  (2) if he has any plans to bring the pay of health service ancillary staff into line with other public sector groups.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The pay and conditions of service of National Health Service ancillary staff are matters for negotiation in the ancillary staffs Whitley council. Comparisons with the pay of other staff groups in the national health service and elsewhere are a factor in the negotiations along with others including affordability. Management's objective is to enable adequate staff of the requisite calibre to be recruited, motivated and retained locally.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service doctors and nurses were employed in the Northern region in 1980 and 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Hospital and community health service medical staff in the Northern region at 30 September each year

  Year

  Whole time equivalent (WTE)

  1980

  2,431·1

  1981

  2,484·5

  1989

  2,801·3

  The information for 1990 is not yet available. Figures include permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  NHS staff in post at 30 September each year

  Year

  Nursing and midwifery1 WTE2

  1980

  325,170

  1981

  26,210

  1989

  27,800

  Information for 1990 is not yet available. The figure for 1981 is shown because of the reduction in nurses working hours—see foot note 3.
  494
  Source: Department of Health (SM13) Annual Consensus of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1Includes agency staff.

  2All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten WTE.

  3Figures not adjusted to take account of the reduction in nurses working hours during 1980–81 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week).

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute a study of the cost to the health service of high rates of turnover amongst ancillary staff and of the level of stress thereby imposed on nurses through an increased work load.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Turnover rates among ancillary staff vary substantially in different parts of the country. It is for local management to determine staffing requirements and to deal with the consequences of any high rate of turnover.

  Patients (Safety)
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what instructions are given to regional health authorities concerning the danger of foreign objects being left in patients; and what safety checks are obligatory;

  (2) what is the procedure to recall patients for abdominal x-ray to ascertain the position of clips not extracted during operations;

  (3) what is the procedure to warn patients after operations that clips are still in the patient.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the professions concerned. Guidelines are provided in "Theatre Safeguards" published by the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland, the Royal College of Nursing and the National Association of Theatre Nurses, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Ashworth Hospital
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any video cameras have been installed at Ashworth hospital for the purpose of monitoring patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Video cameras are used solely for monitoring the movement of patients in the hospital grounds and for security surveillance of visitors entering and leaving the hospital. There are no cameras installed in the ward areas.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to institute an independent public inquiry into events at Ashworth hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The chief executive of the Special Hospitals Service Authority stated on 5 March that there would be a full and searching inquiry into the incidents described in the programme "A Special Hospital". We are in touch with the authority about the form the inquiry should take. An announcement will be made as soon as this has been decided.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take so as to ensure that the seclusion rooms at Ashworth hospital are properly monitored by service staff at all times.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Special Hospitals Service Authority informs me that it has reviewed and revised its policies
  495
  relating to seclusion. The new policies take account of the guidance in the code of practice under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983 which the Department issued in 1990, and have been discussed with the Mental Health Act Commission. They include stricter criteria for observing patients in seclusion. The new policies are now in operation together with formal arrangements for monitoring their effectiveness. The authority has agreed with the Commission to keep this matter under review.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will obtain a copy of the film, "A Special Hospital" shown on Channel 4 on 4 March, for his departmental library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We already have a recording of this broadcast.

  Cancer Screening
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the countries which have a structured breast screening programme similar to that introduced by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom was the first country in the European Community to introduce a nationwide breast screening programme.

  The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden have policies and national screening programmes similar to those introduced in the United Kingdom.

  Within Europe several countries have now decided to introduce screening, as have Australia, New Zealand and several provinces in Canada.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the major capital projects commenced in the northern region in each year since 1987, together with the cost of each.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to central information, the capital schemes costing over £1 million commenced in northern region since 1 January 1987 are as follows:

  Year commenced and scheme

  Tender cost £ million

  1987

  South Shields General Scheme 3/1

  12·2

  1987

  St. Georges Hospital Boilerhouse

  1·2

  1987

  Westmoreland DGH Scheme 1/1

  15·6

  1988

  Darlington Memorial Maternity Department

  1·1

  1988

  Hartlepool DGH Scheme 3/2

  4·4

  1988

  Newcastle General (Phsychological Medicine)

  1·8

  1988

  Royal Victoria Infirmary Scheme 1/5

  23·3

  1988

  South Cleveland General Scheme 2/1A

  1·3

  1988

  South Cleveland—Hemlington Brokerage

  2·6

  1989

  Bensham ESMI Day Unit

  1·8

  1989

  Hartlepool DGH Maternity Department.

  1·6

  1989

  Tynemouth Vic. Jubilee Inf. EMI Wards

  1·4

  1989

  Wansbeck General Hospital Scheme 1/1

  21·1

  1989

  Westmoreland DGH Scheme 1/2 Residencies

  1·0

  1990

  Shotley Bridge Psychiatric/Psychogeriatric

  1·1

  1990

  West Cumberland—Refurbishment Phase 2

  2·2

  Public Health Laboratory
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to charge environmental health departments for statutory tests at the public health laboratory.
  496
  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 1 March 1991 at column 633.

  Sterilisation
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many female sterilisation operations are carried out in the national health service per year; and how many claims for compensation are made.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available, an estimated 91,100 female sterilisation operations were carried out in the NHS in England. Information about the number of compensation claims is not collected centrally.

  Project 2000
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to up-rate the bursaries paid to student nurses under the Project 2000 scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are continuing to keep bursary levels under review in the light of recruitment and retention trends and the current earning power of existing student nurses.

  Emergency Alarms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what joint funding is available to enable health authorities and others to purchase emergency alarm systems for elderly and disabled people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Decisions on joint funding are for health authorities to take at local level.

  Transplant Service
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made to establish the United Kingdom tranplant service as a special health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regulations to establish the new authority, with effect from 1 April 1991, were laid before Parliament on 8 March 1991.

  I am pleased to confirm that Dr. John Evans, previously a deputy chief medical officer and administrative deputy secretary in the former Department of Health and Social Security, has accepted an invitation to be chairman of the new authority, which will be known as the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority (UKTSSA).

  The members of the authority will be:

  Professor Peter Morris, Nuffield Professor of Surgery at the Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, with an international reputation in the transplant world;

  Professor Richard Batchelor, Professor of Immunology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, who has been a major figure in the development of transplantation immunity;

  Mr. Trevor Rippington, an ex-regional treasurer of South-West Regional Health Authority, and

  Mr. John Thornton, business manager for Praxis plc of Bath.

  The new authority will, for the time being, be based at the Southmead hospital in Bristol which is currently the location of the United Kingdom transplant service.
  497
  I hope that these new arrangements will facilitate improvement of the United Kingdom's already excellent record on organ transplantation. We have around 8,000 patients with a functioning kidney graft.

  In 1989, 1,732 cadaveric kidney transplants were performed in the United Kingdom; 295 heart transplants, and a similar number of liver transplants. A further 94 heart/lung transplants were carried out.

  Transplantation of organs has been one of the great medical advances of the last 25 years. Operations not long ago considered to be in the realm of fantasy are today a matter of routine.

  The Government are totally committed to the organ transplant programme, and increasing the supply of donor organs for transplantation is one of our priorities.

  Achondroplasia
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his reply of 5 March,Official Report, column 119, if he will list the number of hospitals providing facilities for the treatment of achondroplasia.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. Local health authorities are responsible for determining what services to make available for this condition, in the light of their assessment of local needs and priorities, as against resources.

  Dental Practice Board
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what official arrangements are made to protect the confidentiality of information concerning dental patients sent by dentists to the Dental Practice Board; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) what communications he has received from the General Dental Practitioners Association regarding the activities of the Dental Practice Board; and whether he will make a statement;

  (3) what statutory authority has been used by the Dental Practice Board in connection with home visits by officials of the Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Apart from the board's being subject to the Data Protection Act 1984, any member of the Dental Practice Board's staff who breaches confidentiality may be subject to disciplinary action. The secretary of the General Dental Practitioners Association wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 February 1991 about home visits to patients. Such inquiries are made by the board in the course of referring a matter to a Family Health Services Authority for investigation. Home visits to patients are only undertaken when the board has reason to believe that there has been non-compliance with the regulations governing the provision of general dental services.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many home visits on the initiative of the Dental Practice Board have been made to dental patients during the last six months; for what purposes; and with how many dental practitioners involved;

  (2) how many cases of fraud or other malpractice have been discovered by the Dental Practice Board following home visits by their officials;

  (3) what criteria are used by the Dental Practice Board in deciding whether to initiate home visits to dental patients;
  498
  (4) what has been the total cost of the visits by Dental Practice Board Officials to dental patients during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the last six months 85 home visits by members of the boards investigation staff have been carried out, involving eight dental practitioners, in cases where the board had reason to believe that there had been non-compliance with the regulations governing the provision of general dental services. In the past 12 months there have been 312 patient interviews involving 17 practitioners. The police have been consulted in connection with four of these cases and their inquiries are continuing. Seven dentists, including two of the four involved in police inquiries, have been referred to the Dental Service Committee of the relevant family health services authority. In the case of nine dentists the Dental Practice Board's inquiries are continuing and one case has been dropped. The cost of home visits over the past year is estimated at £3,500.

  Social Services
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head of population for each social service authority in 1990–91 and, adjusted for the change in input unit costs, in 1979–80.

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

  Expenditure on Personal Social Services per head of population at constant 1990–91 prices using the PSS Pay and Prices Index

  1979–80 £/head

  1990–91 £/head

  Shire Counties

  Avon

  64

  77

  Bedfordshire

  58

  73

  Berkshire

  49

  71

  Buckinghamshire

  41

  70

  Cambridgeshire

  47

  67

  Cheshire

  52

  71

  Cleveland

  63

  85

  Cornwall

  40

  62

  Cumbria

  49

  65

  Derbyshire

  51

  88

  Devon

  45

  61

  Dorset

  51

  54

  Durham

  56

  61

  East Sussex

  68

  74

  Essex

  42

  70

  Gloucestershire

  49

  59

  Hampshire

  46

  52

  Hereford and Worcester

  47

  57

  Hertfordshire

  46

  66

  Humberside

  53

  81

  Isle of Wight

  45

  67

  Kent

  47

  65

  Lancashire

  60

  79

  Leicestershire

  51

  71

  Lincolnshire

  52

  56

  Norfolk

  49

  57

  Northamptonshire

  48

  72

  Northumberland

  53

  74

  North Yorkshire

  43

  55

  Nottinghamshire

  60

  87

  Oxfordshire

  55

  65

  Shropshire

  38

  60

  Somerset

  49

  71

  Staffordshire

  43

  55

  Suffolk

  41

  55

  Surrey

  40

  58

  Warwickshire

  44

  64

  West Sussex

  47

  55

  Wiltshire

  45

  63

  Isles of Scilly

  42

  61

  499

  1979–80 £/head

  1990–91 £/head

  Metropolitan Districts

  Bolton

  64

  83

  Bury

  62

  78

  Manchester

  139

  142

  Oldham

  75

  90

  Rochdale

  81

  114

  Salford

  81

  109

  Stockport

  57

  77

  Tameside

  72

  100

  Trafford

  54

  75

  Wigan

  57

  68

  Knowsley

  71

  90

  Liverpool

  92

  123

  St. Helens

  97

  92

  Sefton

  35

  82

  Wirral

  68

  89

  Barnsley

  60

  69

  Doncaster

  68

  68

  Rotherham

  58

  83

  Sheffield

  85

  107

  Gateshead

  78

  96

  Newcastle

  119

  128

  North Tyneside

  75

  116

  South Tyneside

  78

  92

  Sunderland

  82

  82

  Birmingham

  87

  113

  Coventry

  80

  111

  Dudley

  41

  66

  Sandwell

  58

  111

  Solihull

  37

  74

  Walsall

  58

  75

  Wolverhampton

  62

  111

  Bradford

  81

  102

  Calderdale

  61

  91

  Kirklees

  60

  84

  Leeds

  60

  101

  Wakefield

  66

  77

  Inner London boroughs

  Camden

  238

  231

  Greenwich

  130

  197

  Hackney

  216

  242

  Hammersmith

  191

  241

  Islington

  216

  268

  Kensington

  165

  222

  Lambeth

  212

  —

  Lewisham

  171

  197

  Southwark

  185

  224

  Tower Hamlets

  208

  172

  Wandsworth

  186

  203

  Westminster

  180

  241

  City of London

  209

  700

  Outer London boroughs

  Barking

  77

  112

  500

  1979–80 £/head

  1990–91 £/head

  Barnet

  78

  88

  Bexley

  59

  72

  Brent

  120

  166

  Bromley

  58

  73

  Croydon

  73

  103

  Ealing

  90

  128

  Enfield

  63

  101

  Haringey

  150

  —

  Harrow

  70

  96

  Havering

  61

  85

  Hillingdon

  77

  110

  Hounslow

  86

  138

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  74

  102

  Merton

  96

  116

  Newham

  107

  181

  Redbridge

  67

  91

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  62

  103

  Sutton

  62

  99

  Waltham Forest

  107

  157

  Notes:

  1. 1990–91 figures are based on authorities budget estimates.

  2. Budget returns have not been received from Lambeth and Haringey.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the drugs bill in family health services in the last financial year;

  (2) what was the drugs bill for the national health service per head of population (a) in 1989–90 and (b) in the current financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Expenditure by the family health services for drugs in England in 1989–90 was £1,942 million. The 1989–90 cost per head of population of all NHS drugs (including drugs in the hospital and community health services) was £49·40. A comparable figure is not yet available for the current financial year.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which hospitals and medical centres in the United Kingdom clinical trials of the abortificient drug RU486 have been carried out; over what periods those tests were conducted; how many women were involved; and how the tests were funded.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the terms of section 118 of the Medicines Act and for reasons of commercial confidentiality, the Licensing Authority is forbidden from disclosing information on clinical trials.

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

Gulf War: EC Contributions to UK Costs
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which EC countries have undertaken to give financial support to the British military action in the Gulf; and what are the amounts paid or promised in each case.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, Germany has pledged £275 million, Belgium £15 million and Denmark £8 million to support the UK's operations in the Gulf. Luxembourg has also decided to make a contribution to Western European Union members directly involved in the military effort.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, can he tell the House whether any member country of the EC made no contribution whatever? Further, can he advise us of the total contributions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Ireland made no contribution at all, either in cash or in kind. It is, however, difficult to answer my noble friend's second question because, apart from the cash pledged, substantial contributions have been made in kind.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl has given frank answers to the questions raised by his noble friend, but unfortunately his replies are not very satisfactory. Of course, that is neither his nor the Government's fault. However, can he inform the House of the total cost of the war effort from 2nd August to date? Is this subject on the agenda for the meeting between the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister and President Bush which is due to take place in Bermuda next Saturday? Further, is the Minister able to say what is the total US expenditure on the war and what proportion of that amount has been supplied by other countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot, without notice, answer some of the very important questions put by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. They are, in fact, outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I can tell him that we expect the estimate of our costs to reach about £3 billion and that thus far we have received pledges amounting to £1.2 billion.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not rather ominous that from the list of contributions from EC countries, which the Minister read out it appears that Belgium —a country which is only in existence because of efforts by the Americans and ourselves without which
66
it would have been wiped out and we would not be discussing it—has contributed exactly nothing? What can we do about the situation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Belgium has pledged £15 million in cash. It contributed transport and Medevac aircraft, and also sent three ships to the Gulf. Of course, it is up to each country to decide what it should contribute.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, there may have been constitutional or economic reasons to explain why some Common Market countries did not participate with the same vigour as did Her Majesty's Government as regards military or financial aid. However, is it not a fact that by now the whole world knows which countries they are and that consequently such countries will have to live with varying degrees of shame?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly said, it is up to each country to reflect upon what it has contributed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is clearly understood that for constitutional reasons Germany could not send troops. However, is there any such reason which prevents that country from giving cash?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Germany has pledged £275 million and we have received £140 million of that amount.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would it not be a good idea to approach some of the countries which have not been able to give cash, perhaps for various constitutional reasons, to see whether they will donate money to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Enormous pressure has been placed on the Middle East because of the influx of refugees. I put that question to the noble Earl's colleague during a debate last week, but I did not receive an answer. Will Her Majesty's Government use their good offices to ensure that other countries are persuaded to contribute money in that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again we are deviating from the Question on the Order Paper which deals with,
"financial support to the British military action in the Gulf".
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be futile to make progress on either monetary or political union with partners who have been, in many cases and at a time of great world importance, so lacking in giving us the backing and support which we needed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend asks an interesting question but, again, it is somewhat wide of that which appears on the Order Paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are happy with the facts as he disclosed them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is a matter for each country to decide. We are most grateful for the contributions that we have received.

Questions for Written Answer: Cost
2.42 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the average cost of answering a Question for Written Answer.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, the average cost of answering a Written Question is now £64.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I had no idea that the cost involved was so high. However, can he say whether he has observed that some noble Lords appear to ask a great many Questions which require a Written Answer? Further, have the Government any plans to limit the number of Questions which may be tabled at any particular time?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lady that at present no noble Lord may have more than two Starred Questions on the Order Paper at any one time. However, there is no limit to the number of Questions which a noble Lord may table for a Written Answer. Nevertheless, noble Lords are expected not to table more than six Questions on any one day. Therefore, there is already a safeguard in place in this respect.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, how many Questions tabled in the House since the gracious Speech have not been answered due to the disproportionate cost of doing so? What guidelines do the Government use when making such a decision? The noble Lord will be well aware in view of his recent experience of the custom of priority on Written Questions operated in another place. Does that custom operate here with regard to parliamentary Questions of a special importance?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, at present disproportionate costs can be used as a reason for not answering a Question if answering would cost more than £250. That sum is at present under review and I understand may be increased to £300 as a result of the increase in costs overall.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I put down Questions for Written Answer comparatively rarely; but is the noble Lord aware that the Answers provided by Her Majesty's Government—on a value-for-money basis—often fall short of that degree of frankness, honesty and truth which one expects from Her Majesty's Government?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not for one moment accept what the noble Lord has said. If he has any complaint about the contents of any Answer given to him, he has only to take up the matter with the department and I am sure that it will give him all the help it possibly can.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would it he cheaper or more expensive if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, were to put down more Written Questions and fewer Oral Questions?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I cannot comment on that question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if some Ministers answered letters more quickly might there not be less need to put down Written Questions?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that that question goes far wider than the Question on the Order Paper. Obviously we all try to answer letters addressed to us as quickly as possible.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, bearing in mind that I have been here for 25 years and have never put down a Written Question, is there any opportunity for me to benefit from all the millions of Questions that I decided not to put?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I wish to give the noble Baroness no encouragement whatever, and the same goes for every other noble Lord.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that £64 for a Written Answer is good value for money, especially bearing in mind the price of obtaining a similar standard of advice from one's lawyer or accountant?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I think the replies are jolly good.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, arising from the supplementary question asked by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that it is not for the Government but for the House to say how many Questions we should ask and whether we should ask Questions of the Government?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have made it abundantly plain that I am not giving advice to anyone. All I am doing is drawing noble Lords' attention to the contents of the Companion to the Standing Orders. There it is plainly said that noble Lords are expected to table not more than six Questions on any one day. If the House wishes to alter that advice in any way it is a matter for the House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, how is the cost of a Written Answer calculated?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in 1972 a study was carried out, and the basis for calculating the cost has remained the same since. The Treasury is carrying out a pilot exercise to recalculate the present costs of parliamentary Questions. If that demonstrates a need substantially to alter average costs, a wider interdepartmental recosting exercise will be undertaken. At present the cost is based on staff time, using average rates of pay, and associated costs for the grades concerned, plus a share of the cost of the parliamentary section of the department concerned and any substantial non-staff costs such as computer usage. No sum for accommodation is included.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what has been the cost of answering the Starred Question asked by the noble Lady today? Will the noble Lord say whether it has been worth it?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the average cost of answering an Oral Question is £106; but of course we have only four Oral Questions a day. We are dealing with the average cost of answering Questions in Parliament as a whole, in the other place as well as here.

The Environment: OECD Report
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the recent OECD report The State of the Environment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government warmly welcome the publication of this, the third report on The State of the Environment. It is a major report in assessing the progress of environmental policies in OECD countries over the past two decades and the problems to be addressed in the 1990s. The Government fully endorse the conclusions of the report, notably that the pace of progress to improve the environment needs to be speeded up, that better integration between economic and environmental policies is required and that work on improving environmental information needs to be accelerated.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer, but may I probe one or two of the issues raised in the report? Is he aware, for example, that the population of the OECD countries amounts to only 16 per cent. of the world's population but that their inhabitants own 78 per cent. of the motor vehicles and use 50 per cent. of the world's energy. What is the policy of the Government on conserving energy and reducing its use, particularly in view of the plans for greatly increasing the number of motor vehicles in the country over the next 25 years?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are carrying out many actions in this country to cut down energy use and make it more efficient. We fully endorse the OECD proposals to develop national resource accounts and to begin to develop satellite accounts with a system of national accounts to reflect environmental conditions and trends. On motor vehicles, various actions have been taken such as lower tax to encourage the use of unleaded petrol which accounts for nearly 40 per cent. of petrol sales.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since the report attaches much importance to the availability of environmental information and to performance monitoring, can the Minister explain how the United Kingdom collects this information and where it is published? If we are to achieve sustainable development, will it not be necessary for us to have good, reliable information which is readily available to anyone who needs it? Will it be readily available?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We must have the information.
70
Following the recommendation in the Government's White Paper on the subject, work has begun on a statistical report on the environment which will bring together available statistics in a coherent and comprehensive form. This publication will provide a benchmark against which progress can be measured. It is scheduled for publication in the second half of 1992. Wide ranging consultations are taking place on the available statistics to be included.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Sub-Committee B of the EC Committee, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which deals with energy and transport, has just begun a review of exactly the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch; namely, energy and the environment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was not aware of that. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord another question raised by the report. What is Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards the proposal made by Brice Lalonde, the French Minister for the environment, that companies should be required to provide an ecological audit and balance sheet in the same way as they provide an estimate of labour and capital?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that proposal was put to the OECD; it was not an OECD proposal. We feel that it is more important at the moment to establish national criteria and European criteria. The Government have warmly welcomed the establishment of a European environmental agency, a new EC body to collect environmental information. Achieving data comparability on a scientific basis will be the prime aim when the body becomes operational.

Proportional Representation
2.53 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of growing support for proportional representation, they will now establish a Royal Commission to consider alternative voting systems.
Lord Reay: No, my Lords.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the predictability of his reply. I am glad that we have been able to save the Government 106. Is he aware that repeated opinion polls now show a two-to-one or three-to-one majority in the country supporting proportional representation? Is he further aware that during the past seven days powerful support for proportional representation has come from a most unexpected quarter? I refer to the Scottish Labour Party. Does the Minister agree that it is now high time that the issue of a fair voting system is considered in an objective rather than a partisan manner?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I see no evidence of increased support for proportional representation. In our view, the first-past-the-post system is simple and easily understood. It is familiar; it enables the voter to

71
have a direct link with the representative; and it is more likely to produce an overall majority in Parliament and so a strong and effective Government. We see no good reason for change.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it not true that the public are taking the matter into their own hands by using tactical voting? One might say that that is a poor man's version of proportional representation. They choose their second best when they cannot have their first choice.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that we have seen no great evidence of increased support for change, and no overwhelming public demand for it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there are at least 14, and probably more, separate and divergent systems which go under the common name of proportional representation? Before we change, we had better know which system to back.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right. There is not one system of proportional representation but a great many with almost limitless variations. They tend to be complex and more difficult to understand than the system that we have.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not almost any form of voting better than the system by which the Membership of this House is chosen?
Lord Reay: My Lords, this Question deals with elections.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord think it satisfactory that the views of Scottish Conservatives should be totally unrepresented in the European Parliament?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the matter of the European Parliament is another Question. The Government will consider any proposals for a uniform procedure for the European Parliament whenever such proposals are put forward.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Government conduct elections on the basis of proportional representation in a part of the United Kingdom called Northern Ireland?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. In Northern Ireland proportional representation is used for local government elections and European elections though not for elections to Westminster.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there are 14 different forms of proportional representation? Is that not a justification for establishing a Royal Commission to examine the various forms of proportional representation? Does he accept that the weekend vote at the Scottish Labour Party conference, which represents 80 per cent. of the voting public in Scotland, showed a substantial move in this direction in that they supported proportional representation for the proposed Scottish assembly?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as concerns the number of systems of proportional representation, I have a note
72
of 20 different forms; but I would not argue about the precise number. As regards reasons for setting up a Royal Commission, in our view everything is known about the subject. The Government have reached a decision and a Royal Commission would have no useful function.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, prayed in aid opinion polls to support his case. Is he aware that on the basis of the last political opinion poll showing the state of the parties in the Ribble by-election, the Conservatives would have come first, Labour second and the Liberal Democrats last? Would the Minister advise the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to rely on opinion polls to form opinion?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, I do not believe that one should rely on opinion polls.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although the Minister is in favour of doing nothing at all, does he agree that I am wise in accepting that the Labour Party's adopted procedure is very sensible? Through it, a working party would consider the whole subject of electoral systems. That working party is now functioning and may consider recommending voting systems for different institutions, not necessarily any changes and not necessarily for all institutions.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is most interesting to have that information. I am sure that we will await the outcome with interest. It does not seem as though the result will be simple.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, even if the Government's mind is closed on proportional representation—and it would appear on Royal Commissions—would they not be well advised to consider this matter more carefully in respect of European elections? We are now alone in Europe in not using proportional representation, and the Government should consider whether being at the heart of Europe—according to this morning's newspapers—does not also involve using the same democratic systems as the whole of the rest of Europe.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as regards the position in Europe, proposals on this matter would need to be adopted by the European Parliament. No such proposals have been adopted. When they are put forward, we shall consider them on their merits.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a vast number of European politicians who have failed to curry favour with the leader of their parties and have not been included in the lists of those to be elected to the European Parliament would greatly prefer our system to their own?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that it is difficult for a single uniform procedure to be agreed within the European Parliament on this matter. No doubt that is why it is taking such a long time for proposals to be brought forward.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that in the light of the number of speakers on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill it has been agreed through the usual channels that we will take the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order next Monday 18th March.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Criminal Justice Bill be now read a second time. I think that the Bill before your Lordships may, in the fullness of time, come to be seen as one of the most important criminal justice measures of our time. It will affect the way in which the courts operate and the way in which offenders are dealt with for many years to come.
It will be seen that the Bill brings about some fundamental and, in some respects, unprecedented changes. Considering the size of the change, your Lordships who take an interest in these matters might think that it has been done with an almost deceptive economy of drafting. Of course changes bring reverberations in any system, but it is not our intention to make changes to what is a well tried and understood system just for the sake of making them; only to try to make the operation and the effect of the criminal justice system better, fairer and more in line with present-day thought.
One of the foremost of these changes is that the law will give guidance to the courts on the criteria which should be followed when sentencing offenders. The proposals are based on the White Paper Crime Justice and Protecting the Public which we published in February last year. In the Bill there are reforms to the parole system which follow very closely the recommendations of the most valuable review which was conducted by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. There are proposals on children's evidence. These are based on the most persuasive report of his honour Judge Pigot, and I think that they will do much to ensure that those who abuse children will not be able to hide behind the difficulties in giving evidence which their victims, at present, face.
The Bill contains important provisions to require the parents of young offenders to take more responsibility for their children's actions. It allows the private sector for the first time to bid for contracts to escort prisoners and to run prisons.
The main purposes of the Bill are to reform sentencing practice—the way in which a sentence is determined—and the way in which sentences are actually carried out. The sentence in an individual case is, of course, a matter for the magistrate or the judge concerned. It is not a matter for Parliament. It is, after all, only the sentencer who will know all the facts of the case. What we seek is consistency of approach in sentencing, not uniformity. We have, therefore, resisted the temptations of those who would like to see
74
detailed and rigid sentencing rules imposed upon the courts, which would require particular offences to be sentenced within only a very narrow range of options.
The principal criterion, when any sentence is passed, must be the seriousness of the offence which has been committed. There are many offences—particularly those of a sexual or of a violent nature —for which the only fitting punishment is imprisonment; possibly a long spell of imprisonment. In the interests of society, the offender must be tucked away from society. But for many other offences, particularly for property offences, it has long been recognised that imprisonment frequently does more harm than good. It can turn inexperienced offenders, who may be verging on the edge of a criminal career, into hardened criminals. It is an alarming thought to realise that prison can, in practice, often be an expensive way of making bad people worse.
Community penalties, on the other hand, cost much less. They can be just as, if not more effective than, custodial sentences in punishing the offender for what he has done and —often equally important—in helping to turn him away from further, worse offending in the future. However, prison has its place. Crime must be punished and the public have a right to be protected from the behaviour of those who break the law and who offend against either person or property. Prison must be kept as the ultimate sanction for those who commit grave crimes or who wilfully disregard the authority of the courts.
The public also have a right to be assured that the alternatives to custody are not just a soft way of dealing with offenders, but that they will provide punishment as well as rehabilitation. It is worth reminding those who may be doubtful about this that there are instances of offenders who have received community sentences telling probation officers that the experience was so disagreeable that they would rather be in prison than be subjected to the community sentence. Community penalties can be both physically and emotionally demanding. They should be constructive. They should not be either degrading or humiliating.
The Bill requires punishments to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence which has been committed, but custodial sentences should be restricted to those cases where only a custodial sentence is adequate to punish the offender's wrongdoing. There is, though, an exception in the case of offenders who have committed sexual or violent offences and who are judged to pose a danger to the public. In those cases a heavier sentence can, and should be, imposed if this is deemed necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm from the offender. But the punishment should not be deliberately jacked up for a specific offender in order, as happened with Admiral Byng, to encourage others not to perpetrate the same offence.
As I said, one result of the Bill will be to encourage the trend away from the use of imprisonment. This trend has been very marked in the case of young offenders since the Criminal Justice Acts of 1982 and 1988; and we have more recently seen a similar trend in relation to adult offenders. This is much to be

75
welcomed and I pay my modest and lay tribute to the part which the judiciary and the magistracy have played in bringing this about. However, let us he quite clear. This has nothing to do with being soft on crime or of feeling sympathetic to criminals; but it has everything to do with tackling the problem of crime with the knowledge and research which are now at our disposal. That is the underlying philosophy of the Bill.
I shall not trespass upon your Lordships' patience with a recitation of the Bill's detailed contents, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a number of key provisions. First, there are the new principles for custodial sentences which are set out in the first three clauses of the Bill. In general they apply only to offences which are triable summarily—in other words, by the magistrates—and to those which are triable either way; in other words, by the magistrates or the Crown Court. Clause 1 establishes the general principle that a custodial sentence is to be passed only if the court is of the opinion that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified for it. Clause 2 requires the court to apply similar principles in determining the length of a custodial sentence, and Clause 3 sets out the information to which the court is to have regard when it forms its judgment as to whether a custodial sentence is justified and, if so, for how long.
In all cases in which custody is being considered a pre-sentence report is required. Clause 3 also sets out the way in which the previous record of the offender is to be dealt with when sentencing for a new offence.
Community sentences are listed in Clause 5. They are the probation order, the community service order, the combination order, the curfew order, the supervision order and the attendance centre order. The combination order under Clause 10 and the curfew order under Clause 11 are both new types of order. The combination order allows probation supervision to be coupled with a requirement to perform community service. It will combine work, which will be supervised by the probation service, to make the offender face up to what he has done with the discipline and the reparation to society of community service. It will be of particular assistance in dealing with offences which are relatively serious.
The curfew order, if used selectively for suitable offenders, will keep the offender out of trouble at times when he might otherwise be getting into trouble for example, by keeping the offender out of pubs at night if the offence has been connected with late night drinking. The curfew order can be imposed for up to 12 hours in any 24-hour period—consecutively or separately—and it can be imposed for a maximum period of six months. So it can be a pretty stiff check on the offender's freedom, but it should enable the offender both to discharge his responsibilities and to keep up his ties in the community.
The financial penalties are covered in Clauses 15 to 21. The great majority of criminal offences are in fact dealt with by fines. In 1989, 80 per cent. of offenders were punished by means of fines and 99 per cent. of all fines were imposed in the magistrates' courts. The proposals in the Bill seek to encourage the use of
76
financial penalties for offences which do not require the offender's liberty to be curtailed either by a community order or by a custodial sentence.
Clause 16 of the Bill introduces a unit fines scheme for people who are fined in the magistrates' courts. The scheme will enable magistrates' courts to take account of the offender's ability to pay in a way which properly reflects the seriousness of the offence and which makes similar demands of offenders who have different means. We believe that the unit fine scheme will make for greater consistency in the setting of fines. It should also help to reduce the rate of default of payment of fines, as fines will be set with greater certainty at a level which the offender can afford to pay. The power which is proposed in Clause 21 for fines to be recovered by attachment of income support in small amounts each week should also reduce default and imprisonment.
Part II of the Bill introduces a radical reform of the arrangements for granting parole and the remission of sentence, which my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow advised in his report. The present arrangements are generally agreed to be unsatisfactory. They can lead to anomalies whereby prisoners who are sentenced on the same day but to quite different terms can nevertheless find themselves released on the same day.
It has also been a matter of wide concern that the possibility of release at the one-third point of sentence leads to an unacceptable erosion of the value of the original sentence which was passed by the court. The arrangements which are proposed in Part II are intended to overcome those problems and thereby to give greater meaning to the sentence which is originally passed by the court.
The fundamental point is that no prisoner will be released, other than on exceptional compassionate grounds, earlier than the half-way point of his sentence. Prisoners who are serving less than four years will be released automatically at the half-way point unless the release is delayed for misbehaviour in prison. Once released, those who are serving terms of a year or more and all young offenders will be supervised by the probation service or the social services as a means of protecting the public and in order to assist their re-integration into society.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Earl leaving the question of parole?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no. I am only half-way through. I do not wish to frustrate the noble Earl in asking his question, but if he is content to be frustrated I shall be too.
All those offenders will be liable to be returned to prison to serve the remainder of their sentences if they should re-offend before the end of the original sentence. For longer-term prisoners—those who are serving four years or more—release at the half-way point will be discretionary, not automatic. The primary consideration in deciding whether a prisoner should be granted parole in those cases is whether the granting of parole will itself put the public at greater risk of serious harm from the offender.

77
The Bill makes it possible for the Home Secretary to delegate to the Parole Board the final parole decision in such classes of case as may be specified. It is my right honourable friend's intention initially to delegate that responsibility to the board in cases where the prisoner is serving a term of less than seven years.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that unless the judges alter their approach to sentencing the proposals in relation to parole will lead to an increase in the prison population?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always easy to do an exercise in mathematics. Obviously when the judges make their decisions on sentencing they will take into account the new systems which will exist.
Part III of the Bill makes further important proposals about how children and young persons are to be treated by the courts. Clauses 43 and 46 give effect to recommendations of the Pigot Committee on children's evidence. The objectives are to ease the stress and the burden of criminal proceedings for children, to ensure that their evidence can be properly considered and to make it more likely that child abusers are brought to justice. We have not, however, neglected the right of the defendant to receive a fair trial.
The present technical rules about the competence of witnesses have meant that many young children who have been abused or who have witnessed abuse have simply not been allowed to tell their story to the jury. That is clearly wrong, and the Bill abolishes those unnecessary restrictions.
The rules against hearsay evidence mean that video-recordings of interviews with the child are not allowed as evidence, except in very special circumstances. The Bill ensures that those rules will no longer prevent the video-recording of an earlier interview with the child—for example, with the police or social services—from being introduced as evidence. The Bill will allow such a video to be played to the jury as the child's evidence-in-chief.
The Bill also builds on the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by allowing children to give any further evidence by live television link from outside the court room. In permitting this, we have been careful to safeguard the defendant's right to have the case against him properly tested, while at the same time protecting the child from unnecessary stress and trauma.
We are also helping child victims, and witnesses of sexual or violent abuse, by bypassing the magistrates' court committal proceedings where the case is going to be heard in the Crown Court.
The remaining clauses of Part III deal with the way in which young people are dealt with when they come before the courts either as defendants or as offenders. A significant amount of crime is carried out by male teenagers. The peak age for offending is the mid-teens. If we are to tackle crime effectively, their offending behaviour must be tackled vigorously.
It is essential to realise and it is a point which is too often side-stepped—that parents have an essential and a responsible role in bringing up their children and in instilling in them a sense of what is right and of
78
what is wrong. Although parents cannot be responsible for all that their children do, they nevertheless have a responsibility for trying to ensure that they bring their children up in a way which respects the rights and the freedom of others, which the children themselves enjoy. It is not good enough for parents always to say of their children's misdemeanours, "It is not my fault. There is nothing which I can do about it". The fact is that parents have a responsibility for their children's upbringing and thereby to some extent for their actions, and the Bill underlines that.
It does so by strengthening the courts' powers to require the attendance of a parent or guardian at proceedings which involve their children. It does not mean that parents will always have to attend proceedings which involve their children, but if the child is under 16 the parents will have to attend unless the court considers it unreasonable in all the circumstances. It can also require that parents should pay any fine or compensation which may be imposed on their children. If it does so. the parent's means—not the child's means—will be taken into account when assessing the amount of a fine which may be imposed.
The court will also have the powers to bind over the parents of offenders to ensure that they take proper care of and exercise proper control over their children. In the case of offenders aged under 16, the courts will have a duty to exercise these powers unless it would be unreasonable for them to do so.
We are also proposing to change the way in which young people themselves are treated in the criminal justice system. We suggest that 17 year-olds should generally be treated as young persons rather than as adults. The sentence of detention in a young offender institution is to be abolished for 14 year-old boys in line with the situation for girls of that age, but custodial sentences will still be available for those who are convicted of the most serious offences. We shall also be tabling amendments at the Committee stage to pave the way for the abolition of remands in prison department custody of boys who are aged under 17.
Part IV of the Bill provides for the more efficient administration of the criminal justice services. It provides for the appointment of court security officers in magistrates' courts and includes proposals for involving the private sector in the operation of the remand system. My noble friend Lord Waddington, in his former capacity as Home Secretary, announced on 11th July last year that the Government intend to go ahead with the contracting out of court escort work and with competitive tendering for the operation of the new Wolds remand centre, which is under construction at Everthorpe in Humberside. As a result of amendments which were introduced in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would also have the power to make an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to enable other types of prison establishment to be contracted out.
The Bill provides a set of rigorous safeguards to preserve public safety, to protect the rights of prisoners and to ensure that Ministers continue to be

79
accountable to Parliament for these matters under any contracted-out arrangements which may be made. A high standard of service will be set. These proposals should help both to improve conditions in the penal system and to give better value for money for the taxpayer.
Perhaps I can draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 79, which requires the Secretary of State to publish information annually about the cost of the administration of the criminal justice system and to help people who are involved in its administration to avoid improper discrimination on racial or other grounds. The information to be published will cover the whole of the administration system from how the police enforce the law, through the sentencing system to the administration of penalties. It will shed light on costs and practices in the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, in the prison service, in the probation service, in the administration of the courts, and also in the courts, for example, about the cost of collecting fines.
It goes without saying that there should be no racial discrimination in our criminal justice system, and I know that those who work in the system are determined that there should be none. The provision of the information, which is mentioned in Clause 79, is specifically designed to help them and to keep this important aspect of fairness in the criminal justice system in the forefront of everyone's minds.
I have taken longer than I wished in introducing the Bill. However, it is an important Bill. It is a reforming Bill which, I believe, in the fullness of time, will be seen as radical. The changes which are proposed encapsulate the best of existing practice. They are supplemented by new ideas which themselves have been subjected to extensive research and consultation. And, of course, many of the changes are based on the work of distinguished independent reviews.
The common aim of all these proposals is to deal with crime and criminals more effectively, more justly and, I hope, more humanely yet in a way which properly protects the rights and property—and the safety—of the general public. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin with a statement which I am sure will be non-controversial, in fact rather pleasant. This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of seeing the noble Earl who opened the debate at the Dispatch Box since his return after illness. We welcome him back and hope that he has fully recovered. We look forward to working with him on the Bill. Secondly, perhaps I may say, if it needs saying, that when the noble Earl expresses a determination to deal with crime in a proper way and reassures the public that criminals will be dealt with appropriately, his view is echoed firmly on this side of the House.
But while we welcome much of the content and the aims of the Bill, I have to tell the noble Earl that we
80
regard it more as a missed opportunity. The criteria for sentencing are to be reformed but without what we believe to be essential; namely. a sentencing council to help promulgate and guide the new criteria. The parole provisions are to be changed but in a way that may in fact increase the prison population. Proposals which I can describe only as doctrinaire—curfews and tagging, parental responsibility and prison privatisation—mar what could have been a good and indeed admirable Bill.
One can understand the difficulties faced by a Conservative Home Secretary. On the one hand, he knows what ought to be done and frequently agrees with what ought to be done. On the other hand, he has to pay attention to the more atavistic wing of his party. All Conservative Home Secretaries tend to square that very difficult circle with which they are faced by descent into gimmickry. Curfews, tagging and the absurd proposal to fine parents fall precisely into that category. We understand why the Home Secretary has made those proposals, but he cannot expect us to support them.
Much of the early part of the Bill is about keeping out of prison people who do not need to be there. One knows that the United Kingdom has a higher prison population, both in absolute numbers and relative to its overall population, than any other member state of the Council of Europe. There is very little evidence —at least, I perceive none—to prove that those other countries have more law abiding populations than we do. If so, perhaps we do tend to send to prison more people than ought to go there.
Part I of the Bill attempts to tackle that problem. In doing so it embodies an aim which we and many others in the House would like to welcome unreservedly. We should like to welcome it unreservedly but in view of some of the comments that I have to make about the rest of the Bill, I cannot do so.
In our view, the establishment of a coherent legislative framework for sentencing is incomplete without the inclusion of a sentencing council. I shall return to that topic later. The Government's proposals are similar to those which since 1989 have governed the sentencing of young offenders. They have resulted in a significant reduction in the number of juveniles held in custody. Estimates contained in this Criminal Justice Bill reveal that the Government expect that an extension of the provisions to adults will result in a net reduction of 1,500 a year in the prison population, with a consequent saving of £25.5 million a year. What is the evidence for that? Taken with the effect on the prison population of the new parole provisions, that estimate seems to me over-optimistic. I should like to see it justified from the Front Bench opposite.
Clause 1 of the Bill was considerably improved during its passage through the other place by refining the definition of "serious harm". What we do not understand—and will attempt to remedy—is why the provisions setting out the grounds on which a custodial sentence may be imposed should not be extended to indictable only offences. Logic and common sense indicate that it should. After all, Clause

81
1 implies that an obligation to give reasons to justify a custodial sentence on grounds relating to the seriousness of the offence or the need to protect the public from serious harm will concentrate the judicial mind, thereby reducing the likelihood of inappropriate sentences.
If that is the argument, it is certainly not clear to me why these proposals should not be extended to indictable only offences, particularly when the evidence produced by the National Association of Probation Officers shows that about a quarter of offenders convicted of offences triable only on indictment in England and Wales in recent years have been given a non-custodial or suspended sentence. Together with colleagues in other parts of the House we shall try to persuade the Government of the logic and common sense in extending Clause 1 also to cover those offences.
On this side of the House we share the Government's desire to ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes against the individual are appropriately punished. I started by saying that I hoped that that went without saying. Having reiterated it, if it had needed to be said I have now stated it twice.
There is concern over the powers contained in Clause 2 which allow violent or sexual offenders to be sentenced to longer terms of imprisonment than the offence merits if that is necessary to protect t he public from serious harm. That is so despite the main purpose of the clause which attempts to ensure that the length of sentence is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. NACRO stated, in words which I echo, that,
"the central objection to this approach is that it is unjust. The principles of justice require courts to seek proportionality between the severity of the punishment and the 'just deserts' of the offender. Offenders sentenced under the new powers could receive sentences for less serious assaults of a severity normally reserved for graver crimes. Moreover, such sentencing decisions would be highly subjective and based not on what the offender has done, but on the judge's guess as to what he might do in the future".
There is some force in the argument.
One other problem with the clause has been raised by the gay community. The Government's amendment to Clauses 1 and 2 at Report stage in another place, tightening up the definition of "serious harm", clarified that the Government's intention is not to increase punishment for victimless homosexual offences. It may not be the gravest issue with which we deal on the Bill but, on the other hand, we need to ensure that the new draft adequately reflects the Government's expressed intention not to increase,
"in a discriminatory way the penalty for homosexual offending".
It is an issue on which concern is understandably felt in the gay community and on which I am sure the House will need reassurance.
The confusions and inconsistencies marring the Bill are nowhere more apparent than in Clause 3. The emphasis on matching sentence to the seriousness of the offence rather than to the offender's previous record is thrown into doubt by subsection (3) of Clause 3. That allows courts to take into account the
82
circumstances of previous offences in so far as they are relevant to forming an opinion as to the seriousness of the offence. In our view, that subsection should be removed from the Bill; in particular since Clause I already allows for heavier sentences to be imposed for calculated professional offences—those at which Clause 3(3) seems to be aimed. Removing that subsection would avoid the risk of courts increasing sentences simply because the offender had a previous record. As I understand it, that is not the objective which the Government have in mind.
I turn to the issue of a sentencing council. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that uniformity is not what one seeks; consistency is. Many of the problems of sentencing and of achieving greater consistency could be avoided by the creation of a sentencing council. The Government's approach to the problem as expressed in the Bill has been to lay down criteria on the use of custodial and non-custodial sentences, with the Court of Appeal providing any further guidance that is needed.
With many of the penal affairs groups concerned with such activity, the Labour Party has called for a sentencing council as a more effective and transparent approach to the problem. We therefore intend to propose, in Committee, the establishment of such a council. Its members would consist of the Lord Chief Justice and not less than four judges of the Court of Appeal with the power to appoint advisers with experience in the criminal justice field. I hope that whatever the House thinks of the proposal, it will at least agree that such a council would present little danger of encroaching on judicial freedom. We are as anxious as anyone to maintain such judicial freedom. The advantage of such a council is that it could develop guidance on sentencing, including both custodial and non-custodial sentences, across the board, building on guidelines already issued by the Court of Appeal. We hope that it could do so in a more comprehensive manner.
The rationale behind the proposal is simple. We need greater consistency in sentencing practice. The public needs reassurance that this consistency is being actively pursued. We regret that the Government have so far not been able to agree.
One area about which the Government have been somewhat more accommodating is that of race. The Government's statement at Report stage in another place went some way in the direction that was urged. However, like so much of the Bill, the Government were unwilling to fulfil their determination to avoid discrimination—I accept that they have such a determination—by refusing to accept an amendment which would establish in statutory form the basic principle that decisions in the criminal justice system must be taken without racial discrimination.
The evidence of discrimination is hard to refute. The proportion of the prison population from ethnic minorities has risen from 12.5 per cent. in 1985 to 16 per cent. in 1989, though ethnic minorities constitute less than 5 per cent. of the population. Furthermore, Home Office statistics show that members of ethnic minorities entering prison tend to have fewer previous

83
convictions than their white counterparts. It is an interesting gloss on the situation that when black defendants come to trial they are two-and-a-half times more likely than whites to be acquitted. That seems to imply that a significant number should never have been in court in the first place.
An amendment such as that proposed in the Commons, which we intend to pursue in this Chamber, is designed to be declaratory. It would send a clear signal that the Government attach importance to the establishment of the principle of nondiscrimination while reinforcing the efforts of many working in the criminal justice system to ensure that the system is fair, is seen to be fair, and (just as importantly) is accepted as being fair.
I turn now to the proposals in the Bill for community penalties. They again confirm the Government's commitment to non-custodial sentences, which I accept. However, they also confirm the Government's failure fully to appreciate the importance of such sentences to the offenders. The proposals on curfews and electronic monitoring are entirely negative measures. They betray an inflexibility on the part of the Government in the face of evidence compiled by their own Home Office. The proposals are, in short, gimmicks.
Curfew orders have been available for use with juveniles since the passage of the 1982 Criminal Justice Act but have been rarely used. In 1988 less than 10 were imposed in England and Wales. Why? It is because they are unworkable. The unworkability of the curfew order explains the rarity of its use. Extending it to adults will only, in the words of the Prison Reform Trust,
"open courts to ridicule by making orders which are clearly unenforceable".
The experiments with electronic tagging have been nothing less than a fiasco. Despite Government expectations, only 50 people were tagged in the three courts used as an experiment during a three-month period in 1989. It is unfortunate that 29 of the 50 were subsequently arrested for further offences, had breached their conditions of bail or had absconded. Is it seriously suggested that curfews and electronic tagging are a major attempt to deal with the problems? I think not.
We are also somewhat critical of the Government's proposals on combination orders. The Bill aims to keep out of prison those offenders who do not need to be there. The new combination order provided for in Clause 10, with its onerous conditions and the consequent danger of a high breach rate, could well lead to the imprisonment of offenders who would not otherwise have been at risk of custody. We shall press for such orders to be used only when the courts would otherwise have passed a custodial sentence.
The prevention of unnecessary imprisonment is even more important in the case of two other groups: fine defaulters and the mentally ill. The system of unit fines is a reform which has been welcomed with some relief by those who have been campaigning on that
84
issue. Indeed, it is one aspect of the Bill which we much welcome, though we should like to see the lowest unit reduced from its present level of £4.
Seventeen thousand fine defaulters are imprisoned annually and the unit fine system should happily reduce this. But the Government should have had the courage to pursue their reforms to the end and abolish imprisonment for fine defaulters except in circumstances where other enforcement methods are quite impractical. As was pointed out recently, fine default should not be used as a back-door into prison for those convicted of offences such as drunkenness which Parliament has decided should not themselves be punishable by imprisonment.
I turn to the problem of the mentally disordered offender. There is a general consensus that he should be diverted from custody wherever possible. Indeed, the Home Office circular states:
"It is Government Policy that wherever possible mentally disordered persons should receive care and treatment from the Health and Social Services".
But again this is an area of the Bill which represents a missed opportunity. So far the Government have failed to respond to suggestions put forward in another place which would make significant progress towards their own aims.
Amendments were tabled by the Opposition in another place which would have imposed a duty on a court contemplating a custodial sentence to obtain and consider medical opinion on the offender if the court believed that he or she was suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act. The Minister, Mr. Patten, gave a clear undertaking that the Government would examine the issues and return to the matter. I fear that he was less accommodating at the Report stage. The mentally ill should not be in prison. We look forward to the Government's promised amendment in Committee.
I am sorry that my speech is somewhat bitty but your Lordships will appreciate that the Bill is a little like Churchill's pudding—it does not have one theme but about six. I therefore considered that the most appropriate way of dealing with it was to endeavour to make clear to the House the Opposition's position on the various aspects with which we must deal. As regards the early release of prisoners, the danger is that the Government's proposals could result in a substantial increase in the prison population, despite their commitment to reduce the number of people in custody. We welcome the rationalisation of sentences served by prisoners which is provided for by the new system of supervised release. However, the Government have said that judges should shorten their sentences to compensate for the increased quantum of punishment which would be involved in prison sentences after the introduction of the changes. But that is clearly only a hope. A stronger guarantee that that would will actually happen would be if the Government accepted the argument put forward by the Labour Party and others for a sentencing council.
I hope that I have not appeared too negative about the Bill. I fear that in considering a Bill, part of which one accepts, indeed commends, one tends to

85
concentrate on aspects about which one is critical. For the most part we give the Government credit for their good intentions. Our problem is that we believe that the Bill could have been so much better. But as I say, there is much in the Bill that we welcome.
Among those aspects that we welcome is the implementation of the Pigot proposals on video-recorded evidence contained in Part III. Children would benefit from the provisions of the Bill as it now stands, although the NSPCC and other children's organisations believe that they could be further strengthened. In another place the Government were sympathetic to the need for a code of practice on the cross-examination of children. Will the Minister say whether the House can expect any amendments in Committee? What is the Government's present thinking on the issue?
Unfortunately, Part III also contains much with which we disagree. The proposals on the binding over of parents are opposed by many organisations from the Law Society to the National Association of Probation Officers. I do not know of one organisation active in the field which supports the proposal. It is a measure which in our view will serve only further to divide parents from child. Families whose children display delinquent behaviour are families already under stress. Such families need support, help and encouragement and not the exercise of judicial powers against them. I hope that with the assistance of colleagues in all parts of the House the provisions will be deleted from the Bill.
But if we have misgivings about the other parts of the Bill, Part IV is where the Government and the Opposition divide on both ideological and practical grounds. We remain totally unconvinced that the privatisation of even part of the prison service will result in a cheaper and more efficient service. It is a proposition based on a dogma which I hope that this House will reject. More importantly, we believe that it is wrong in principle to profit from the administration of justice and punishment, and that it is even dangerous in practice to try to do so.
We have several anxieties about the issue. The first and most obvious is that the proposal could lead to the development of an industry with a real financial interest in expanding the prison estate. The irony of the situation is surely obvious. It runs totally counter to the Government's stated policy of reducing the prison population. Indeed, it is against the very spirit of the Bill now before us.
Another objection, which in many ways is more fundamental, is the handing over to the private sector of the responsibility for guarding people whom the state has chosen to imprison. I accept that private interests operate in the penal system at the shallow end, so to speak, in community homes and so forth. But prisons are very different institutions; they are places where considerable force may be needed to restrain individuals or to put down disturbances. I firmly believe that the power should remain the sole responsibility of the state.
Moreover, under the Government's amendment introduced in another place, when disturbances are threatened or arise the Secretary of State is
86
empowered to send in a prison governor to take charge. That is an admission that ultimately the duty of guarding prisoners is, and should be, the responsibility of the state, whose officials are directly accountable to Parliament and not to a body of shareholders.
Another worry and a real anxiety follows on from Judge Tumim's report into suicides and self injury—in an effort to increase profitability corners will be cut. Those private contractors who gave evidence to Deloit's on the potential of the private sector to run remand homes stressed that they would rely on high technology to reduce staff-inmate ratios. I repeat that they stressed that they would rely on high technology to reduce staff-inmate ratios. I was not surprised to see eyebrows raise at that comment; mine did too when I read it. It is a recipe for yet more suicides. Remand prisoners are notoriously vulnerable. They need more and not less human contact. Neither should we forget that the inmates of what might turn out to be quasi-electronic cages might well be found innocent of any crime when their trial comes to court.
Finally, there is the question of the private sector's competence to carry out the sensitive task of guarding prisoners sent to prison by Her Majesty's courts. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that something needs to be done, and done urgently, about the unregulated private security industry in this country. Too often it pays its workers abysmally low wages, gives them sparse training, does little to vet their background and often delivers far from adequate services. It is true that the Bill contains a schedule which will certificate private prison guards. However, as yet we know little about what that means and about the guarantee that can be given that their training will be adequate. This part of the Bill is an unnecessary and dangerous distraction. The Government could have profited more from the inclusion of provisions to improve prison regimes.
I apologise for taking so long but I wish to comment briefly on two other matters. They are not directly raised by the text of the Bill but both are apposite and relevant. The first is the proposal that the mandatory life sentence for murder should be abolished. I have had the opportunity of reading the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, hopes to propose. At this stage I merely inform the House that the Labour Party will be supporting that amendment. This is not the time to debate it in detail. I say merely that the argument appears to have much to commend it, particularly against the background of our proposals for a sentencing council which will doubtless give guidance and help to judges on how to approach their new responsibility.
Finally, there are the issues raised by the Woolf Report. I have already expressed our gratitude to Lord Justice Woolf and his colleagues for the thoroughness of the report. I hope that we shall be able to pursue some of the issues raised by him in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill.
The people of this country will not understand a situation in which a Criminal Justice Bill—a fundamental Bill, so it is said by the Government—is going through its stages in Parliament and yet the very

87
important provisions contained in the Woolf Report are not before the House for a full debate. Therefore, we shall pursue that matter.
I return to where I started. Unfortunately, in our view, the Bill is an opportunity missed. I hope that the House will be able to improve upon it in Committee. We shall certainly try.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, for penal reformers, this is an era of great interest. There has been the Carlisle Report, the Government White Paper and the Woolf Report. We now have this Bill which sets out for the first time the sentencing framework for the courts and establishes that sentencing policy is subject to parliamentary control.
I congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Waddington. After all, this is his Bill. In mentioning his name, I point out that the other illustrious names relevant in this context—Carlisle, Woolf, Tumim, Pigot and Scarman —are all lawyers each following the long tradition of radical empiricism which we should appreciate has always existed in a reputedly reactionary profession.
In general, the Bill must be warmly welcomed; in particular as regards the supervised release of short-term prisoners, unit fines, the abolition of partly suspended and extended sentences, the sweeping away of the competency tests for children and custodial sentences for boys of 14, and raising the age of offenders to 17 for the youth court. I welcome very much the noble Earl's opening remarks about amendments being brought forward to end the remand of young persons in prison establishments.
There are controversial and questionable provisions to deal with privatisation, curfew, tagging and the disciplining of parents. I know that those issues will be addressed by other speakers. Also, there are notable omissions, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, on race, a sentencing council and on the political interference with life sentence tariffs.
I wish to limit my observations to Part I which, as the noble Earl said, is the main purpose of the Bill. That focuses upon the central problem of crime prevention and how to deal most effectively with those who offend against the law. Those provisions will affect every judge, magistrate and justices' clerk in the country as well as those who come before the courts, their families and those charged with supervising offenders in custody or in the community.
What is the background against which we must set those provisions? Every relevant report or inquiry of recent years has established that the exceptionally punitive and isolationist approach of our courts to sentencing has failed in its purpose. That failure has given rise to the White Paper with its clear message that for most crimes punishment in the community is better for victim, for the public and for the offender. That failure caused the Carlisle Report to proclaim that its parole proposals, which are largely adopted in Part II, provided a springboard for a thorough reassessment of present sentencing levels and a plea
88
for a determined attempt by government and the judiciary to secure a reduction in sentencing at all levels—and I emphasise "at all levels".
That failure has been recognised once again by Woolf in an historic document. I quote only one passage from the report. Paragraph 10:154 states that,
"if without any regard to the accommodation which is available at the time, the Courts were to send more and more prisoners to prisons, in the absence of a safety valve (such as would be provided by executive release) there will come a stage when the Prison Service will be overwhelmed by the task with which it is faced".
Therefore, I suggest that we must approach Part I of the Bill from that viewpoint. As has already been mentioned, Clause 42) sets out the criteria which are to govern the imposition of custodial sentences—seriousness and protection of the public.
Clause 2(2) contains the criteria for the next stage; that is, the assessment of the length of the sentence. Clause 3 contains the statutory procedures which the courts must follow in observing those criteria; that is, obtaining the essential information on which to make a just disposal. Those criteria and procedures are admirably clear. Indeed, a framework for sentencing is spelled out, as promised in the White Paper. That framework can be understood and operated by judges and magistrates in every court.
However, for reasons which the House will be anxious to discover and examine, complications and complexities appear which I fear may jeopardise the good will of sentencers and which, I notice, have already given anxiety to the Magistrates' Association and the Criminal Bar Association. Clauses 1(1) (b) and 2(1) introduce at once an exception to the statutory criteria—a "get out" based on the type of offence coming before the court, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred.
Surely the type of offence cannot be a sensible or workable basis for exceptions unless the sentence is fixed by law, which is covered in the clause. Every type of offence has infinite variations and inevitable anomalies will immediately be created. These clauses except offences triable only on indictment. The criteria are removed entirely as regards length. As regards custody they are removed if the offender has anywhere in his record a sentence of imprisonment, however short and however long ago.
Therefore, the result is that for the more serious offences, except where young persons are involved, judges are to be free from the statutory constraints and free to pass sentences which are not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence or which are longer than is adequate to protect the public. Furthermore, such sentences may be passed without any obligation to obtain pre-sentence reports or to state in open court why the sentence has been passed.
I feel sure that the House will wish to ask why senior judges should be exempt from applying the criteria which Parliament will lay down and how it is that those exemptions have found their way into this Bill. Seriousness is clearly the basis of the exemption. It is already the very essence of the criteria which we find in Clause 1. Surely when faced with the awesome

89
task of imposing a sentence measured in years rather than months or weeks, any court should be under a duty to obtain every scrap of relevant information to ensure a just disposal. The longer the sentence surely the more appropriate a public justification. In longer sentences, above all, the principle of "just deserts" should apply to the mature no less than to the young.
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, Home Office statistics establish that at present approximately 25 per cent. of those types of offence receive non-custodial sentences. If Carlisle and Woolf are loyally regarded by the courts, then that percentage will substantially increase in the future. Even now, approximately 2,500 cases a year will carry what will be called community sentences. All judges will have to bide by the equivalent restraints to be found in Clause 5. Therefore, one is bound to ask why that is not the case for all remaining offences as well.
Mr. Patten said in another place that there was a qualitative difference between young offenders and mature offenders in regard to rehabilitation and that it would be a waste of judges' time for them to go through those statutory hoops. With the greatest respect, I suggest that it is wholly to misunderstand the art of sentencing and the role of the judiciary to break the pattern—I mean no pun—in an offender's record. To seize on a sudden change in the circumstances of an offender's life may break the pattern of his offending. It is surely to break the long punitive tradition of the Bar and the Bench that these criteria appear in the Bill. I suggest that if they are to succeed they must apply in every court howsoever superior that court may be and however tedious the statutory discipline may appear.
Other complexities follow. How will the sentencer decide what makes an offence sufficiently serious for custody or for a long term? Under Clause 1(2) (a) the court may take into account one other associated offence, which includes one offence the offender asks to be considered. As I understand it, the purpose is to prevent the aggregation of a number of less serious offences in order to justify custody; in other words, the mischief of sentencing someone on their record, which the Bill so rightly seeks to prevent.
However, in Clause 2(2) (a), in regard to the length of sentence, the court may consider any number of associated offences. It is certainly not clear to me what justifies that distinction. There will be difficulties in persuading offenders to clear up crimes that they have committed if one such offence can tip the balance. Difficulties will arise also in establishing the circumstances of previous convictions, particularly in the magistrates' courts.
Under Clause 3 the sentencer must consider any aggravating factors about the circumstances of the offence. Normally the fact that the offender committed similar offences five or six times before would be such a factor. Yet Clause 3(2) makes clear that that is no longer to be so. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, the next subsection appears to change the goal posts and set at naught what the Bill is seeking to achieve. I agree with him that the Bill would be a better Bill without that subsection.
90
Finally, where sex or violence are concerned, as defined in Clause 25, in order to protect the public courts may impose sentences longer than is justified by the seriousness of the offence. The House may want to question the wisdom of including sex cases, as such, in that clause when imprisonment is now widely recognised as being destructive and counterproductive for most sex offenders, and particularly in view of the hostility and aggression directed at such offenders uniquely in British gaols. That is a matter which greatly concerned the Woolf Committee. It is also difficult to understand on what basis the court is to assess the future behaviour of the offenders in such circumstances.
Those complications muddy the clarity and simplicity of the statutory criteria. They may well confuse the magistracy and the Circuit Bench. I hope that in Committee they will be removed or amended. In a wholly non-political manner I have sought to indicate the central role which this part of the Bill will play in the future conduct of our criminal courts. I suggest to the House that one of our main tasks in improving the Bill should be to ensure that the guidance Parliament gives to the courts is clear, simple and universally applicable wherever criminal justice is being dispatched.
4.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, the Bill is moving in some right and important directions. I welcome especially the hope that fewer people will spend time in prison which is ineffective in achieving what we hope from it. I was first persuaded how ineffective during my 12 years in Canning Town in East London when I had much to do with young people who were in trouble with the law. Typically, I remember visiting a young man in Borstal whom I knew well. He wanted to make all kinds of promises as to how everything would be different when he returned home. I tried to persuade him not to make promises other than that we would meet to think about practical steps forward when he returned to the environment in which he would have to work out those new hopes. In the event, on his first day back he was round at the scrap yard in the company which had got him into trouble in the first place and he and I never had that conversation.
Surely the White Paper is right in saying that, provided the public is properly protected, the prospects of reforming offenders are usually much better if they stay in the community. It goes without saying that there are some dangerous people for whom we need tough security. But the Bill is moving in the right direction. It is fair to ask the Government and Ministers, as other noble Lords are beginning to ask, whether they have the courage of their convictions. Should they not be braver in ensuring that we move away from so much custodial sentencing, especially of young offenders? I support the Children's Society in its commitment to the ending of penal custody for juvenile offenders. I agree that for those few who cannot be safely dealt with in the community appropriate secure facilities should remain available.

91
The Bill follows a coherent rationale of punishment. It is based on just deserts. That goes right back to the Old Testament. "I cannot punish you because I say it will do you good but because you deserve it". I believe that the old law of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" bears more examination than at first modern sight. In the context of tit-for-tat tribal revenge, what it was really saying very firmly was, "No more than an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth".
In my first year or so of experience of urban jungle in East London, I recall taking the funeral of a young man from Canning Town who had been murdered in a gang fight by a young man from Barking. The big-mouthed talk in those days was that if he did not get life they would go and hang someone from Barking. It was a real tribal jungle. That is not an argument in favour of mandatory life sentences for murder. But the boy did get life. That was accepted as his just deserts and they left the matter there.
A Christian approach to penal policy must be based on a realistic understanding of human nature. But it insists that every human being, every victim, every offender, is valued and loved by God and is not to be thrown on the scrap heap. It insists, too, that none of us can speak simply in judgment and condemnation; for we, as well as parents, are involved in sin, and we have tolerated a growing divide between rich and poor. There is no doubt that the inadequate resources offered to the poor connect with crime. A Home Office research bulletin in 1989 said the obvious—that in general children from the poorest families living in slum housing and whose parents or guardians have low-status occupations tend to become offenders.
That experience of poverty is one of the factors we need to acknowledge when we look at why so many black people are in prison. I am not saying that poor people are poor things who are not responsible for their actions. In the Gospels Jesus said "To whom much is given, of him shall much be required". There is a corollary that "To whom little is given, of him shall little be required". The point I really want to make is that the Lord never said, "To whom nothing is given, of him nothing shall be required", for all human beings are responsible people and should be treated as such.
The fact that some poor people triumph heroically over their circumstances does not encourage us to tolerate the poverty that has been growing, especially in the last three years, through the introduction of the social fund arrangements and inadequate income support. If we want to do something about reducing crime, we should change policies here. It is highly significant that the Association of Chief Probation Officers reported in detail on poverty and its connections with crime just over a year ago. It declared a central point: "The principle of meeting individual need should be reinstated in social security policy and legislation". The social fund replaced the system of single payments which had served the poor flexibly and reasonably well. The social fund rejects many victims, as a victim support scheme study shows, and it treats victims, offenders and inadequate
92
people alike, frequently rejecting them without looking at the merits of their case or their need when their lives are in a tangle.
The chief probation officers say that the provision of grants rather than loans should be the normal method of helping needs which cannot be met from income support. In particular, they say that the meaning of "resettlement" should be widened so that any change of accommodation qualifies the applicant for a grant. We are told that probation officers spend so much time helping offenders to survive that they cannot find time to offer the professional help which we expect of them. They call for an urgent review of existing social security legislation and scrutiny of future proposals to ensure that benefits policy supports rather than negates strategies for the prevention of crime. Our clergy of all denominations tell us that more desperately poor people without the necessary resources are in touch with them than for a great many years.
There is one specific respect in which I hope your Lordships' House will amend the Bill. It concerns eradicating racism from the criminal justice system. The Government recognise that black men and women are disproportionately likely to be in prison. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, spelled this out carefully. The noble Earl the Minister drew attention to Clause 79, which I understand was an amendment in another place, providing that the Secretary of State shall publish such information as he considers expedient to ensure that persons engaged in the administration of justice should not discriminate against any person on the grounds of race. So the problem is recognised. It is another matter to do something about it. We need a more robust amendment offering victims of such discrimination access to appropriate legal remedies. If we want to eradicate racial prejudice and discrimination we need to put in place a firm system of monitoring.
Perhaps I may mention another authority with which I suspect the Government would not much like to be compared. Six years ago we had a militant administration in Liverpool. The Commission for Racial Equality undertook a survey of black people in public housing in south Liverpool. The report carefully spelled out that the one serious way of ensuring that action would take place was to establish a clear system of monitoring. The militant leadership of Liverpool City Council made it clear before the press conference at which the report was issued that they would not implement the proposed system of monitoring because they said they had established all the policies that were needed to ensure that there would be fairness in housing.
Racial prejudice is an extremely subtle matter. There is no way in which we shall catch up with it without a determined system of monitoring. I hope that the Government will not take the same attitude as the Liverpool militants did. We need a more robust, tight amendment.
The White Paper says:

93
"The rule of law will be maintained only if those charged with criminal offences are treated fairly and justly in the courts. There must be no discrimination because of a defendant's race, nationality, standing in the community".
We need a clear statement in the Bill about the standards which are expected from all those operating the criminal justice system, from the arresting officer to the High Court judge. That would be a signal to the black community that the British legal system firmly opposes discrimination, and it would give members of that community a platform from which to take action if they claim they have been discriminated against.
There is one other group I should like to mention, at once the most despicable and the most vulnerable in the prison population. I refer to the Rule 43 prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has just spoken about them. Sex offenders are considered fair game to he the scapegoat for violent prisoners who in a curious self-justification see their own crimes as straight. In another place the Minister, John Patten, referred to the excellent work being done in Grendon Underwood Prison. That is so; but it is not typical of prison life. Rebuilding the dignity of a human being, twisted in this way, has disappeared in the normal systems of most of our prisons. Nothing is done by way of treatment. Prison for Rule 43 prisoners is a matter of fear—one might say of terror—of hiding, pretending and surviving.
These offenders, who are the most despicable, are also redeemable. I commend one of Tony Parker's remarkable studies The Twisting Lane. That book reminds us that they are human beings too. It is right for our country to spend money to extend the kind of provision made at Grendon Underwood. I hope that we shall pass the Bill, having improved it in some important areas. That would be a step on the way towards a realistic understanding of human nature and an insistence on the value of every human being, every victim and every offender.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, unlike most Criminal Justice Bills, the measure that is before us today is based on some detectable principles. In their early stages other Bills may start with some principles but they do not often survive onto the face of the Bill. That is not so in this instance, as has already been said. What are these principles? I suggest the most important are the following: first, that punishment for an offence should be directly related to the gravity of the offence; secondly, that a prison sentence should be imposed on an adult offender only where it is strictly necessary to protect the public from serious harm or where the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified. Thirdly, it is an objective of criminal justice policy to reduce crime as well as to punish offenders and that for many less serious offenders a spell in prison is not necessarily the most effective sanction. We have heard my noble friend Lord Ferrers reiterate that point from the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon.
Other welcome commitments which have been translated into the wording of the Bill are changes in the parole system based largely, though not entirely,
94
on the recommendations of the review committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and a statutory framework for the introduction of means-related fines. All that is encouraging. There were high hopes when the Green Paper, Punishment, Custody and the Community, was presented to Parliament in July 1988. Those principles and policy objectives still remain. But am I alone in sensing that there has been an almost imperceptible, although cumulatively significant, move away from the carefully thought-out purity of the original design.
Each Home Secretary—there have been two so far in succession to my right honourable friend Mr. Hurd, who was the original architect of this legislation—seems to have felt a compulsion to add his own imprint of toughness to the Bill, presumably for presentational reasons. For example, there was the proposal added at the White Paper stage to give the courts power to top-up certain sentences. Thus we find in Clause 2 (2) (b) of the Bill something quite out of step with the declared policy of a more coherent and consistent approach to sentencing based on proportionality and just deserts. This provision will enable the courts to give certain categories of violent or sexual offenders sentences longer—that is the word used—than their crime deserves if,
"in the opinion of the court (it) is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the offender".
That is the wording of Clause 2(2) (b).
As a result of amendments in another place, this power has been extended downwards to offences triable summarily in the magistrates' court, as well as the either way offences that can be tried either in the magistrates' court or in the Crown Court. But indictable offences, which are the most serious criminal offences and triable only in the Crown Court, are excluded. The rationale is not clear. I suggest it will need to be tested very thoroughly in Committee. Another matter that will require careful scrutiny is the relevance of previous convictions to the view to be taken by the sentencing court of the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the public from serious harm.
So much for what is in the Bill, but what about what is not in it? The most surprising omission to many Members of your Lordships' House will be the failure to implement, or virtually to mention at all, the recommendations made in the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on murder and life imprisonment. I remind the House that that committee dates back to July 1988, following the debates on the previous criminal justice legislation. A number of noble Lords present today, including myself, took part in those debates three years ago. At Report stage and Third Reading in November and December 1987, there were amendments on life imprisonment, the administrative practices determining the release of life-sentence prisoners and the sentence for murder.
These amendments aimed to make life imprisonment the maximum rather than the mandatory sentence for murder, and to reform the objectionable procedures which it was found had grown up around

95
the setting of a tariff; namely, the penal period contained within a life sentence, which at that time was only just becoming publicly known. Widespread dissatisfaction was expressed in the course of the debates as to the state of the law and administrative practice. It was not confined to the Back Benches. No less an authority than my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, speaking for the Government at Report stage said:
"I believe that the law in this area requires review and very serious consideration. The precise machinery of review is a matter on which your Lordships' views would be important".—[Official Report, 19/11/87; col. 319.]
At Third Reading I suggested a Select Committee of this House in order that an all-party expert review could be carried out and, furthermore, one in which the higher judiciary could take part. That proposal was given sufficient encouragement by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to enable the amendments to be withdrawn. The Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd, was consulted personally about the terms of reference. The then Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Belstead, was co-operative, as he often was and always tried to be. The Lord Chancellor made sure that Scotland was included in the scope of the review.
Duly on the 21st July 1988 the House appointed a strong committee under the chairmanship of a respected independent Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with the following terms of reference:
"To consider, (a), the scope and definition of the crime of murder in England and Wales and in Scotland;
(b), the question whether imprisonment for life should remain a mandatory rather than a maximum penalty for murder; and, (c), the working of the arrangements for reaching decisions on the release of those serving life sentences for murder".
The sub-committee sat for the best part of a year. It took evidence from 81 witnesses in London and in Edinburgh. One of those witnesses was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, whom we shortly look forward to hearing this afternoon, and the committee reported in July 1989.
In addition to the detailed consideration that was given to the definition of murder, especially the difficult questions of the mental element in murder, the committee recommended —with one dissentient voice —the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder, and pointed the way (this time unanimously) to changes in administering life sentences in such a way as to bring practice into line with common law requirements of procedural fairness.
The report concluded that the procedures which I may remind your Lordships are still in place; the same procedures that were so strongly criticised three years ago remain unchanged—gave Ministers an inappropriate degree of power to determine the length of time to be spent in custody by life sentence prisoners, finding that they were unnecessarily secretive, and, as is so often the case with fallible public policies never consciously designed to operate as they do, that they had grown up piecemeal over a long period of years.
Since then the Select Committee's belief that the proper functions of the Executive and the judiciary
96
had become distorted has been reinforced by a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg last year. This related to the lawfulness of the continued detention of three British prisoners serving discretionary life sentences after the expiry of their tariff or after their recall to custody. While it is true that the judgment, which was in plenary session —that is, the entire court—against the United Kingdom was given only in November of last year, the applications had been before the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights for no less than five years. Moreover the substantive issue had been raised before those same tribunals in the Weeks case, which was decided even earlier.
I hope I have not taken too long in rehearsing this sequence of events. I do so to establish the simple point that these matters cannot be put off any longer. The Government have referred to the careful consideration that they are giving to these complex issues surrounding the European Court of Human Rights judgment and the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment.
I am aware that many—perhaps most—worth while, enduring reforms do not come quickly or easily, but, as I have shown, these proposals have been held over from the previous Criminal Justice Bill three years ago. The further examination that was then felt necessary, encouraged both by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, has taken place. The problems have been analysed. The arguments have been fully assessed, and solutions have been proposed. Now it is time to act.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, a Bill commencing with the principle that a custodial sentence is to be passed only if the court is of the opinion that the offence is so serious that a custodial sentence is justifiable must be applauded. Any measure which will have the effect in practice of reducing the prison population is good, but it is legitimate to question whether the central provisions of the Bill, Clauses 1 to 3, are as clear and comprehensible as they ought to be.
I took heed particularly at the outset of this debate when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that a main purpose of the Bill is to reform sentencing practice and to promote consistency of approach. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, applauded the principle that sentencing policy was to become subject to parliamentary control. He, however, I am sure, would be the first to agree that it should be subject to clear, sensible and comprehensible parliamentary control.
We should remember that most sentences in this country are passed by lay magistrates. If we are to lay down by statute basic principles of sentencing, then it is worth doing only if it is done clearly and well. As I read Clause 1(2) its effect is that a custodial sentence may not be passed on an offender unless the court is of the opinion that the offence, together with one—I emphasise one—other custodial offence, is so serious that nothing short of a custodial sentence is justifiable for it; or, in the case of a violent or sexual offence, that

97
nothing short of a custodial sentence is sufficient for the protection of the public from the offender. So these are the standards by which the sentencer must restrain himself when considering the option of imprisonment.
But there are two exceptions where the sentencer is not restrained. The first is where the law itself fixes the sentence—for example, murder, where the sentence is life imprisonment. The second is the defendant who has been convicted of one of the more serious offences which are triable only by judge and jury—for example, rape—and who has been sent to prison for it.
But let me give a typical example of where Clause I will apply that is not a case of one of the exceptions. The defendant is charged with taking a car without consent—one of the most common offences committed by young persons. One such offence would obviously not justify imprisonment. Say that the one offence of taking without consent is combined with stealing goods from the car. Again imprisonment would probably not be justifiable. Suppose next that the same offender is bailed by the police after he has committed these two offences only. Then he commits, as so often sadly happens, any number of repeat offences.
Eventually he is caught and admits a catalogue of identical offences. He comes to court and he pleads guilty to them all or asks for them to be taken into consideration. What may the court do? As I read the Bill, it cannot look at the totality of the criminal conduct and its impact on the public. It can ask itself only whether the offence charged plus one—I emphasise one—associated offence entails that nothing but imprisonment is justifiable. The court is debarred from considering the totality of the criminal conduct in asking itself the question: is nothing but prison justifiable? It can consider only two of those offences. But if it does decide that, for only two, nothing but prison is justifiable, it has to decide on the length of the custodial sentence. Then Clause 2(2) (a) tells the sentencer that he can, for that purpose, have regard to the totality of the criminal conduct; that is, that he can have regard to the seriousness of the offence and all—I emphasise the word "all"—the other offences associated with it. But in deciding the threshold question, prison or no, he must look artificially at only two. Your Lordships may think that the sentencers will find the logic of that baffling.
Let us then suppose that this offender has a long history of previous convictions for similar offences. In other words, he has run the gamut of non-custodial sentences—discharge, probation and community service. In such a case, the sentencer must refer to Clauses 3(2) and 3(3). As has been said by other speakers, the sentencer is bound to find these provisions baffling. Clause 3(2) tells him in fully unqualified language that,
"an offence shall not be regarded as more serious by reason of any previous convictions of the offender".
So the fact that he is a persistent offender is to be ignored. However, Clause 3(2) is subject to Clause 3(3). It proceeds to tell the sentencer that he can take into account the circumstances of any offences of which the offender has been previously convicted if
98
those circumstances are relevant for the purpose of forming an opinion as to the seriousness of the offences for which the sentencer has to sentence and therefore the appropriate length of sentence. I must confess that I do not know how Clause 3(3) is intended to work in practice. I agree with my noble friend Lord Richard that it would be best if it were to be removed.
If the circumstances of previous offences means the circumstances surrounding the offences, then in practice a sentencer will know nothing, or very little, that is reliable about the surrounding circumstances of previous offences. Of course the sentencer will know the nature of the previous offences and from the sentences imposed how seriously they were regarded by past sentencers. However, that is altogether different. That would simply bring in what Clause 3(2) took out; namely, previous convictions.
Moreover, the muddle becomes worse. Quite apart from the question of what these provisions about previous convictions actually mean, there are problems about when they will apply. The answer seems to be "not at all" if the offender has been convicted of an indictable only offence and has previously been sentenced to imprisonment. But if he has been convicted of an indictable only offence and has not previously been sentenced to imprisonment, those provisions apply to the question of whether a custodial sentence can be applied but not to the question of its length. That is because Clause 2, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pointed out, does not apply to indictable offences; it only applies to offences which are triable either way—that is, on indictment or in the magistrates' court—or only in the magistrates' court. But in the case of an either way offence (an offence triable either on indictment or in the magistrates' court), those provisions apply both to the question of whether a custodial sentence can be passed and what its length should be.
I have to say that all this is absurdly complex. If it has any logic it is not apparent. Hours will be wasted in the courts working out what principles apply in what case. The authors of the Bill seem to assume that offenders limit their crimes to particular categories. The reality is that the same offender will be sentenced on the same occasion for a number of crimes, some triable only on indictment and others either way. The judge will have to pick his way through all those provisions to decide which to apply to the first count, which to apply to the second, and so on. That task will be made even more difficult when there are a number of defendants in the dock.
I am also perturbed by Clause 2(2)(b) which empowers the sentencer to enlarge the sentence given to a violent or sexual offender if he thinks it necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm from the offender. The source of that provision would seem to be Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but the clause has none of the detailed substantive and procedural protections for defendants which are found in that section of the Act. That is a very broad and far too subjective a discretion to give to the sentencer. I am also puzzled that that power to enlarge the sentence is available only with either way or summary offences. In his most interesting speech, the

99
noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, drew attention to that anomaly. The consequence is that if the offender is convicted of an offence triable only on indictment—for example, rape—he is not eligible for an enlarged sentence, although an offender convicted of indecent assault will he. That is bizarre.
I predict that that provision as it stands will lead our country into further challenge in the European Court of Human Rights. I say that because an offender who receives an enlarged sentence under this provision on the ground that he is dangerous receives no special treatment under the parole process, contrary to a recent decision of the European Court.
Surely the Bill calls for the most detailed scrutiny in Committee. I do not understand why it needs to be so complicated. Clause 1 could be modified to allow the sentencer to take a realistic view of the case as a whole. Clause 2(2) (a) could easily be modified to give the court adequate discretion to mitigate the severity of a sentence on grounds personal to the defendant or his history; that is, grounds which do not affect the seriousness of the offence itself. But fundamentally I do not see why—and I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Richard—Clauses I and 2 should not simply be that the basic principles of sentencing laid down in the Bill apply to all custodial sentences, whatever the nature of the offence charged. I am sure that these are questions, among many others, which noble Lords will wish to consider with the greatest care in Committee.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Lane: My Lords, perhaps I may take a few moments of your Lordships' time to mention the question of the life sentencing policy. There is very little that I need to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has already said. But it is a great disappointment to note that all the work which was put in by the Select Committee of this place on the subject seems not to have been reflected in any way in the Bill which is now before the House.
I venture to suggest that the mandatory life sentence for murder is no longer necessary. It is perfectly true that there are some murderers for whom a life sentence will continue to be necessary. For example, I refer to those whose crime is truly heinous and especially to those who represent a danger to the public if they are at large—a danger of such a nature that its extent and duration cannot be forecast at the time that the sentence is imposed. Those are two classes—no doubt there are others—which will continue necessarily to be the subject of a life sentence. There is a large body of other murderers for whom there is no more difficulty in imposing a determinate sentence than there is in selecting the proper determinate sentence for those guilty of rape, arson or wounding with intent, all of which crimes carry a maximum sentence, if necessary, of life imprisonment.
If it is the stigma of the life imprisonment which it is the object to preserve, it is not the stigma of the life sentence which sticks; it is the stigma of the name "murderer". Nor does the release of that type of
100
murderer, after a term of years, present, as I see it, any greater danger than does the release of the rapist, the arsonist or the attempted murderer.
During the debate on the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Bill—as long ago as 1965—my predecessor spoke in favour of the discretionary life sentence for murder. I echo his view which was then supported by a large body of parliamentary judicial opinion. Such a change would enable the court to deal realistically with cases to which the very words "imprisonment for life" are wildly inappropriate.
Sentencing principles could be established, although it would no doubt take a little time, by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) if the change were made, just as sentencing guidelines have been established in so many other branches of the criminal law. It is a change which would have indirect advantages, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicated.
The Select Committee heard much criticism of the arrangements by which the Home Secretary obtains the private views of the trial judge and of me as to the period to be served by the life prisoner—to satisfy the demands of what are called deterrents and retribution —that is to say, the tariff or penalty period. I have myself to blame, and only myself to blame, for accepting the invitation in, I believe 1983, from Mr. Leon Brittan to undertake the task, not realising the full import and implications of what it was that I was agreeing to do.
There is no doubt that the present system is badly in need of reform. When passing a life sentence, the trial judge should be able to announce in open court the tariff or penal period that he considers to be necessary for punishment and deterrence, having heard submissions from the defendant himself or the counsel or advocate appearing for him. That determination, expressed in open court, would be subject of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) where again the matter would be heard openly and in open court as it should be. The effect, in short, would be to bring into the open what is now not open but which should be.
There are also many advantages to be put forward in principle for the recent judgment in the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne and Others. That judgment decided that a prisoner who has been made the subject of a discretionary life sentence was entitled at the end of the tariff or penal period to have the lawfulness of his continued incarceration determined by a court at reasonable intervals. That should be made part of any alteration to the law. It would be a step forward for justice if those alterations in the present law were introduced. I hope that at some stage in the Bill's passage those alterations will be made part of it.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I do not follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice into the fascinating and important debate on life sentences, it is because I look forward to listening with much

101
greater information to the debate on the amendments, which will provide us with an occasion for much more informed debate in Committee.
A great part of the Bill is concerned with sentencing. Sentences occupy a spectrum ranging from a token fine at one end to prolonged prison sentences at the other. There is a great deal of business at the latter end of the spectrum. A large number of our fellow citizens go to prison every year. On average, almost 48,000 of them were inside prisons every day in the most recent year reported on by Her Majesty's Prison Department— 1989–90.
As the Bill is closely concerned with the machinery of putting those people there, we must have our prisons much in mind when we consider the Bill. What do prisons do to the people inside them? By the "people inside them" I would normally mean both the staff and the prisoners, but in the context of the debate it is the prisoners whom we should consider.
Prisons have always been intended to do two things: to reform, or rehabilitate, prisoners and to protect the public. That they do not reform prisoners is now generally accepted. That point has been endorsed in this debate. They have in fact an almost exactly contrary effect. If one reviews all the background circumstances that make it likely that a man or a woman will go to prison, nothing— not one thing— has a more powerful effect in that direction than the fact that he or she has been there before.
The protection of the public is therefore also limited to the duration of imprisonment and to some extent to the period of supervised liberty that follows the sentence. It does not consist of any general improvement in the prisoner's behaviour once he is returned to society. He is more than likely to reoffend.
The period of supervised liberty after release, and the timing and system of release itself, are therefore of great importance. So are those parts of the Bill that deal with the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on a thorough and general response to his report which speaks for itself. As to the imprisonment that precedes that release: I repeat that it is not a constructive experience either for the person who undergoes it or for the society that imposes it and pays so much for that imposition. The reasons for that are not for this debate; but the effect of it is.
From that fact it follows— does it not— that a prison sentence must always be a sentence of last resort. Not only humanity, but logic and economy demand that that should be a universal principle to sentencing by our courts. It is now almost nine years since your Lordships applied that principle of the sentencing of young offenders in the Criminal Justice Bill 1982. I was the Home Office Minister in charge of that Bill. Even the resounding defeat your Lordships inflicted upon these Benches in the first Division did not diminish my pleasure in that reform. I hope that my noble friend's pleasure will not be marred by any such event.
The provision has since been effective, with the support of many agencies in the voluntary and other sectors, in reducing the custodial detention of young people. I therefore warmly welcome the extension of
102
that principle to almost all other offenders, in Clause 1. That, and the ending of detention of 14-year olds in young offender establishments, will be equally welcome to the noble Lords who inflicted the defeat to which I have referred and their successors.
There are other provisions in the Bill which deserve an early and approving mention, such as the new system of unit fines. Gilbert and Sullivan were no doubt right to expect that the punishment should fit the crime, but it has also to fit the criminal. While we must all be equal before the law, what we seek is equality of justice, not equality of treatment. Fines which cut deep into the family budget of one offender will merely shave a fraction off the deposit account of another. If the courts can adjust the scales of justice to reflect that difference more accurately, fines will not only be fairer, they will be more effective. They will come closer to the criteria clearly restated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.
As chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Fund and a member of the council of the Rainer Foundation, I believe that your Lordships will expect me to have a particular interest in the effects of the Bill on young people. The term "young people", I may add, is elastic, or has been so far. The various age-based distinctions between individuals in criminal law are both confusing and often inappropriate.
The Bill does something to bring us closer to having a single age of majority— the 18th birthday— and that is welcome. So is the transfer of 17 year-olds into the youth court with other young people. We must, however, beware of assuming that whichever birthday we choose, the choice will bring about a startling change, either in the character of the individual offender on that day, or in the treatment that will have the best chance of reforming him on the next.
Imprisonment has long been the sentence of last resort for young offenders. The importance of the provisions for other court disposals in their cases is therefore obvious and we can expect to spend some time on them in Committee. The provisions of Clause 1, by extending that principle to adults as well, imparts equal importance to the availability and extent of other adult sentences. The conversion of the probation order into a sentence of the court is a proper recognition of its importance in the new scheme of things and may contribute to the all-important effort of securing the confidence of the courts in this and other non-custodial disposals. We may have the most magnificent array of disposals but they will not be used by the courts unless the courts are confident that they will afford proper protection to the public and a reasonable chance of rehabilitation.
I suggest that securing that confidence in this and other non-custodial disposals is the proper response to the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, based on the report of the National Association of Probation Officers. It is necessary to achieve confidence in the voluntary sector treatment by having it monitored and validated by such organisations as the Intermediate Treatment Fund, which I have already mentioned.
From what I have said, your Lordships will realise that I believe that practitioners in the young offender

103
field have a great deal to offer that is relevant to the diversion of young adults from offending, and to the rehabilitation of those people when they do offend. We need to be confident that nothing in this Bill will prevent that useful and cost-effective application of skills, which exist in abundance in the voluntary as well as the statutory sectors, to the adult offender. In the process, we shall need to cast a careful eye over such measures as electronic monitoring.
There is one area of procedure for the handling of young people suspected of criminal offending which is, I think, ripe for a modest reform and which the Bill does not at present address. However, I believe it is now under review and we shall no doubt hear more in the later stages, perhaps at the end of this debate. The procedures are for bail and remand. My particular concern is for juveniles subject to Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This section was, I regret, not drafted with complete clarity and its interpretation was for long subject to doubt. That doubt has recently been resolved by the courts in what is, I think, the way that will be least beneficial to young people.
The result, as I understand it, is that there is no presumption that such young people should, if at all possible, be transferred out of police custody and into local authority secure or other appropriate accommodation overnight, after arrest. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether, in the Government's view, there should be such a presumption and whether he proposes to bring in an amendment to establish it. I apologise for not giving him notice of that question, but he has a long time to go before he will be required to answer it. If he does not, I shall ask your Lordships in Committee to look at a proposal for this purpose.
I gave warning in your Lordships' last debate on sentencing policy of an amendment that I was preparing for the Bill. It arose from my anxiety to take pressure off remand wings by removing a large slice of business from the Crown Courts. I meant to do so by changing the law on the handling of goods of minimum value. I regret that, though that would be desirable, it would be outside the scope of the Bill. I await the next vehicle with great impatience.
There are many other areas of interest which I hope we shall explore in Committee. If my noble friend has ever been fox hunting, he will find himself now in the position of the huntsman after hounds have been thrown into a large and interesting cover. Many of them speak and he has to determine which are speaking to the scent of the fox and which to that of a rabbit. It seems to me that a number of rabbits are already being hunted but also one or two foxes. I hope to join in the chase.
Among the areas of interest is the duty proposed in Clause 49 for magistrates to bind over parents. It is a duty, not a power, to bind over parents to control their offending child with what amounts to a fine of up £ 1,000 if they fail to agree to do so. The duty is subject to waiver where circumstances make it unreasonable
104
to expect them to fulfil it. However, the presumption remains that it will be performed and that the waiver will be exceptional.
I do not differ one whit from Her Majesty's Government in their wish to make parents recognise their responsibilities and discharge them via their children. Indeed, I asked them in a recent report to the Government on discipline in schools to examine legal means of doing so. The fact is, however, that the experience of the courts suggests that circumstances will often make this desirable step inappropriate. The question arises whether the Bill should suggest, as it does, that binding over should be the norm. I hope that in Committee we may consider whether that duty should rather be expressed as a power. There will be parallel considerations, I imagine, in considering fines under Clause 49. However, others will speak on that.
My concern for prisons and prisoners leads me to make only two other brief comments on the Bill. I think that the contracting out of the court escort service makes sense and will benefit both the police and the prison service. I am less confident about the experiment with private prisons. It will need careful monitoring. The terms of the contract will have an enormous importance and my initial view is that the key elements ought to be set in law and not by negotiation. That will need careful consideration in the later stages.
The justification for undertaking this experiment, as with so many others, is that the present system does little or nothing to turn criminals into honest citizens. That may be a necessary feature of imprisonment in itself, but it is not certain. As long as it is uncertain, we must try to provide constructive, as opposed to merely negative or destructive conditions and regimes. No experiment will be justified which is not both free to provide those conditions and regimes and required to do so. It must, of course, also provide security at least as great as that at present afforded by Her Majesty's Prison Service, and do so without some of the restraints that the history of the service has generated. I look forward to hearing in Committee the views on that point of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in particular.
I have attempted to follow a lot of foxes and several rabbits. I long to speak about racial discrimination, which exists, and I doubt whether legislation on the face of the Bill to ban it will be as simple or effective as some people suggest. I suspect that the careful monitoring and explicit observations suggested by the right reverend Prelate may be a more fertile and effective means of eliminating it, particularly as a great many people are unable to recognise discrimination when it is put before them.
This is a very important Bill. I wish my noble friend the greatest success in taking it through your Lordships' House. I believe that it will look slightly different when we have finished with it and I hope that my noble friend will be as enthusiastic about it at the end of our debates as at the beginning. That will be my intention when I seek to help him improve it.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, it is inevitable at this stage in a debate that most of the major points of principle and substance have already been raised by other noble Lords. I feel sure that noble Lords would not wish me to cover that ground again. However, there is one respect in which I am happy to follow other noble Lords and that is to start on a commendatory note. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said, there is no doubt that this is an important Bill. It remains to be seen whether in retrospect it will be considered to be one of the most important pieces of legislation in this century, as the noble Earl suggested in introducing the Bill.
I have many commendatory remarks to make about the Bill. I shall direct most of my remarks to Part II of the Bill. The points I wish to make on that part may seem points of detail. I shall finish by making a few remarks on Part I. My first words of commendation are to commend the Government for having in large part accepted the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee with regard to parole. I hope the Minister will not regard it as churlish if I say that the provisions in the Bill for parole have been a long time coming. It is now 11 years since a debate was held on an Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in July 1980. I referred in that debate to the widespread calls which had been voiced by such bodies as the association representing chief probation officers, the Howard League for Penal Reform and various academic bodies for an independent official inquiry into the parole system. That led the House of Commons Expenditure Committee to endorse the need for such an inquiry as long ago as 1978. It was only nine years later, in July 1987, that the Government set up the Carlisle inquiry. The reforms, many of which were foreseen some 15 years ago, are only now approaching the status of law. Having said that, now that radical proposals in regard to parole are before us, I must say that I largely agree with them. Several speakers have made comments on this part of the Bill. I wish to touch only on a few salient points.
First, I am particularly glad that remission time is to go. It was always excessively long for the needs of prison discipline and it constituted too large a reduction of the intended sentence of the court. It is quite interesting to recall that its retention in 1967 was the reason why— the matter arose when we were discussing the criminal justice legislation in 1967— parole eligibility had to be fitted in during the middle third of a sentence and could be awarded after only one-third of a sentence had been served. It was quite unlike any other conditions obtaining in other countries which my colleagues and I on the then Parole Board visited in order to discuss early conditional release systems. That fact did not endear parole to a number of people, including the judges, in the early days, and it has been alleged that it may have led to some lengthening of prison sentences.
Secondly, I am especially glad to welcome the automatic combination of imprisonment with release under supervision for all prisoners serving fewer than
106
four years. This provision also has a long history and has therefore been a long time coming. The general principle was mooted in a government White Paper in 1981 and it was commended by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in that same year. It was one of the recommendations which the All-Party Penal Affairs Group made to the Carlisle Committee. On behalf of that group I moved an amendment to the 1987 Criminal Justice Bill on 29th October of that year containing a closely similar proposal. I do not wish to hark back to my amendment, but I simply wish to applaud the Government for their bold decision to accept the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the provision should apply to all prisoners serving fewer than four years, rather than to prisoners serving fewer than three years as was the case in the all-party group amendment.
I was particularly glad to hear the Minister say that the Government intend to delegate executive decision-making powers in regard to parole for prisoners serving sentences of between four and seven years. The parole boards over the past 23 years have had an outstanding record in that annually only about a dozen of their recommendations were turned down by the Home Secretaries of the day. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will confirm that it is the Government's intention to delegate the final decision on release in regard to all prisoners serving the length of sentence I have referred to. The Government's White Paper refers to delegation of the decision for some prisoners. I understood from what the Minister said that the Government intend to delegate that decision for all prisoners. If delegation is only to take place in regard to some prisoners, I hope the Minister will say what criteria the Secretary of State will use to identify the prisoners concerned.
There is concern lest the proposals in Part II of the Bill regarding the longer proportion of the sentence which is to be spent in prison before supervised release begins— one-half of the sentence instead of one-third — may result in an increase in the prison population. It is worth reminding ourselves that when parole was placed on the statute book in 1967 its primary purpose was not to reduce the prison population. At that time there was not a serious problem regarding the prison population. It would be most unfortunate if the reforms that have now been proposed should have the opposite effect and increase the size of the prison population.
I should like to share the optimism of the noble Lord the Leader of the House who is reported to have said about the White Paper when he was Home Secretary:
"It should result in a significant reduction in the numbers of offenders in custody".
I understand that the noble Lord was referring to other measures in Part I of the Bill as well as to measures in Part II. The end result will depend on whether the courts under the terms of this Bill make more use of community penalties and whether they also reduce the length of prison sentences for most offenders. I shall say no more than remark that I live in hope. I am in favour of a sentencing council.

107
I wish to refer to a point of detail before I leave Part II. That point has some importance in view of the decision-making powers that are to be given to the Parole Board. Clause 26(5) of the Bill would empower the Secretary of State to make rules for the proceedings of the board. These would include provision for cases to be dealt with by a prescribed number of its members.
Paragraph 6.19 of the White Paper states:
"The Government intends that the panel members should be three, with a quorum of two".
Your Lordships may think that is a detail, but it has some importance in this matter. I do not believe that a quorum of two is adequate to make decisions on behalf of the board regarding offenders, some of whom have committed serious offences and are serving sentences of up to seven years. The board reflects experience and knowledge from four main angles: judicial, social work, criminological and medical. All of those angles are expected to be brought to bear on the cases which the board considers. In my opinion a minimum of two members as a quorum is not enough; the minimum number should be four with a quorum of three. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the rules are drawn up.
Finally, I turn briefly to Part I of the Bill, which has been covered by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and others. I welcome the enhanced role which is envisaged for the probation service in the Green Papers which preceded the White Paper bearing on this Bill. However, I also share the anxiety of many probation officers about the implications of Clauses 5 to 14 for their traditional role of supervision and after-care of released offenders. Enforcement of curfews and monitoring by electronic tagging are a form of policing; they do not accord with the relationship between probation officers and their clients— the offenders— which is essential for the deployment of the skills of probation officers.
Clauses 9(4), 11(4), 12(3) and 14(3) (c) appear to imply that those duties will fall to persons other than probation officers. There is reference at various points to "the relevant officer", "a person responsible" and "other persons" in those clauses. Do the Government intend that the probation service should find and contract with those other persons? Whom will they be? Will they be the police, officers seconded from the prison service, or someone else? Can the Minister please clarify that point?
Having started on a commendatory note, I am bound to join some other noble Lords in taking a slightly different tone in concluding. I am doubtful whether curfews and electronic monitoring of offenders will work. They certainly have not done so to date and have been proved not to do so. I fear that the Government's psychology in this matter is wrong. So is a punitive philosophy in regard to young offenders. That attitude is the best way to get the worst out of young people. Bad though their offences may be, many young people are "acting out"— as even some of your Lordships and I used to do in our teens — but in social and environmental circumstances
108
infinitely worse which reflect the nature of their crime. They are rebels in their teens, as we were. Given a constructive lead, encouraged to gain self-respect and to care for other people they will come through and adopt more responsible behaviour as they grow older.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I shall confine myself to the omissions from the Bill relating to murder and life imprisonment and the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships in 1988, of which I had the honour to be chairman.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has already spoken of the origins of that Select Committee, of the debates in 1987 on the previous Criminal Justice Bill and the support for the amendments in consideration of these very difficult matters from all quarters of the House, as a result of which the idea of the Select Committee, and its eventual appointment, emerged. I shall not repeat the history of the matter, which the noble Lord explained so well.
A debate on the Select Committee's report took place on 6th November 1989, shortly after publication. The advantage of the short interval following publication was that the Government could take account of the views expressed by your Lordships in reaching their conclusions on the recommendations in the report. The disadvantage was that the Government could not possibly be expected in so short a period to have formulated their own views.
On publication there was widespread favourable public reaction, which was echoed in your Lordships' House. There has been no formal government response. I hope that that indicates that the Government have an open mind and are prepared to listen to argument for incorporation of the Select Committee's recommendations in the Bill.
I turn first to the mandatory sentence of imprisonment for life for murder. We carried out an exhaustive study of the advantages and disadvantages, which are set out fully in the report. We explored the possibility of introducing categories of murder. That was tried with notable lack of success between 1957 and 1965. We rejected that option.
The scope of the crime of murder is wide and would remain wide under the Select Committee's recommendations. It ranges from the pathetic case of the terminally ill wife seeking help from her husband to bring her suffering to an end to the most vicious murder in the course of rape. It is remarkable that the law should prescribe one sentence only which is available to the trial judge and which he must impose — life imprisonment. Yet flexibility to relate the degree of punishment to the circumstances of the crime is essential.
Since the trial judge is bound to award the one sentence of life imprisonment, the Home Office, the Home Secretary and his Ministers have intervened under a complicated and secretive procedure, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, referred in his very clear speech. It was a reinforcement both to confidence in the conclusions that we reached and to

109
the support for our recommendations that we have the backing of the noble and learned Lord in those respects.
Suffice it to say that, having in open court sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment for life, as he is bound to do, the trial judge, through the Lord Chief Justice, writes to the Home Secretary privately with his recommendations as to the length of time the prisoner should remain in custody to satisfy the requirements of deterrence and retribution— in plain English, punishment. There is a remarkable conflict of ideas in those two steps. The Home Secretary, or more commonly a junior Minister, reviews that recommendation and may vary the term proposed without reference to the trial judge.
Many thought that the review resulted occasionally in reduction of the term proposed on compassionate or similar grounds. However, in its evidence the Home Office told us that in one period of six months in 63 of the 106 mandatory life sentences the Home Secretary set a higher tariff than that privately indicated to him by the trial judge. In 34 cases he set the same tariff and in nine cases he set a lower tariff. The evidence that we received was that increases in tariff are regularly made.
The effect of the mandatory sentence has been to move from the judiciary to the Executive decision as to the period to be spent as punishment in custody. What at first glance looks like a statutory requirement imposing on the judiciary an obligation to impose a fixed penalty of life imprisonment has been turned into a power in the hands of the Executive to decide the period to be spent as punishment in custody.
It has sometimes been suggested that in cases of murder the period a particular criminal is to remain in custody may raise political issues and that therefore a Minister with responsibility to Parliament should exercise those powers. Yet introducing political factors into sentencing a person convicted has been rejected in all civilised societies throughout history. That constitutional question of the proper function of the judiciary and of the Executive lies in the special province of the Lord Chancellor, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack explained in a remarkable lecture last week. I gave notice to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that I intended to make that remark.
Sentencing is part of the judicial function in every case other than murder. The potential for the politically motivated abuse of executive power in the process of sentencing has been too often experienced elsewhere. Restoration of the sentencing function to the judiciary entails giving to the judiciary the duty to exercise its discretion.
The sentence of life imprisonment must be available in the court's discretion. The period in custody as punishment— the so-called (it is a horrible word) tariff— when a discretionary life sentence is imposed is likely to be longer than the term at present given under the mandatory sentence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, mentioned, the tariff should be set in open court, published and made known and not given by an obscure and secret procedure.
110
So the proposal in this context does not represent a soft option. The tariff period, being publicly known, should be subject to appeal by the prosecution as well as the defendant, as in other cases. So too lenient sentences in that context can be corrected.
The mandatory life sentence is not part of the ancient heritage of English law embedded in our tradition. It was introduced by statute in 1965, which is just over 25 years ago. It does not have the inviolability of antiquity and long custom. However, it has been with us long enough for us to acquire experience of how it works in practice and to look at the outcrop of developments which have come in its train. Arrangements for release on licence after the end of the tariff period are one of those developments.
Having myself been without experience in this branch of the law, I at first found these procedures incomprehensible and when, with the assistance of expert members of the committee and witnesses who came to help us in our inquiry, I first started to understand them, I was filled with disbelief. They have indeed been condemned by the Court of Human Rights as being in contravention of the European convention. The decision came as no surprise, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. The decision related to discretionary life sentences but in my view there is every reason to believe that it would apply equally to mandatory sentences. The decision followed a chain of cases before that court and the Government have had ample time in which to consider what should be done. A judicial procedure openly exercised should be substituted for the present obscure procedure exercised in secret.
The opportunity is presented by this Criminal Justice Bill to address these problems systematically and radically rather than make some attempt to tinker with them. I hope that the Minister, in winding up, will support amendments which we shall put forward to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps the first landmark of this great reform Bill is the new approach to sentencing in Part I, which has already had a generous welcome in principle in the debate on sentencing policy introduced by my noble friend Lord Elton, subject to the customary caveat on this subject entered by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with whom we had an agreeable exchange of views. However, that debate was in effect the curtain raiser to Part I of this Bill and for my part, in view of the constraints of time, I do not propose to say more about it.
The second great landmark is the new approach to children's evidence in implementation and extension of the Pigot recommendations. Broadly speaking, that is generally welcomed.
Thirdly, there is the new approach to parental responsibilities, which for my part I greatly welcome but accept that it may well require a certain amount of drafting examination, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and my noble friend Lord Elton suggested. Indeed, reverting to Part I of the Bill, I wholly accept that

111
there are problems of construction to which the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Irvine, referred and which will require examination in Committee.
But, great as the Bill is, there are serious defects of omission arising out of the failure to implement the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, about which my noble friend Lord Windlesham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, chairman of the committee, have already spoken. It is understood— the noble Lord, Lord Richard, adverted to this point— that the Government propose to remedy one aspect of omission identified in paragraph 10.120 of the Woolf Report; namely, to regulate the diversity in the use of the statutory powers to ensure that mentally disordered offenders are removed from custodial disposal as part of the system, presumably under Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill.
Perhaps the main defects of the Bill— with respect, at all events to my mind they are serious and fundamental defects — are first of all the failure to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder. A new clause before Clause I will be introduced at Committee stage. Secondly, the failure to abolish the confidential procedure under which a judge passing a life sentence for any offence may make recommendations to the Home Secretary as to release gives rise to serious concern. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, during the six months ending September 1983, 63 of 106 mandatory life sentences for murder in fact were set by the Home Secretary at a higher tariff than that indicated by the judge. As we sit here today, the judicial tariff is increased by the Home Secretary as a matter of course as he so wills. With respect, it is intolerable.
The third failure of the Bill, which is again a serious matter of fundamental importance, is the failure to supplant this unacceptable confidential procedure with an open system under which the tariff for life or long-term prisoners is stated with reasons by the judge in open court. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has dealt with this point. It is otiose for me to do more than seek to add a puny measure of support. That goes to the nub of the problem which will be dealt with seeking to strike down such administrative control and set up a judicial control for the release of prisoners, life prisoners and long-term prisoners. That will be under the control of a judicial review body. That will be achieved by two new clauses before Clause 26 of Part II. The composition and procedures of the tribunal will be included in a detailed schedule which will be proposed to be inserted before Schedule 4.
The next failure almost beggars belief. Let us assume that the Government have made up their mind; they will not accept the recommendation to abolish the mandatory sentence of imprisonment for life. Even on that assumption, the failure to abolish that confidential procedure and use of administrative discretion, which has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights as in contravention
112
of Article 5(4) of the convention in the Thynne case, failing in any way to deal with the necessary implementation of that decision by proposing in the Bill any form of consideration or amendment, beggars belief. This comes as no surprise to the Government, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham has pointed out. The history of the matter has also been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The only surprise is that nothing whatever is done. No reason has been given. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in a speech on the Address respectfully asked the Government to give consideration to this (Official Report, col. 76 of 8th November). Nothing has been done.
The last failure is related but it is not to be ignored. It is the failure of government to recognise that the sense of injustice felt by the long-term prisoners over the release system and the want of reasons for decisions which materially and adversely affect them was a most serious and potent cause of the trouble in our prisons. That was evidence which we received on the committee on which I had the privilege to sit as a member. However, reading the Woolf Report the other day, I found it expressly confirmed at paragraph 14.306. Is it not astonishing that the Government do not come forward with a system which we have recommended and which accords with the Convention on Human Rights that there should be some form of judicial control on release?
There is little more that I wish to say, but I conclude with two points. The point first struck home with me when raised by the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: it was building on the success of the Grendon type disposal. It was touched upon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Many noble Lords have already referred to this matter in the debate, and only 11 speeches have been made and there are 22 to come. Surely the Government ought to take note of this. It would be apposite perhaps to include it in the Bill.
The last matter I wish to deal with is another defect of omission which lies within another category which may lie outside the intendment of the Bill. It is in context with the article of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in The Times on 5th March at page 10; "Justice in the Balance". One of his proposals was that no one should be convicted upon an uncorroborated confession, thus assimilating English law with that of Scotland. I respectfully suggest that a provision to such effect is ripe for inclusion in any Criminal Justice Bill by extension of the Long Title if needs must be. It is, however, accepted that the noble and learned Lord's other proposals, including, for example, an independent forensic science service, and the setting up of a new review body with power to quash convictions, may well warrant further discussion and debate— a White Paper— and that such matters are premature to consider for inclusion in the Bill.
Having roundly, and I hope forthrightly, criticised the Bill where I sought to criticise it, I nonetheless broadly welcome the Bill as one of monumental importance.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise with even more than my usual enthusiasm to support the remarks made by noble Lords on this Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has left us. I strongly agree with the point made with immense authority by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Windlesham, Lord Nathan, and, eminently, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was chairman of the relevant committee. The demand that the mandatory life sentence for murder should be abolished must surely prevail. I cannot believe that, in the face of what we have heard this afternoon, the Government will for some obscure reason of their own dig their toes in. I do not expect the noble Earl to capitulate today but very soon afterwards.
I hope that equal importance will be attached to what might be called the other part of that policy. It will mean that those serving life sentences will come up for judicial review at regular intervals. That would be all important. I shall not dwell on a particular case. I refer to someone who has been in prison for 25 years. After 20 years— and again, I believe, recently— the prisoner was recommended for parole by the local review committee. However, in practice, under present plans the prisoner will be in prison for 30 years at least with no immediate prospect of release. Is that justice? Is it Christianity? Is it a matter about which we can be proud? I understand that under new plans there will be opportunity for judicial review long before such an appalling length of time has elapsed. That is an aspect of the matter that I hope the Minister will bear in mind.
I am often asked publicly and privately whether the prospects for the more humane treatment of prisoners will improve during the next 10 years. I feel unable to make a clear pronouncement; the chances are about 50/50. I understand that the Minister may have to leave the House. Before he escapes I shall ask early in my speech the question about which I have given him notice. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, last year I opened a debate on sentencing. I then asked whether the Government stood by the official forecast of the Home Office that there would be an increase of 12,000 prisoners in the years immediately ahead. No answer was then given and I understand that the Home Office's official estimate has since been revised. The latest forecast provided to me is of an increase of 7,900 prisoners by 1998. Is that the prospect which has unfolded under the Government's plan to reduce the prison population? If so it will be understood why I cannot give a clear answer to the question whether prisoners will be treated any better in the next few years.
I wish nothing but good to the Home Secretary and the other Home Office Ministers, who are much respected. They have a difficult task ahead; it is the terrible prospect of coping with their party conference which is looming up. I readily recall what happened to the then popular Home Secretary, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he tried to advocate progressive policies to the Conservative Party conference. He had
114
a bad time and had to drop the idea. Therefore, Home Office Ministers must face the fact that their party conference is a big obstacle to penal reform.
Perhaps impertinently I applied last year to be a visitor to the Conservative Party conference. I was turned down on grounds which were undisclosed to me. Some noble Lords may sympathise with those who turned me down. Afterwards I was relieved not to have been present when the conference passed into a state of advanced ecstasy at the very mention of hanging. That is the type of Conservative Party conference with which the noble Earl and his colleagues must cope and I wish them luck.
The present Bill contains some good proposals but has been viewed with suspicion by penal reformers. I support the idea of punishment in the community. It is a progressive idea, as I have said previously. There are also other good aspects of the Bill. There are various defects, however, that I shall not list this afternoon. Many of my noble friends have already dealt with them. I shall merely say in passing, but with some fervour, that the idea of privatising prisons and making money out of helpless prisoners is an obscenity. I cannot believe that the British public will ever accept such a disgusting proposal. However, that is said in passing in a friendly spirit. The argument was expressed more eloquently by my noble friend Lord Richard.
I shall confine myself to a single topic. It will come as no surprise to those noble Lords who heard my opening speech in last year's debate on sentencing. I submitted then, and submit again, three propositions. Logicians such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will not accept this as a syllogism but it is close to it. We all agree that there are too many people in prison because the judges send them there. I believe that it follows that judges must be encouraged to send fewer people to prison—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, might it not be that they are in prison because of what they have done?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord made that remark on an earlier occasion and laughed just as heartily as he does now. If he enjoys the joke perhaps we should all join in the farce if we feel able. If he wants an answer in a sentence it is that there is no reason why we in this country should send more people to prison than is the case in other countries. Our crime rate is not higher than that of other countries; it is just that our judges are more severe—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord makes the same old point that he made previously. It is not the judges who send people to prison; about 90 per cent. of people are sent to prison by lay magistrates.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, noble Lords who practise at the Bar may put the noble Lord right about that. Whether or not the figure is 90 per cent., the fact is that magistrates take their guidance from the highest judicial authorities. Therefore it all begins with the judges.

115
If I were a judge— and I know that I should not be selected for that honourable role— I should feel in no way ashamed if my views were not shared by ignorant outsiders such as politicians and the general public. Of course, judges are also attacked for being too mild, as they are in the Sun. It will be difficult to make them believe that up till now they have been on the wrong lines. If I were a judge I should find that argument difficult to accept. However, somehow or another we must persuade them to be less severe in future and send fewer people to prison.
The question is how to do that. I know that the Government are worried about doing so without interfering with the independence of the judiciary. We all value its independence and do not wish to interfere with individual sentences. Occasionally the Executive does so but by and large it would be a bad day if it began to interfere with individual sentences. However, I say with all conviction— and I shall go to my grave saying so— that the general level of sentencing is the responsibility of the elected government of the day. One either agrees with that proposition or one does not, but that is my view. One listens to the judges because they are the experts. However, in the last resort this country is not ruled by experts; it is ruled by the representatives of the people. Therefore, we shall make no advance and prisoners will be treated in the same way. The amount of overcrowding will not decrease unless steps are taken to encourage the judges to pass less severe sentences. That is what the argument amounts to, although it can be wrapped up in all kinds of ways.
In order to do that I suggest that we must turn to the idea of a sentencing council. No doubt there are many different ways in which that can be organised. It would mean that sentencing was considered to be too serious a matter to be left entirely to the judges. Therefore, in their general sentencing policy, though not in respect of individual sentences, judges would be brought under public control. Without that change nothing much will happen and I therefore hope that it will be achieved. I wish the Minister success in his gallant endeavours.
5.58 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I shall not follow the argument of the noble Earl — indeed, I doubt whether I am equipped to do so. I prefer to deal with Part II of the Bill. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I am so much in agreement with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is no necessity for me to repeat the argument. Part II provides for the implementation of the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee on the role of the Parole Board. As the current chairman of that body, I hope it will be thought appropriate if I say a few words about it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that it is not easy to see how the Bill implements the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee because it is drafted in an extremely economical way. However, there will be underlying statutory instruments and directions which will pick up many of those points.
116
In preparation for those changes there have already been truly admirable consultations with my noble friend's officials. Those consultations have not only been with the Parole Board staff but with a great number of its members from all sorts of disciplines. There was a residential conference. I hope that we have been able to put some of our ideas before the Home Office in a useful and constructive way. I am sure that more consultations will take place.
The first major change which will take place under the present Bill is that, as my noble friend said in his opening speech, the Parole Board will have an executive function for the release of prisoners serving from four to seven years. I understood it to be for all of them, but that is a question which has been asked. I should tell the House that, given the resources and staff— and that is under discussion— I am fully confident that the Parole Board can do that job.
One of the great elements which moved the Carlisle Committee towards the direction which it took was its experiences in Canada. Those experiences have been continued. There has been reciprocal consultation with the Canadian parole board. There have been visits in both directions across the Atlantic and we have learnt a great deal from the Canadians on all aspects of the job which will have to be done. That will include appeals from decisions which the prisoner does not like. I suppose it is possible in the future that there may be appeals by victims but I understand that that is not envisaged at present. At any rate, members of the Carlisle Committee found the Canadian example to be of considerable interest and use.
The directions as to the way in which the Parole Board will carry out its executive role have yet to be formulated but I say to the House and to my noble friend— and I am sure that he will know it already — that the way in which the decisions are given will certainly be subject to judicial review. Therefore, the directions on the reasons on which it is legitimate either to grant or refuse release on parole must be clear cut and, I should have thought, comparatively few in number. Otherwise, it will turn into a lawyers' paradise. We shall have to take account also of the fact that open reporting of the conduct of the prisoner will be available. Therefore, there will be a great deal of material on which challenge can be made but, also, on which sensible decisions can be founded.
Open reporting will only be possible— and likewise I believe, the sensible giving of reasons for or against release— if there is the introduction of a system of sentence planning, some method by which the index offence for which the offender is in prison is addressed. The right reverend Prelate touched on that matter when speaking of sex offenders. However, there are many other problems which afflict people in prison. It should be possible to address those problems while that person is still inside the prison.
I can tell your Lordships that the system will not work unless something of that sort starts more or less as soon as the new system comes into being. It will not be possible to give open reasons one way or the other unless there is a plan which is open to the prisoner as well as to the staff and which has been discussed with

117
him and as a rule, I hope, agreed. It will then be possible to judge progress and to see whether the moment has been reached for a release.
I have seen that in operation in Canada in a prison which specialises in sexual offenders. It appears to work in Ontario and I see no reason why it should not work here. Of course the provision of treatment in prison must be followed up by other treatment while the person is on licence in the community. Therefore, I looked with great interest at Schedule 1 to Part II of this Bill. I grant that that deals with probation but, if those facilities are available to the probation service when a probation order is made, I can see no reason why they should not be made available to the probation service when it is supervising parolees on licence. A very full list of provisions will be available in the community. Therefore, I hope that the treatment in prison and the treatment once a person comes out will dovetail together.
The other major change which I should like to commend to the House is that Clause 39 takes deportation cases out of the hands of the Parole Board. I doubt whether anything in our proceedings causes more dispute than what is to be done with deportees, particularly drug couriers, though there are others. The problem is simple. The main concept of parole is that that is a continuation of the sentence under supervision in the community. That cannot be done if the person is to be deported except in a very few cases on the Continent of Europe. Therefore, there is a great division of opinion among my colleagues as to what should be done with such cases. I am afraid that there is a possibility that some will fall into the error of re-sentencing. All that will be taken away from the Parole Board and will be dealt with by the Secretary of State and, I should have thought, the immigration department.
I should like to draw one other point to the attention of the House. It arises in Clauses 31 and 32; that is about the recall of prisoners who are out of prison under supervision on licence. That will be done differently according to whether they are short or long-term offenders. If they are short-term offenders, it will be done by the magistrates, who can impose a fine or can recall the man or woman to prison. In the case of the long-term prisoner, it will be the job of the Parole Board, which cannot fine but can recall.
The one fear which I have about that dichotomy is that there will be very great difficulty in achieving consistency in the approach between the multitudinous magistrates' courts and the proceedings of the Parole Board. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ferrers— and he is not expected to reply to this matter this evening, because I have not given him notice of it — will ask that attention is paid to that and preparation made in order to avoid gross discrepancies in the way people are treated in those two different fora. That would be very valuable.
Having said that, I hope that I have given the impression to the House that Part II of the Bill seems to us to be well conceived and workable. We look forward to putting it into effect.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I intend to deal with only one theme in speaking this evening because I am in no way an expert in the way in which so many of the other speakers in your Lordships' House are expert on the subjects covered by the Bill.
However, I briefly add my voice (because every extra voice is worth having) to noble Lords who have said that the Bill should include the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder. Secondly, I give every possible support to those who have advocated an extension of the development of prisons run along the lines of Grendon. That is a prison which has attracted the most favourable comment. I was privileged to visit Grendon while taking part in a seminar there and I was enormously impressed by what I saw. I urge your Lordships to give every support, and perhaps that can in some way be reflected in the Bill.
I turn to my main theme. I take it that the purpose behind the legislation is ultimately to have less crime, fewer people appearing before the courts, and above all fewer people sent to prison and kept there for long periods of time. The points I intend to make I have made in various forms before in your Lordships' House. I make no apology. They must be repeated and emphasised again and again until we obtain results.
We shall not cut down the number of people appearing before the courts; we shall only marginally cut down the number of people in prison unless we can cut down the rate of recidivism. Recidivism is inevitable unless people who have offended are able to obtain work. Work is the centre of rehabilitation. At the end of the day work means a structured existence; it means money; it means status; it means the possibility of having a home of one's own, one's own family and paying one's own bills. Without work there is no choice for the ex-offender except to settle for making the best he can of a life of crime, paying for his periods of freedom by his periods inside.
Therefore I stress again that of first importance is the giving of adequate training to enable people to obtain jobs. We are living increasingly in an economy where there are fewer opportunities for people without skills. If one has no skill and a criminal record to boot, one's chance of obtaining work is very low indeed. The first requirement is to enhance the opportunity for the offender to obtain work. That greatly applies to the people serving community sentences. There is no reason why people who are serving their sentence in the community should not combine it with rigorous and effective training.
At the moment an interesting programme is taking place between the probation service and the organisation in Berkshire with which I am concerned, the Apex Trust. It is well supported by the prison service. Its aims are to provide real training for the people serving sentences within the community so that they have a better chance of re-establishing themselves and not returning to crime afterwards.
First, I must stress that along with the whole idea of sentencing in the community we should examine the

119
ways in which that period can be used for training and for the finding of appropriate work and therefore money. Money may be the root of all evil but without it one cannot get very far. One cannot obtain money without first having a job. That is what it is all about.
Secondly, we need the extension and development — "extension" is a flattering term— of such training as is already taking place in prison. It must be real training. I am happy to say that I spent one morning last week in the rather surprising company of the Minister of the Department of Employment, Mr. Robert Jackson, trudging around Pentonville Prison where a new experimental programme for training is taking place. People from outside the prison service are carrying out the training and they are expert in doing so. They have the full support of the prison governor. The prisoners are obtaining training.
I know I shall be told that the prison service always provides training inside prison. If one is lucky one may receive it, but a great deal of the time one does not. It is not enough to say that one must have training. It must be relevant training which will lead to employment. If people are given training and find that after they have been trained they cannot get a job, it will lead to the development of cynicism— which is already rife inside prison— in relation to training. It is important that steps should be taken to link employers with special training programmes inside the prisons relevant to the labour market.
It is possible to do that. Steps are being taken and employers are becoming genuinely interested in ways in which they can work with the prison authorities in providing training. In some industries, such as the construction industry, if one has done training in prison there is a reasonable chance that one may find a job in different parts of the country because construction occurs everywhere. But one of the basic problems is that where prisoners are sent to serve their prison sentence may be a long way from where they will live when they come out of prison. Therefore the chance of their taking an interest in training and being linked with an employer with the prospect later that if things go right they will get a job, is nil. They will not be in that area.
I raise that matter because around nine months ago at a consultation in which I was involved at St. George's, Windsor, we were joined by representatives from Germany and elsewhere who had been working on this subject. The German representative was most impressive. He said that since 1975 they had re-organised their sentencing system— we always come back to sentencing— with two objectives. The first was security, and that must be right. The second objective was training. If training is to be of the highest importance then one must examine the ways in which training can be carried out when the sentence is passed. As a governor who attended that consultation said, "I run a prison in Norfolk. We train our people in stitching. Then they return to Wapping where all they can do is work for The Times, or in something completely different from that for which they have been trained".
120
If one is to take training seriously rather than as a marginal thing that one puts in because there is nothing better to do and there is plenty of time to spare, it must feed right back to the process of sentencing. Where people go when they are sentenced and what they can do there is relevant to what they do when they come out. That is a revolutionary suggestion. But the Germans have been doing it with considerable success. I ask your Lordships' House to consider that and I ask the Government to look at it as a way of reducing recidivism. The rate of recidivism is ridiculous.
When the offender leaves prison he may be totally inadequately trained or he may not be trained at all. Many efforts have been made to provide appropriate training. Under the Employment Training Scheme money was forthcoming so that appropriate training could be given to ex-offenders. They are far more difficult to train than someone who fell out of employment two weeks ago and has a long record of good employment behind him and no criminal record around his neck. That work was going ahead, and in many cases successfully. What happened?
The funds available for the training have been drastically slashed. In the case of Apex we have had redundancies of around 40 per cent. of the people employed on the training schemes. That must be madness. I was telephoned only the other day by a man, who turned out to be an ex-offender, in one of our workshops saying that we were in breach of contract because we had taken him in and were now turning him out. We had had to shut the establishment for lack of money.
We are told repeatedly that the Training and Enterprise Councils are aware of that and must take it into account. Speaking in the Commons, Mr. John Patten said that the TECs would be contractually obliged to meet equal opportunities' commitments and provide for ex-offenders, and they must show that they intend to do that. But 30 per cent. of the money for the TECs has been cut. What makes the matter more difficult is that they have been told that they are judged and their payments will depend on their success. Success is getting people into jobs and helping them to acquire qualifications.
If what I was to be paid depended on my placing trainees in jobs, the last trainees I would look for would be ex-offenders. I would look for the people who needed the least amount of training and who had the best possible record. I maintain that unless this is taken into consideration the statement by Mr. John Patten does not stand up. With the 30 per cent. cut and their being told that it is their placement record on which they will be judged, how can TECs be expected to take on ex-offenders when a great deal of work has to be done before they can get started on the skill training? To build up confidence, to establish some degree of self-value, to get them to believe that there is something at the end of it which is worth doing— all this takes time. More money, not less, is needed.
I would argue that the success of getting a placement for someone who has served two or three sentences in prison is far greater than getting a placement for someone who has only been out of work

121
for a fortnight. Even in economic terms this could well be true. Let us not forget that it costs £ 310 a week to keep people in gaol; and one could do a great deal of training for £ 310 a week.
We need to take the whole issue of training very seriously indeed. One of the problems which confuses all of us who are trying to work in this field is, to put it bluntly, that there are far too many government departments with their fingers in this pie. The Home Office tells us that this is exactly the sort of thing that they want done, and the next day the Department of Employment cuts our money. It would be of enormous help if the government departments concerned with this matter would get their act together so that one could deal with them as an entity, and not have to go from one government department to another with the deep suspicion — this may be unworthy, but it is almost inevitable— that one department is playing off against the other. This is a central matter to the ultimate purposes of the Bill, and I beg the Government to take it into consideration.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a formidable debater. I am therefore particularly happy to find that on this occasion I am very much in agreement with her. Given the emphasis which has been placed on serving part of a sentence in the community, training really does become a matter of first-class importance. There will be some people so criminally inclined that they go back into crime anyhow, but for the majority of people released to serve a sentence in the community everything will depend on whether or not they get a good, interesting and remunerative job. Therefore, I hope that the sensible words of the noble Baroness will be given full attention by my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
This is a very important Bill, probably a historic one. It is natural, therefore, that on Second Reading each of us should make our criticisms. Obviously there are points that we wish to see raised and perhaps included in the Bill in Committee. Nonetheless, I begin by congratulating my noble friend on introducing a Bill of such enormous significance and importance. In particular, I pick up what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said. The object must be to reduce crime. I believe that on the whole, with some qualifications, the effect of the Bill will be in that direction.
I listened with ironic amusement to the very considerable discussion on the subject of the mandatory life sentence for murder, notably by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others. I say that because in 1965 and in 1969, when the Bills to abolish capital punishment were going through another place, I ventured to warn the Government of the day that although they could abolish capital punishment they would find very real difficulties in instituting a proper substitute for it. That has proved to be the case.
I am sorry that my noble friend the Leader of the House is not on the Front Bench. I believe that he has some sympathy with my view that it was a mistake to abolish capital punishment. Capital punishment is the final and most powerful deterrent to murder. As a
122
result of its abolition, while the lives of a number of murderers have been saved, a number of innocent people must have suffered. Murders have been committed which might have been deterred had capital punishment been continued.
I should not like the debate to pass without it being on record that at any rate one of your Lordships feels that the abolition of capital punishment was a great mistake that sooner or later has to be put right. It will be put right, although probably now as a result of some horrific action. If put right, it would certainly have a great measure of public support. It would be extremely interesting for a referendum to be taken on the matter. The result might be more encouraging to those who share my view than to those who take a different one.
On the deterrent effect, perhaps I may recount an experience of my own when 1 was defending at the Central Criminal Court one of a gang of robbers and it was going to be suggested that they were armed. I went to see my client in the cells: it was important for me to know whether the prosecution's attempt to suggest that they were armed was going to be introduced. I asked him "Were you armed?" He said "No, governor. If I had had a gun and used it and killed somebody I would swing for it, wouldn't I?" I confirmed to him his view of the law. The fact that a man who was prepared to risk a serious term of imprisonment in the commission of a serious criminal offence was deterred from carrying a gun by the knowledge that the consequences of using it might be to produce the ultimate death penalty was enormously significant. That has always been in my mind.
As some of your Lordships know, it fell to me to administer capital punishment at a superior military government court in Italy during the latter part of the war, and it has always been in my mind that this was the really effective deterrent. I shall not waste more of your Lordships' time on the matter apart from expressing my regret that Her Majesty's Government have not decided to move in this direction.
On the question of the effect of controlling and releasing prisoners under the system of the parole board, there is no doubt about the considerable risk of undermining the deterrent effect of sentences by the court. When the judge says, "You have committed a series of abominable offences and you will go to prison for so many years" the experienced criminal knows that he will not go to prison for anything like that length of time. This must seriously undermine the deterrent effect of sentences in the courts. I therefore very much welcome the provision in the Bill for reducing the scope of the grant of parole.
In parenthesis, may I say that the word "parole" is being misused. Historically, "parole"— which means "word"— was given by a member of the armed forces of one country, generally an officer, who had been taken prisoner by an opposing army. Instead of being kept as a prisoner of war, he gave his word that if he were released he would not serve further in the war. It was a wholly honourable provision. Now the word is used to describe the system of releasing prisoners from sentences imposed on them. I am glad that the Bill

123
proposes to increase the proportion of the sentence that will have to be served before a prisoner can be released.
I am less happy about the proposal that for sentences of between four and seven years my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will have no power to intervene but that the matter will lie solely with the parole board. That raises a serious parliamentary question. The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament ultimately for law and order and for the safety of the citizen. If the Home Secretary has no control over the release of prisoners serving sentences of between four and seven years— there are substantial numbers of them— he will be in the position of having to say to this House or another place, "I am sorry, I cannot do anything about it; the matter is within the ambit of the parole board". That is a great pity. Whatever one may think of the parole board, it would be wrong to leave it with complete discretion, free of any parliamentary control or control by the Home Secretary. That is a part of the Bill which I hope we shall consider further.
I cannot say that I like Clause 3(2) where the courts are told to disregard previous convictions from the point of view of sentence. It is very difficult to judge an appropriate sentence if one disregards the fact, if it be a fact, that the convicted man has committed a great many other offences of the same kind. With other types of offence such as being drunk in charge of a motorcar or heavy sexual offences like those committed in 1988 by Mr. Cannan, it is difficult to disregard previous convictions. The argument put in the papers which have been circulated is that the accused has already paid the penalty for the previous offence and should not be punished again for it. The fact that he repeats the offence surely indicates that his earlier punishment was not adequate enough to deter him.
That is the main quarrel that I have with the Bill. I am very unhappy that Clause 23 proposes to reduce the sentences for non-domestic burglary and theft respectively from 14 years to 10 years and from 10 years to seven years. It may well be the case that it is not very often necessary for offences of that kind to carry sentences of that weight. Despite all the efforts of the Government, crime of this kind is still rising. It seems a very curious proposal to reduce the maximum sentence which may of itself have some deterrent effect. There can also be singularly vicious cases in which it is highly desirable to impose the maximum sentence. To deliberately reduce the sentence at this time seems a very odd proposal.
I have one other point. I understood that the Government were proposing to increase the maximum sentence awarded to those poisonous citizens who indulge in hoax telephone calls threatening bomb outrages. I understood that the present maximum term of imprisonment of three months was to be increased. When my noble friend comes to reply, I shall be grateful if he can tell your Lordships whether the Government propose to do so in this Bill, which seems to be the appropriate vehicle, or elsewhere. At any rate, I hope that my noble friend can confirm that
124
that is to be done. I am sure that public opinion demands that those who wantonly cause enormous inconvenience and fear to their fellow citizens by these hoax calls should, in appropriate cases, receive a sentence a good deal heavier than three months. I hope that my noble friend will confirm the statement made the other day that the Government had such a proposal in mind.
Having uttered one or two criticisms of the Bill, I still say that it is a remarkable example of reform. I wish my noble friend all good fortune in the conduct of the Bill in the weeks and months that lie ahead. He will understand me when I say that those good wishes include the hope that he will show extraordinary stamina.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is a wise trial judge who, while listening carefully to the evidence, makes a note of the points that he expects a witness to cover, ticks them off as they are covered and intervenes only to ask those questions which remain unanswered. As I knew that I was going to be the fifth member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment to speak. I carefully ticked off those points in my notes which have been covered by my noble and learned friends. I hope that what I now say is not repetitious.
There is a strange degree of contradiction to be found in the Government's approach to this question. In paragraph 2.1 of the Government's White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, published a little more than a year ago, their aim was stated to be:
"to ensure that convicted criminals in England and Wales are punished justly and suitably according to the seriousness of their offence".
That is the just deserts approach, as it has been called. That is the theme that runs through the Bill before your Lordships. However, in paragraph 6.15 it is stated that the Government,
"believes that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of murder should remain to mark the heinous nature of the crime".
In the debate in another place on 20th February on this Bill, as amended, the Minister of State, Mrs. Rumbold, said that murder:
"is unique because many people regard the crime of murder as a uniquely bad and heinous crime".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/2/91; col. 371.]
That of course is quite wrong. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham observed in 1987 in his speech in R. v. Howe:
"Murder, as every practitioner of the law knows, though often described as one of the utmost heinousness, is not in fact necessarily so, but consists in a whole bundle of offences of vastly differing degree of culpability, ranging from the brutal, cynical and repeated offences, like the so-called 'Moors murders', to the almost venial, if objectively immoral, mercy-killing of a beloved partner".
Mrs. Rumbold continued by saying that the Government,
"believe that murder should attract a unique sentence".
But it has ceased to do that. Imprisonment for life is not a unique sentence. It is available for a wide variety of other crimes such as manslaughter, rape, arson, causing explosions and so on. A little later (at col. 372) Mrs. Rumbold said,

125
"We believe that the crime of murder is unique".
That is axiomatic. Any crime that contains ingredients that other crimes do not contain is a unique crime. That applies to all other crimes. However, it must be borne in mind that the intention to murder is not limited to an intent to kill but includes the much less intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That is why the offence of murder covers such a wide spectrum. What unfortunately is unique about murder is the automatic imposition of the life sentence. That is its only unique quality. This might be justifiable if we were able to isolate and define particular categories of serious murder. However, it has been concluded, after several unsuccessful attempts, that the gravity of the murder may depend on so many circumstances that to select one or two of them to put the murder into a special category leads to unacceptable anomalies. It is because we have not divided murder into categories that the automatic sentence of life imprisonment is bound to fail to comply with the principle that the Government are seeking to enshrine in this very legislation, that convicted criminals are punished justly and suitably according to the seriousness of the offence.
There is no novelty about the proposal of the Select Committee in your Lordships' House. A similar proposal was supported by the Butler Committee on mentally abnormal offenders in 1975, the Advisory Council on Penal Reform in 1978 and the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Reform Group in 1986.
What then is the Government's reason for making an exception in the case of murder, frustrating their own policy? Leaving aside the cynical view that politicians and bureaucrats in particular hate giving up any power that they hold, may I suggest that probably the answer is political. Quite wrongly, in my view, the Government fear that if life sentences for murder cease to he mandatory but become discretionary by enabling the judge, where appropriate, to give a determinate— that is a definite— period of imprisonment, the public might think that the Government have gone soft.
The committee had this point well in mind and dealt with it in paragraph 178 in these terms:
"After the introduction of a discretionary sentence for murder, the Committee anticipate that the average length of time served under life sentences would be considerably longer than it is now".
That is because the life sentence would be reserved essentially for the particularly outrageous murders and for those where there would be a high degree of uncertainty about the risk, by reason in particular of the accused's mental condition, of releasing a prisoner at the end of a determinate sentence.
The committee went on to say this— and it really should put the Government's mind at rest—
"The Committee expect that their proposals will lead to very lengthy penal sanctions being set in the most grave cases. In some cases, this may result in imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's life".
As matters stand at present the life sentence has become devalued. The public believe that it involves no more than nine years in prison because that figure
126
may well represent the average period served in prison when you lump together the less grave cases with the serious ones.
I now turn to the philosophy underlying Part I of the Bill. It is of course axiomatic that the greater number of offenders that one can properly avoid sending to prison the better. More than a decade ago my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v. Bibi, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) emphasised even then that prisons were dangerously overcrowded, that a non-custodial sentence must be passed if such a sentence was appropriate and that such a sentence must be as short as possible, consistent only with the duty to protect the interests of the public and to punish and deter the criminal.
No one nowadays— although they did when I first became a recorder— regards prison as an effective means of reform for the majority of prisoners. Indeed, we all know that it can be counter-productive. Therefore, in so far as this Bill extends the range of non-custodial sentences, it is to be welcomed, but I do so with caution. The restrictions on sentencing contained in the Bill have largely been modelled on Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, as amended by the Act of 1988, which imposed restrictions on custodial sentences for those under 21.
But "the big question", as the Minister of State, Mr. John Patten, frankly admitted in another place during a Standing Committee, is
"whether these new penalties— more intensive forms of supervision … will work with more difficult adult customers".
Understandably enough he said that he could not guarantee that they would work, and added that he considered that Opposition Members would share his unease.
Again during another Standing Committee in another place he explained that the Government's aims are to ensure that tough and demanding penalties outside prison are available for some of those who, if the sentencers can be persuaded it is right, will be sentenced thus rather than to a term of imprisonment. However, he said, this was not just an argument about persuading the sentencers. It was an argument also about persuading the general public that punishment in the community was a real punishment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington— as he then was not— said in another place during the Second Reading of the Bill on 20th November (at col. 141):
"Community penalties have often not been perceived as real punishments".
They have been perceived as,
"a bit of a let-off".
They have not been,
"in some respects as rigorous as they should have been".
The range of community penalties has not been wide enough to provide suitable punishment for all offenders who could otherwise have been dealt with effectively in the community.
I once more refer to Mr. Patten's observations:
"The Bill is not an exercise in trying to empty our prisons. Instead, it is designed to ensure that offenders are punished

127
correctly on conviction— those that should go to prison, go to prison; while those who should not be punished in prison, are punished outside".
These are principles that every judge currently seeks to apply and if he gets it wrong the Court of Appeal is there and puts him right.
I have additional grounds for my cautious welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, gave an anticipatory welcome to the Bill during the debate on sentencing policy on 12th December last. He said (at col. 519):
"Sentencing on an offender's record, and by ideas of the protection of the public in general"—
and I stress those words—
"are concepts which have been swept away".
I fear that there is more than a grain of truth in those disturbing observations.
Of course it has for long been established that an offender is not to be punished twice for the same offence, and accordingly must be sentenced for the crime or crimes which brought him before the court. However, in evaluating the seriousness of that crime or crimes, with particular regard to the need to protect the public from further offences committed by him, hitherto, among other things, a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties or an inability or unwillingness to respond to them were understandably considered to be highly relevant.
Indeed, in relation to persons under 21 it is enshrined in Section 1(4)A introduced by the Act of 1988. Not only is there no such provision in this Bill, but Clause 3(2) forbids its consideration. That is introducing unreality into the sentencing operation. Moreover, in evaluating the seriousness of the conduct of the multiple offender you can only under this Bill aggregate two offences— see Clause 1(2)(a). What then is to happen in relation to the large-scale fraudulent scheme which can only be represented by specimen charges when each seen separately is quite minor?
Similar problems will arise in certain sexual cases, for example, when a person in a position of trust towards young people has persistently committed offences of indecency which may be considered relatively minor if committed in isolation. Moreover, it looks as if offences taken into consideration (which in a given case may be numerous) cannot, however extensive when combined with the offence charged, tip the balance and justify custodial sentences.
If an extension of non-custodial sentences to an area where custody has previously been imposed is to receive public acceptance, the sentences must not only be perceived by the public to be tough and demanding; they must also contain an appropriate punitive element. Merely to recycle back into the community those who would previously have received a custodial sentence, will not prove acceptable to the public. Of course, Parliament is entitled to establish a framework within which judges are to operate; but if that framework is distorted, then so will be the decision of the court.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington,
128
referred to the exceptional punitive approach of the judiciary. That is a recurring theme. Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the following simple statistics, which are taken from the most recent criminal statistics of 1989. I refer first to committal for sentence to the Crown Court. As noble Lords will know, under Section 38 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, magistrates can commit an accused for sentencing to the Crown Court where they consider that, having regard to information as to the accused's character and antecedents, their powers of punishment are inadequate to deal with the matter. Of course, the magistrates can impose terms of imprisonment of up to 12 months' duration. The criminal statistics for 1989 disclosed that 4,000 offenders were thus committed. However, on arrival at the Crown Court, the figure for those committed to prison for immediate custodial sentences was only 58 per cent.; on the other hand, the other 42 per cent. of those in respect of whom the magistrates thought their powers inadequate received no sentence of imprisonment. That is hardly an indication that the judges are trigger happy about imprisonment.
Secondly, perhaps I may deal with the length of custodial sentences and their imposition. In respect of those convicted of serious offences, by no means is it true to say that all of them necessarily go to prison. The same statistics reveal that for robbery more than one person in 10 receives a non-custodial sentence. Moreover, in sexual offences, three persons out of 10 retain their liberty; and in the case of drug offences and burglaries almost four out of 10 persons retain their liberty. Further, as regards adults convicted of violence, over 50 per cent. retain their liberty.
In regard to the constant complaint made by some people that excessively long sentences are imposed, I should point out that the average length of sentence for robbery was 48.2 months. The average sentence for sexual offences was 37.3 months; for drug offences it was 32.3 months and for burglary it was 17.2 months. However, the average length of time spent in custody by adult males sentenced to determinate sentences was only 7.5 months, against an average sentence of 16.18 months. The average period served by male adults sentenced to terms of more than 12 months' and up to 18 months' imprisonment was only 6.5 months. Moreover, for those sentenced to more than three years' and up to four years' imprisonment, the average time served was 22.3 months.
When one bears in mind the fact that, out of those whose previous convictions were investigated, one quarter had from six to 10 previous convictions and that more than one third had 11 or more previous convictions I respectfully submit to your Lordships that the public are not being over protected by the judges.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope that he will be able to help the House and especially myself on a certain matter. I ask him this question as he is a most distinguished judge. If the sentences passed by our judges are so lenient, what is the explanation for us

129
having more people in prison than any other country in Western Europe? What is the reason for it? Are we in fact more criminally minded? What is the explanation?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the explanation cannot be provided by the judiciary; it must be provided by those who look at the nature and prevalence of the offences in such countries and the extent to which members of the public in those countries are satisfied with the sentencing which is carried out. However, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others, have pressed upon us the need for a sentencing council. In the debate which took place in November 1988 the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that there had been, and that there currently is, a sentencing council or commission working very successfully in Canada.
In Canada, the proportionate number of persons sent to prison is higher than that in England and indeed higher than in any other country in Europe. I do not know the reason for this, but Canada has the benefit of a sentencing commission. In the United States the Executive has interfered and provided a points scheme which requires a computer rather than a judge to sentence. That country sends to prison three-and-a-half times more people proportionately than is the case in this country. As I said, I do not know the answer and it is not a question which should be addressed to the judiciary. We just do not have the material to deal with it.
I firmly stress the point that sentences are imposed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines published in the law reports and also in the handbook from the Judicial Studies Board. I am delighted to know that, following my reference to that handbook last December, there is now a copy of it in the Library of the House. Despite that facility, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, had no criticism to make of any of those sentencing guidelines. Nevertheless, he desires the establishment of a sentencing council.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord referred to me at least three times during his speech, 1 feel that I am entitled to reply.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Come on!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I must return to the point made by my noble friend which the noble and learned Lord has not in fact answered.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: This is not a Committee stage!
Lord Richard: My Lords, there must be some explanation—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Richard: With the greatest respect, I am not going to take an exercise in good manners from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. If he wishes to explode at me, he may do so. But, if I am out of order, I shall apologise to the House and not to him.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Lord that in a Second Reading debate he has the right to speak a second time but only by leave of the House.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I was not asking for leave to speak for a second time. I was merely putting a point to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, before he sat down. As I said, he referred to me about three times. I repeat the question: is there no explanation that he, as a distinguished judge, can give us as to why there are so many people in prison in this country as compared with similar countries in Western Europe? There must be some explanation for the situation.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thought that I answered the question most clearly. I said that it is not a matter upon which the judiciary can comment. However, no doubt Dr. David Thomas, who is one of the distinguished criminologists and who writes books on the subject and presides over the postgraduate criminology department in Cambridge will be able to assist the noble Lord. We should have to have intense research into the levels of crime in the country with which the comparison was being made, the nature of the crimes in that country and the tolerance by the public of short sentences resulting in repeated crimes, and so on and so forth. I cannot supply the answer. I am sure that others can if the noble Lord will apply to the proper quarter.
7 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I take it that the bell has gone to signal the end of the round in what seems to have become a private fight. If that be the case, perhaps I may offer a few comments. The Bill, in the form in which it has come to your Lordships' House, is like the curate's egg, in that it is a very good Bill— in parts. It is unlike the curate's egg in that the longer it stays on the table the sweeter it will come to smell. Many of your Lordships, especially those who are learned in the law, have drawn attention to the many themes and leitmotifs of the Bill. I wish to comment on three lesser issues only, which, nevertheless, give cause for widespread and deep concern.
It has been called "a themeless Bill", "an anthology of a Bill" and "a Bill of missed opportunities". Indeed, there are strange lacunae and omissions. For example, on the question of cruelty to animals there is a deafening silence. We may search the Bill in vain for any proposals to deal with a crime about which the British people feel most passionately, as my postbag regularly tells me— a crime which is increasing to alarming proportions. The RSPCA reports that between 1989 and 1990 convictions increased by 28 per cent., including those for malicious cruelty to dogs through sadistic offences like baiting, beating and shooting, which rose by 61 per cent. Cruelty to horses and donkeys trebled, and there was a 60 per cent. increase in abuse of farm animals. Yet the Government seem to feel that that matter is not sufficiently urgent or serious to require inclusion or rectification in the Bill. However, many people have informed me that they will be calling for an amendment to provide for mandatory disqualification from keeping an animal upon conviction for cruelty.
At the moment, bans are imposed at the discretion of magistrates. The RSPCA spokesman recently said

131
that they must ensure that unfit owners are not allowed to cause further suffering. I am well aware that that is a complicated proposal: how does one monitor such a ban? Does it not bear unequally upon some, like farmers, whose living depends upon animals? But those problems must be solved, in the name of compassion and justice. As Richard Davies, head of the RSPCA's inspectorate put it:
"It is deeply frustrating when convicted cruelty offenders are not deprived of the opportunity to ill treat more victims".
The Bill is shatteringly silent on the whole subject, and it is a silence to be deplored.
One cannot say, however, that the Bill is silent on the matter of racial equality and discrimination. In its origins it spoke with a halting and uncertain voice, hut, to their credit, on Report in another place, the Government introduced a clause on racial discrimination. Clause 79(1) now includes paragraph (b), which adds that:
"the Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of facilitating the avoidance by such persons of discrimination against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground".
But is that clause now sufficient? As Evelyn Waugh put it,
"up to a point, Lord Copper",
or, like the curate's egg, it is good so far as it goes. But there are arguments for further amendment, as my noble friend Lord Richard powerfully proclaimed.
The Minister may care to ask himself three questions in relation to Clause 79(1) as it now stands: who monitors, and how, those key decisions in the criminal justice system so that the Secretary of State is enabled to publish relevant information? Secondly, will it, or will it not, be a duty for the criminal justice agencies to take remedial action if the published information suggests that discrimination has taken place? Thirdly, if discrimination on racial grounds were alleged, what recourse would be open to the individual? Surely, we need more and stronger safeguards than the Bill presently provides if we are to ensure that in the processes of criminal justice people are treated in a manner that is without racial discrimination. We on this side of the House shall at a later stage be bringing forward an amendment to that effect.
On cruelty to animals, the Bill is silent; on racial discrimination, it is uncertain; on children and children's evidence it is insufficient. In June 1988 the Home Office set up the Advisory Group on Video-Recorded Evidence under Judge Pigot, and the Pigot Report was published in December 1989. The group took time to consider the matter with great care. The Government have had more than a year to consider the report. It was immediately warmly welcomed by legal practitioners, social workers and psychiatrists who work with children involved in criminal proceedings.
We must be careful to ensure a just balance in those cases and we must be vigilant to maintain the full rights of defendants at every stage, but it is widely felt
132
among many organisations concerned with the welfare of children, including the Children's Legal Centre, the NSPCC, the National Children's Bureau and Childline, that the Bill does not go far enough in implementing Judge Pigot's recommendations. For example, the Pigot Report recommended that child witnesses:
"ought never to be required to appear in public as witnesses in the Crown Court".
That is not a casual proposal. It was made in the full knowledge of the difficulties that it would create — like the practical problem of ensuring that the same judge presided over all aspects of a trial, and the possibility that the practice would lead to a large number of recalls. Nevertheless, it is a clear and unambiguous recommendation. The Bill, as we have it, would make a video recording of the testimony of a child witness admissible, but only on condition that the child was available for cross-examination at the trial if required. It is left entirely to the judge's discretion whether such cross-examination should take place in open court or by means of a television link. That means of course that it is impossible to inform a child witness before the trial about the way in which evidence is to be given. The child's fears cannot be allayed; the stress may well be considerable; and in some cases the child, and the trial, will break down.
There are other insufficiencies, especially perhaps in the area of preliminary hearings, but enough has been said to show that there is still a great deal to do if the Bill is to improve significantly the administration of justice in cases involving children.
The Bill is silent on cruelty to animals; it is uncertain on racial equality; and it is insufficient on the protection of children. There are errors both of omission and commission. The Bill has:
"left undone … things which it ought to have done, and done … things which it ought not to have done".
But we on this side of the House will try to exercise the divine prerogative of mercy on it, and so strive to amend and improve it that when it leaves your Lordships' House it may be enabled to live a godly, righteous and sober life.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the clock has struck seven, luncheon is but a memory and dinner is on the horizon. I shall keep my remarks short as I notice that several other noble Lords wish to make their views known on this important Bill. I shall also confine my remarks to one area: the treatment of drug users by the courts. Noble Lords may know that I have much interest in the subject.
There are roughly three groups of offenders in this category: those who contravene the Misuse of Drugs Act; those who commit crimes to finance their drug use and those who commit offences under the influence of drugs. Some might fit into all or several of the categories. It is difficult to know, however, how many people fit into them. In 1989 38,500 people were

133
proceeded against in the courts or by cautioning or impounding. Only 3,855 were given custodial sentences.
We know that far too many people are in prison with drug or alcohol problems. To release them without attempting to tackle the drug use in any way is inviting them to re-offend. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned the importance of training, and that is very important. If we wish to move people away from a criminal career into a non-criminal career, it is important to train them to work. However, if they habitually use drugs or alcohol, no amount of training will help them. Let us take one thing at a time.
There are presumably several objects to the Bill, four of which I wish to address tonight. The first simple one is lowering the prison population. That is a useful aim. However, we must not lower the prison population in its simplest form if we do not do something with those who at the moment make up too much of the prison population. Secondly, on the same lines, we must prevent recidivism. The third aim is to take a more appropriate and constructive view towards sentencing.
The fourth and most important ultimate aim mentioned by my noble friends Lord Windlesham and Lord Boyd-Carpenter is ultimately to reduce crime. It is difficult to do that if, for example, the offender has contravened the Misuse of Drugs Act. If he is addicted to drugs and goes back on the street, the chances are that he will re-offend. If he is in prison for a crime committed to finance his drug use and his addiction to drugs, he will go back to committing similar crimes. If he has committed a crime under the influence of drugs, such as domestic violence or violence outside a pub, if he is addicted to a drug or to alcohol and nothing is done about it, he will commit that kind of crime again.
In attempting to reach those goals, we must bear in mind some worrying side effects. It would be disastrous if drug using offenders were to get the idea that treatment orders were a way of escaping punishment. It is essential, not least for the offender, that the use of or addiction to drugs or alcohol is not used as an excuse for criminal activity. Addicts are people who do not face up to their responsibilities. Few of them voluntarily seek treatment until they face a crisis. One of' the most important crises in the life of many addicts is when they appear before the courts. If we were to lose the use of that crisis in order to steer them in the right direction it would be sad.
It is equally important that treatment orders do not become, as prison often is, simply a temporary interruption in drug use. The courts, however, will require expert evidence and expert advice if they are to use treatment orders constructively. They need to be assured that an offender is an appropriate subject for whichever facility is recommended, and they will need access to various different types of facility, whether day care or residential.
As yet, no mention has been made of the training that probation officers and social workers will need if they are to take on this work or who will pay for it. Treatment orders will only work if the courts have
134
access to a full range of facilities, most of which are only available in the private and voluntary sector. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned the Labour Party's disapproval of private operators running prisons or escorting prisoners. I do not wish to enter into that argument but must point out that if the private and voluntary sector were excluded in the treatment of drug offenders, there would be no treatment for them.
If they are to be included, as I believe they must be, then how will these services be paid for? I cannot honestly see health authorities wishing to foot the bills, nor can I see the social services departments, overstretched as they are, wishing to do so. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell the House how the Home Office intends to surmount this hurdle. I am sure that they have sorted it out. The Bill provides for area probation committees to enter into service agreements, but it gives no indication of additional resources.
I can go into greater detail of the problems raised by this area of the Bill and maybe even a few solutions, as I have some experience of court referrals to treatment. Indeed, I introduced a system of court referrals to treatment in the Midlands last year which was welcomed by magistrates and the Law Society alike. It has been quite successful, though on a small scale.
Nine years ago I also spent some time helping to run a day programme in a prison in the United States. If I tell noble Lords that Stillwater state penitentiary was the kind of place where one keeps one's views on prison reform to oneself if one wishes to leave in one piece, they will understand the type of prison that it is. However, the drug programmes and the referrals to rehabilitation produced remarkable results. This is a road well worth going down, one that was touched on by my noble friend Lord Colville.
I look forward to raising some of the points in greater detail at the Committee stage. In conclusion, I wish to make one point. The Government have made vast leaps forward in their attitude to offenders with drug and alcohol problems. The Bill introduces court practices way ahead of anything else in Europe and infinitely more constructive than the supposedly liberal ideas expounded in Scandinavia. It is a definite case of learning from the United States experience, but improving upon that experience with flexibility. I congratulate the Government upon the Bill.
7.17 p.m.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, time is getting on and I shall therefore confine myself to one aspect of Part I of the Bill, the choice of a community service order rather than a custodial sentence. I should declare an interest because although I am no longer an active magistrate, I was active for 20 years. Part of that time was before the introduction of community service orders, part of it afterwards. My co-magistrates and my wife have kept me up to date during the past few years.
Like many others, in theory I am all for sentences in the community. However, I do not think that they

135
will be simple to administer and supervise or that they will produce vast savings in cost. I must admit that my experience has been in a rural area, where the distance from an offender's home to his probable place of work can be considerable and the journey costly. Sentences within the community must be demanding, strictly enforced and supervised; otherwise they will be considered a let-off, as I fear some already are.
Perhaps I should explain that just before the sentence of community service was introduced, Benches were given training by many branches of the legal profession. On more than one occasion I remember the speaker saying, "Before you impose a prison sentence of, say, three months, consider whether 90 or 120 hours of community service would be an adequate alternative". The two sentences are clearly not comparable. Three months' imprisonment deprives a man of his liberty for 2,160 hours, or 20 times the length of the shorter community service order. A youth on community service can go to the pub or take his girlfriend out any evening, if either of those things interest him.
If community service is to be more widely used, there must be plenty of arduous but useful jobs available at short notice which can be properly supervised. To leave two youths for three or four hours to paint the inside of a village hall is not the right kind of work. A little interim supervision by a volunteer or partly trained young probation officer is just not good enough. The supervisor must be a rather exceptional person who combines experience with a sense of humour and fairness with strict discipline. The best type of prison officer or police officer, or the best type of Army NCO would be ideal. However, such supervisors will not only be hard to find but will also be difficult to recruit and expensive.
An offender's few hours of community service will be effective only if they are worked in the evenings and at weekends. In this way normal employment will not be affected. If the offender causes trouble at football matches, some of the community service could be served on Saturday afternoons. I urge that community sentences are not introduced on a large scale too soon. Let us be sure that the jobs and the supervision are ready and available so that the system does not get off to a false start.
7.22 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to speak today on Part III of the Bill only. Many noble Lords who have spoken today are learned in the law. Although I do not speak as a lawyer, I can speak as a mother and as a grandmother of very young grandchildren. I pray that none of them or any of their friends ever find themselves caught up in this process.
In June 1988 the Home Office established an advisory group on video-recorded evidence. The advisory group was chaired by his Honour Judge Pigot. The report of the group was published in December 1989 and became known generally as the Pigot Report. The Pigot Report has been warmly welcomed by social workers, psychiatrists and others who work with children who are caught up in criminal
136
proceedings. Although the Bill goes some way towards implementing the recommendations of the Pigot Report, there are still problems within the criminal justice system with regard to children. The Bill would make a video recording of the testimony of a child witness admissible, but only on condition that the child is available for cross-examination at trial if required. Whether the cross-examination would take place in open court or by TV link would remain at the judge's discretion.
The Pigot Report recommended that child witnesses should never be required to appear in public as witnesses in the Crown Court. The report suggested that child witnesses should be examined or cross-examined at an out-of-court hearing. The introduction of a preliminary hearing where the child could be cross-examined and where the hearing could be video-taped and shown to the jury would ensure that the child never had to come to court. It would also save the child a lot of trauma. While the preliminary hearing would afford the defence the right of cross-examination, it would do so in a far kinder atmosphere and at a far earlier stage in informal surroundings.
The NSPCC feels that one of the main advantages of the preliminary hearing is that it takes place quickly. Thus time does not blunt the child's power of recall to the advantage of the defendant. I believe a child's memory can be selective. Often a child does not remember what one hopes he will. A child's memory can be like a dandelion clock. When one blows a dandelion clock, the bit that one wants to remain may be blown away.
The use of the TV link is better than a child having to appear in court. Some courthouses are frightening to children. There have been occasions when a child witness has come face to face with the defendant on a TV screen. This occurs when the cameras pan around or are misplaced. That is unfortunate. Very young, disabled, emotionally disturbed children or those with learning difficulties find it hard to give evidence, particularly to strangers. The majority of members of the Pigot Committee recommended that particularly vulnerable child witnesses be cross-examined by an appropriate trusted adult who would put questions to the child on behalf of counsel. Those children would be helped if they were allowed to give evidence to a social worker, health visitor, teacher or some other suitable adult whom they know well. Different children have different needs and the Criminal Justice Bill does not appear to recognise this.
The Government are to be commended for having acted on some of the recommendations of the Pigot Report, but there are still problems facing child witnesses. Perhaps we can improve on some of these provisions in Committee.
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this comprehensive Bill. I am delighted to support totally the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in respect of training. We discussed that matter in the

137
debate on sentencing which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Elton. I should like to expound upon the system of positive reform which I spoke of at that time.
Where a court has already decided that a young offender should be sentenced to a custodial sentence, the court could, at its discretion, impose a reduced sentence in the shape of a course of positive reform. Such a step would provide a full-time course in education. Many young offenders are not properly literate. Unless they are given an opportunity to learn how to read and write properly, they will have no chance to secure a job when they leave prison. Young offenders need physical fitness training and counselling. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, they also require technical training. Young first time offenders— they could fall in the 17 to 18 year-old age gap that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned— could be offered such courses, regardless of their age, to rehabilitate them so that they would at least become more responsible members of society.
It has been agreed by noble Lords on all sides of the House that a primary requirement must be to reduce the number of prisoners in our overcrowded prisons and also to keep young first time offenders out of cells altogether. The scheme I have outlined could achieve that objective while retaining the young offenders in a secure environment. Such an environment could be provided by the Rollestone army camp on Salisbury Plain which was recently used for Iraqi detainees. It is, of course, vital that the young offenders realise they are serving a sentence. They should be strictly supervised. They should agree to the option and understand that the full sentence would be reimposed if they reneged in any way on the contract through failure to comply with the rules.
The courses could reflect a wide range of interests. Different syllabuses could be prepared for differing needs. The courses would be of relatively short duration. The costs of increased supervision of the young offenders would be balanced by the shorter duration of the courses. I suggest that such a provision would be a great deal more effective than allowing young offenders to sit in cells 23 hours a day. The technical training courses and the counselling would not go beyond the scope of existing government resources.
Nor should we ignore army training courses which teach young servicemen every possible skill from plumbing to sophisticated information technology. It may be that those training courses could be channelled into such a scheme as part of the oft-quoted peace divided.
Further educational opportunities are provided by large companies which run training courses to a strict syllabus. Why could those courses not be incorporated into the scheme? Offenders trained to those recognised standards would then have an opportunity to go immediately to the company for employment.
The Bill allows for privatisation, which I welcome. Perhaps as an initial step the company applying for a licence should prepare a suitable scheme on those
138
lines. It is a scheme which at present is largely outside the prison environment and would not therefore clash with existing interests. I hope that it may be possible to introduce an amendment in Committee on those lines. With those words, I welcome the Bill.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the White Paper states that the Government will give the courts more flexibility in dealing with offenders in the community. There will be new powers to combine fines with probation and community service. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope that I am, but it seems to me that much of the Bill still ties the hands of magistrates behind their backs when dealing with offenders.
Over and over again the public blame magistrates for being too lenient while politicians think that they send too many people to prison. In my experience magistrates fall over backwards to find a positive solution to punishment if one exists. The most constructive solution would often be to combine punishment with a corrective disposal, but usually that is not allowed and the villain has to be punished with one or the other.
Every case is so different that flexibility and as wide a choice as possible are vital to the magistrate. More confidence could be placed in the desire of magistrates to find equitable solutions to often insoluble problems without tying their hands. The Bill does not free the hands of magistrates to adopt enough combinations of disposals.
A custodial sentence will be far more difficult to impose. I suspect that it will no longer be possible to deal with a persistent offender who disregards the law and is charged with an offence which is itself not suited to a prison term. Many of the concepts in the first six clauses may not be helpful or constructive, nor do they comply with the aims of the White Paper.
Clauses 1 to 3 in particular are not expressed clearly, and without simplification there is likely to be confusion when it comes to sentencing. The problems of the 1988 Act could well be repeated.
There are other inconsistencies which can be discussed in Committee. There is the question of provision of probation officers. Do we believe that probation has a reasonable measure of success? If we do, it must be a cheaper method of dealing with people than prison and a great deal more constructive. However, there is great concern that the new rules will result in an inadequate number of probation officers.
I shall introduce an amendment to enable someone who has been fined to be given work at his own request in order to pay off the fine. That is the same scheme which has repeatedly been rejected by the Home Office, but it must be right to exact payment of a fine as soon as possible by work rather than through protracted and expensive recovery over a number of years. It must be desirable to enable a man who has been fined to retain disposable income to pay for damages and maintenance. It cannot be bad to have an unemployed villain tied up working rather than on the street waiting for an opportunity to commit further crime to relieve his boredom and help with his

139
finances. I have every confidence that the amendment will be rejected, even though all of the objections to the scheme have been satisfied.
Part III of the Bill deals with children and young people. The main criticism is that it does not comply adequately with the recommendations of the Pigot Committee. No provision has been made for pre-trial out-of-court hearings where children can be examined and cross-examined in a place and in conditions which are not frightening and subduing to the child. There have been many cases in which enormous time and expense have been incurred in preparing a case only to find that the child is so overawed by the atmosphere of the courtroom that he or she breaks down and the case has to be abandoned.
There is also no provision in the Bill for drawing up a code of practice to regulate the sensitive area of pre-recorded video evidence. The Bill continues to make a distinction between child victims and those who have witnessed violent and sexual crimes despite clear evidence of the damage caused to all children who witness abuse. Removal of that distinction would ensure that all children distressed and traumatised from whatever cause would receive sympathetic treatment.
There is also the question of delay. The Bill does nothing to reduce the time taken to bring a case to court. It is hard for an adult to remember with determination the fine details of an event after a year and particularly to maintain that opinion against the blandishments of a defence counsel. To expect a child to do so is expecting a great deal, particularly as by then a child, or even an adult, wants only to forget the episode and not to be reminded of it.
The proposal for the binding over of a parent concerns me. Undoubtedly there are parents who would be prime candidates for binding over. However, the great majority do all that they can with their child but the child may be beyond their control. Binding over may well result in ill treatment or the child being thrown out of the family and do more harm than good. Many of the children who come before the courts come from homes which are already fragile and under stress. The parents are in greater need of help than of punishment. Binding over will have to be used very carefully if it is not to do more harm than good. However, it is good that parents should attend court with their children. It is pitiful to see youngsters in court without the support of their parents.
The Magistrates' Association welcomes the abolition of remand in custody for juveniles. I wonder what will be done with the youngster who is totally out of control and a danger to the public. I hope that there is a realistic alternative in view.
There are new rules regarding the ages of young offenders and sentencing. They may not be an improvement. However, it is indisputable that all young offenders have a great deal of surplus energy. Some activity, such as running up hills, to make them dead beat in the evenings would be a great deal better than locking them up, however difficult they are. That
140
reminds me of my local cadets. On the last day of their camp they were given a huge amount of exercise to expend their energy so that their last night was not spent breaking up the camp.
It is absurd to talk about making profits from prisons. Time and again private enterprise has shown that it can make a return and still do a better job more cheaply than the public sector. The private sector has better access to capital from the market as and when it is required and it guards its costs more carefully.
I am interested to read that the power of search by security officers is to be confined to the removal of the outer jacket and gloves. I understand that the Scots keep their skean-dhus in their stockings, so they will be all right. Surely villains will soon find out where it is safe to hide their weapons.
There must be continual response to the lessons learned year by year in dealing with crime, though the results never indicate a cure for the disease. However, we must welcome this important Bill in principle. I hope that it is a success but it will need to be subject to scrutiny in Committee.
7.39 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by declaring an interest as chairman of a medium-sized Bench of some 85 magistrates in Hampshire.
We have now seen the proposals outlined in the government White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public brought to life in this important Bill, which among other things seeks to remove less serious offenders from the prison system and give them punishment and rehabilitation within the community.
As someone who had the honour to make his maiden speech in this House on the subject of alternatives to custodial sentencing, I can scarce forbear to cheer, and I congratulate the Government on the main thrust of their proposals. It is surely right to do so in general terms since inevitably and properly in what is, after all, a revising Chamber attention is concentrated on perceived weaknesses once detailed proposals are put forward. However, I am sure that, whatever imperfections have been and will be pointed out, nothing can detract from the fact that this is a very important Bill which will advance our interpretation of criminal justice for years to come.
At this late stage, when spirits are flagging and much ground has been covered, with some ground remaining, I shall confine myself merely to one or two points which are of particular concern to magistrates. I turn first to the subject of fines. Much has been made of the fact that in 1989 nearly 17,000 offenders were imprisoned for fine default; that is one fifth of the total number committed in England and Wales. But that figure must surely be taken in context of the fact that 97 per cent. of all summary offences— that is, offences before the lower courts— are settled by fines.
I should like to add that last year in my own courts only 1.6 per cent. of fine defaulters were sent to prison. That fact needs to be emphasised. A fine is a civilised, appropriate and cost-effective penalty for the vast

141
majority of minor offences. But if fines are evaded on a large scale, the fine system is brought into disrepute. Magistrates will inevitably tend to use it less, taking up other sentencing options, which are allocated only limited resources.
The fact is that there is an extraordinary twilight world of persistent— I am tempted to use the word "professional"— offenders. They survive by making use of the system as it now exists, each time avoiding — sometimes by a hair's breadth— the finality of prison and calculating and exploiting the reluctance to imprison of an essentially compassionate Bench. Indeed, it is quite difficult to get sent to prison. I suggest that that tiny minority needs at least metaphorically to be shown the prison gates. In most such cases even a week's imprisonment can have a very salutary effect. Indeed, visible encouragement— for example, the presence of a prison van with its engine running— itself is enough to unlock undreamt of riches from those who previously pleaded total poverty. I recall an episode— not in my court— where that was actually done and the press of offenders wanting to pay their fines was so great that two tables had to be set up on the lawn outside the courthouse in order to accommodate the stampede.
I accept that short sentences can disrupt Home Office costings on value for money. But is that sufficient reason for rejection of a last resort? Of course serious offenders must receive serious terms of imprisonment. But there are other circumstances in which a sentence of imprisonment may be appropriate to protect the public: for those who drive repeatedly while disqualified and for other offences where there is quite simply no alternative. I once had the unpleasant task of sending a lady to prison for the offence of driving while disqualified, committed for the seventh time. We must protect the community in which we live and for which we bear a responsibility.
The next few years will see something of a revolution in fine sentencing. The adoption of the unit fine system, which has been generally welcomed by magistrates and which tailors the fine to the ability to pay, will be an important step forward in uniformity of sentencing. As I said in an earlier debate on this subject, while the sum of £ 100 is of little significance to many, to others it can be a financial Everest. We must, however, be careful not to be so obsessively fair toward the lowest income groups that we correspondingly disadvantage others. I should point out that the imposition of a fine of, say, £ 100 or even less for drunken driving, while in some cases understandable in terms of realism and relevance, nevertheless may diminish the seriousness of the offence in the eyes of a nation which is only just beginning to accept the implications of such anti-social behaviour.
The proposal in the Bill to enable the court to order deductions to be made from income support are long overdue and exceedingly welcome. More offenders are in receipt of income support than are in receipt of regular wages. Nevertheless, employed offenders comprise an important part of those sentenced. It is possible for a court to issue an attachment of earnings order on such people. However, many employers are
142
reluctant to co-operate and the penalty for non-co-operation is, I suggest, ludicrously low. It may be that measures can be taken to remind firms of their obligation to the community in this respect.
Regrettably, another aspect of fine evasion— the premeditated change of jobs to throw enforcement officers off the scent— is more difficult to deal with. Requiring offenders to reveal their national insurance number, for example, or a more positive liaison with the tax authorities in the matter of pay and PAYE might bear fruit.
I turn now to another aspect of the Bill which will have a major impact on the magisterial service; namely, the new measures envisaged to bring the principle of parental responsibility within the legal framework and put it on a more formal basis. The recent Home Office survey on this subject, whose findings so surprised the Minister in another place, indicated a fundamental change in the way in which people nowadays perceive crime prevention. Of those questioned, 53 per cent. identified parents as the prime influences in preventing crime, compared with teachers and the police. Concentration on parental responsibility therefore rightly has an important place in these considerations. But the theoretical acceptance of that principle does not automatically carry with it endorsement of every detail, as I understand was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Let us examine the proposal to bind over a parent (or parents) to ensure that his or her child should be of good behaviour. Magistrates already have that power but it is only rarely used. We should ask ourselves why. Can it be that the troops in the front line are telling the general staff that in this imperfect world the objective is not attainable? There are two good reasons for the magistrates' reluctance. First, it can lead to protracted cases with many disputed matters and much emotional bloodletting. Secondly, such events usually take place within the most vulnerable, often one-parent, families where any additional pressure can blow apart remaining family links, even leading to children leaving home and perhaps more candidates for London's pavements and shop doorways. Noble Lords can imagine the relevance or indeed the justice of binding over in a certain sum a single mother in an inner city area whose two physically precocious sons of 13 and 15 are already streetwise (if I may use that term) and effectively are already beyond parental control.
The Bill makes clear that the Bench will have discretion in such matters, but I believe that the perceived threat of possible action by authority will be an unfair burden on the accused. Many such parents will also inevitably belong to the lowest income groups and will simply be unable to pay any fines imposed. Are they to go to prison? Additionally, I should like to see at least a nod from the Government toward the idea of a parallel educational programme designed to bring home parental responsibility to those groups most at risk of offending.
Having uttered those caveats, however, I heartily endorse the tougher stance on parental responsibility, even if at the end of the day it results only in those

143
parents of means who refuse to accept their responsibilities being brought to account. I have to warn, however, that over the entire field our keen original expectation may not he realised. I am sorry to say that.
I must be careful about reference to my next point since the reverse side of the coin has already been referred to. I leave that to one side. Another measure ensures that courts sentence only on the matter before them so far as concerns the penalty to be imposed without regard to the offender's previous record. I wish to complicate matters by making another plea: that where an offender has a previous record the court can take into account the amount of time which has elapsed since the last recorded offence as an aid in deciding possible mitigation. Such consideration works both ways.
May I finish by referring to the substantial additional pressure which the new measures will impose on an already overburdened probation service, which in my experience is a dedicated body of professionals who do a first class job. We already know that the emphasis has switched from their being used as a branch of the social services and that it is the future intention that they should play a major role in the rehabilitation of serious offenders. All community orders will require a preliminary social inquiry report. They must also supervise probation orders, curfew orders, attendance orders, CSOs and combination orders.
More reports and more supervision will inevitably require more probation officers. Although the estimated costings are attached to the Bill, my instinct tells me that the financial forecasts err on the side of optimism. They usually do. I state that now— when no one really knows the final costs— not as a criticism but as a plea to the Minister to ensure that the excellent intentions of the Bill are not frustrated by future financial restrictions resulting in the exercise going off at half cock. I hope that the Minister will assure noble Lords in his customary helpful and courteous way that the money will be found if required— as it almost certainly will be.
The Bill is a massive step forward. Let us not spoil it either by unreasonable intransigence over detail or by penny-pinching in its implementation.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, at a moment when the House is about to consider wide ranging and important changes to the criminal justice system, I believe that it is essential that I too bring to your Lordships' notice the concerns of the ethnic minorities.
At present there is a strong suspicion among minority groups that they are unfairly treated by the courts. That feeling has built up over a long period. We cannot write it off simply as a figment of imagination. There is a substantial body of research which not only supports that view but shows that matters are becoming worse.
144
I do not speak of the level or types of crime but of a comparison of the treatment between white and black offenders on a like-with-like basis. Studies show that black people are more likely to receive custodial sentences as opposed to community service or probation. They are likely to receive custodial sentences at an earlier stage of offending than their white counterparts. They are also much less likely to receive bail than their white counterparts in similar situations.
There is no suggestion, nor will there ever be, that there is anything deliberately discriminatory about the way in which the courts deal with ethnic minorities. It is only that there is sufficient information available to cause disquiet about the way in which they are treated. Discrimination can occur from the way institutions function. I give as examples the forms that may be used, the procedure that may be employed and perhaps the expectations that officials may have.
I spent 19 years on the Bench. I can give many instances of how the lack of knowledge and understanding of my colleagues might easily have led to unfairness. I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for encouraging training in race-related matters not only for the magistracy but also the judiciary. It is clear that there is no cause for complacency. Anything which helps to improve matters must be desirable.
It is proposed to introduce two clauses at Committee stage which will place a duty on those involved in the process of criminal justice, and those administering it, to make sure that everyone is treated in a manner free from racial discrimination. In this country we strongly believe that not only must justice be done, but that it must be seen to be done.
There are already procedures for declaratory clauses about which noble and learned Lords in this Chamber know far more than me. There are also many matters to which judges must have regard when considering sentence. Placing racial discrimination on the checklist can only prove helpful.
Sentencing has become a complex matter and is a subject of much academic discussion. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers stated, there is continual effort to achieve consistency. However, we know that that is not always perceived to be the case when the offender is black. It would give the minorities a sense of confidence to know that Parliament has asked the highest in the land to make doubly sure that the sentence passed is merited. If the ultimate purpose of punishment is the rehabilitation of the offender, then that will result only if the offender feels that his punishment is just and fair.
Such a clause will also give the defendant an opportunity to go to appeal where, all things being equal, there is no apparent explanation for a difference in treatment. I believe that that is probably the most important and significant right which would arise from the inclusion of a clause on racial discrimination. It will also go a long way towards alleviating the sense of grievance from which many suffer now.

145
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It was a great comfort to hear that no racial discrimination will be tolerated in our criminal justice system, and that the Government are determined to ensure that that is so. I am also grateful to the Government for agreeing to Clause 79(1) which requires the publishing of information to facilitate the avoidance of discrimination. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool argued robustly for a non-discrimination clause and for the monitoring of information collected under Clause 79(1). Clearly, without proper monitoring, the information would not be of value. I strongly support the right reverend Prelate on that issue.
Since we are so close on the intention to avoid racial discrimination, the simplest way to make sure that all concerned are left in no doubt is to embody such provision in the Bill. There is no suggestion that there is at present any conscious discrimination. I am well aware of the judicial oath and the duty that it lays on judges to act impartially. However, that alone cannot take the place of the clearest possible message which only Parliament can send to the nation: that no one is exempt from the need to act in a non-discriminatory way and that the criminal justice system is subject to such a requirement. Such a message will allay the fears of minorities and give them greater confidence in the administration of justice. It will serve to put the nation on notice that racial discrimination has no place in society.
I urge the Government to reconsider the point. If all is well, nothing will change in practice. However, if change occurs we shall know the true value of making such a clause part of the Bill.
8 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to begin by commenting on Part III of the Bill which concerns child evidence and parental responsibility. The Government are to be congratulated for having set up the advisory group on video-recorded evidence under the chairmanship of Judge Pigot. After reading Hansard of another place, it is clear that a number of the recommendations made in the Pigot Report have been accepted. Notably, abused children will be able to make their initial statement to two people (possibly a member of the police force and one other person) who have been well trained in legal matters and in dealing with children. Therefore a video-recording will be made of the initial statement and will be made available to the abuser, to his legal advisers and to the court.
Unfortunately, Ministers in the other place did not accept a recommendation made in the Pigot Report. It was that the cross-examination of the child should not take place in court. It was recommended that it could take place in a judge's chambers, or in a room with double glass, so that the abuser and his legal advisers could see what was happening. The child could be cross-examined in the presence of the judge and the abuser's legal adviser—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Baroness in order to be helpful. I know that her
146
speeches are always read with great care outside the Chamber. She continues to talk about the abuser rather than the alleged abuser and I believe that she might wish to correct herself.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I stand corrected and I thank the noble Lord.
Looking round the Chamber I see some members of the Bar who disagree with me because they consider that the child should not be cross-examined anywhere other than in open court. There are other members of the Bar who agree with the recommendation of the Pigot Report. I say with deep conviction that the damage caused to a child by giving evidence in open court goes far beyond anyone's realisations unless they have dealt with that child.
If the first hearing can be carried out as soon as possible after the initial statement is made, the court is more likely to obtain the truth. I have known parents, mothers, persuade their children to say something different as time goes by. I have known children to embroider or to forget what was said in the initial statement. Other noble Lords have spoken on the subject and I believe that my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who is closely connected with the NSPCC, will have more to say about it. I hope that your Lordships' House will support an amendment to the Bill which will enable children to give evidence in a private room.
Several noble Lords, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, have talked about the responsibility of parents. It is strange that although the present Act provides that parents can be bound over and fined, a provision has been included in this Bill. I know that the Magistrates' Association feels strongly that it has adequate powers to deal with the situation.
I make a personal recommendation. As was said by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, it is most distressing to see children attending alone to face the court. More often, the mother alone attends and therefore she carries the can. The Government are saying that they support the family; but fathers have not been sufficiently involved in the care of their children. That is so in many spheres but particularly so in this one. Will the Government therefore consider, and the Magistrates' Association accept, that at least one court should be held in the evening or on a Saturday in order that fathers as well as mothers can attend? That would provide for a great deal of joint responsibility in the care of children.
I wish to comment on guardians ad litem, although I find difficulty in doing so because there is joint responsibility. There are many guardians ad litem in this country, but the whole country is not covered by them. It has been suggested, and I make no comment about whether it is wise, that guardians ad litem, who are the servants of the court, should be paid by the Lord Chancellor's Department and not by the local authorities, many of which are short of resources. That presents a serious situation in some parts of the country.
I turn to the mentally impaired who are held in prison. The Butler Report was published in 1972. It recommended that secure units for the mentally

147
impaired should be run in isolation from the prisons. That category represents 5 per cent. of the prison population and that is totally unacceptable. Only 600 places are available throughout the country. There should be remand units for the mentally ill and impaired and no alleged offender nor anyone found guilty should be diverted to prison. The time has now come to take a firm hold on the situation that has existed since 1972.
I have spoken on the telephone to many psychiatrists in charge of mental hospitals. I understand that under the Mental Health Act they can refuse to accept a patient. Perhaps that is right and therefore the situation should be turned around. I wish to table an amendment to the Bill providing that no mentally impaired offender or alleged offender should be admitted to prison but should be admitted to a secure unit. I fully acknowledge that if such an amendment were accepted there would be great resource implications. However, I have worked in a prison and I know that the presence there of the mentally ill is a source of great anxiety to the warders. In addition, it does not make for happiness in the running of the prison. I suggest that we should not have so much trouble in our prisons if the mentally impaired were not there. Therefore, any cost expended would be cost-effective in the long run.
Will my noble friend explain what is being done about prisoners who have AIDS? I was asked to put the question by a number of medical colleagues. If a prisoner is known to have AIDS, he is shunned by other prisoners despite the fact that often he is not ill. I hope that in setting up secure units for the mentally ill and impaired we can also consider the treatment of AIDS patients. I have worked at Grendon Underwood. I believe that very positive help is given to the men there. However, in Birmingham there is an institution called the Gracewell Clinic and Gracewell Institute. That has been set up with private money and is a purely voluntary organisation. That was very costly and it has received little help and not much encouragement from Her Majesty's Government. I regret that no Minister has visited it.
I have a letter from the clinic which says that it has received 526 referrals mostly from probation officers who want the clinic to take in men who have been found guilty of sexual abuse. Those men have received treatment at the clinic. To date, the cases of all the inmates have been followed up and not one has been found to have carried out further abuse. Therefore, there will be a decrease in the number of men in this country going to prison.
If a man who is convicted of sexual abuse goes to prison for two years, his wife deserts him, perhaps understandably, and when he comes out of prison he goes to a different part of the country where he commits further sexual offences against children. I ask the Minister whether he will acknowledge the work of the Gracewell Clinic; and I hope that a Minister will visit it. The clinic treatment would bring down the number of men in our prisons.
148
There are many other matters which I should like to raise, but the hour is late. Therefore, I ask that the matters which I have raised should be looked at.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should very much like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in what she has said, which was mostly related to Part III. However, I shall concentrate on Parts I and IV and speak particularly about diversion. Before going on to that, I should like to say that I agree with many of the remarks which the noble Baroness made. To take the last first, I approve of her puff for the Gracewell Clinic and I hope that her hints to the Minister will take effect and that a Minister from the Home Office or perhaps from the Department of Health will visit the clinic.
I am also very much in favour of the proposals of the noble Baroness for evening courts, which seem very sensible for anyone who has a family. I support what she said about Clause 48 and the Magistrates' Association's anxieties about that. I shall certainly support any amendment which she tables in seeking to preserve what they have but not to impose a duty to exercise that power.
Perhaps I may congratulate also the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on what she said. She will certainly have my support, if she wants it, on any amendment which she proposes dealing with race relations. I am chairman of an association called Action on Youth Crime. Last year we produced a very good fact sheet on racial discrimination which I shall ask the association to send to her. It is a mine of information which we may be able to use in our discussions on the subject.
Part I deals with the power of the court to deal with offenders and Part IV deals with the provision of services. I reiterate and buttress the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speaking as chairman of the IT fund. I am a member of that body and I have absolutely no doubt about its value. If Part I is to be followed through— and the main thrust of this is to keep people out of the criminal justice system— it is absolutely essential that there should be support for IT schemes all over the country, which the IT fund has helped to initiate.
As I have said already, I am chairman of Action on Youth Crime. That was founded three years ago to try to press for a reduction in the use of custody, especially for young adults between the ages of 17 and 20. Of course, we are delighted with the Bill before us. We wish to congratulate the Government on bringing it forward and any amendments which I table are designed to strengthen and not in any way to weaken the Bill, especially in regard to Clauses 1 and 4.
The House may like to know that the composition of Action on Youth Crime is represented across the board by those who serve the courts. The chief officers of probation are represented by their association, as are the directors of social services— the two most prestigious bodies of the statutory services. Added to that, there are representatives of NACRO, the National Children's Home and the Rayner

149
Foundation. Therefore, on that body are represented all those responsible for the success of the provisions of this Bill in practice in the youth courts. I do not mention those bodies which are there already and which play the primary role— the magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts. As I say, I welcome the Bill.
I shall restrict myself to three aspects of the Bill which I should like to improve. They are all related to what may be called "diversion"; namely, keeping people out of the criminal justice system.
First, I propose that the cautioning of young adult offenders, which has been given such a good fillip by the 1990 Home Office circular, should be placed on a statutory basis. As your Lordships may know, a caution is a formal verbal warning given by the police instead of a prosecution in court. Of course, a finding of guilt would result in a young person having a criminal record.
An Action on Youth Crime fact sheet, which will be published tomorrow, shows a sharp decline in the use of cautioning between 16 year-olds, who are still classified as juveniles, and 17 year-olds. Over 52 per cent. of 16 year-old offenders were cautioned while only 23 per cent. of 17 year-olds were cautioned. That cannot be right. Why should there be a sudden dramatic decline once the age of 17 is reached? There is no substantial difference in the kind of crime committed by people between the ages of 16 and 20 and yet they are being dealt with quite differently by the criminal justice system.
Generally speaking it can be said that the disparity of treatment becomes greater— or worse as I would say— as one grows older. It is generally agreed— and certainly it is Home Office policy— that cautioning is an efficient, effective and economic way of responding to offending. The treatment, if it can be so called, is only given to those who commit relatively minor or opportunistic offences. If it stops people becoming involved in the criminal justice system it must be worth while. Therefore I should like to put it on a more statutory basis and give it more teeth and authority.
Secondly, at a recent conference of Action on Youth Crime it became abundantly clear that the new youth courts would not work effectively unless they had a strong steer from central government, after consultation with the appropriate departments in Whitehall. I should like to table a new clause in Part IV of the Bill to set up an interdepartmental national youth crime policy committee— chaired by a Home Office Minister— to draw up minimum standards for services for young offenders and to produce authoritative circulars. I should like those circulars to be authorised by Parliament in the form of regulations. They should be given effect to through local joint youth planning committees. One cannot have effective implementation of central government directives unless one has proper local bases. It would be their duty to put the Government strategy and policy in place in their area and ensure that the basic services and standards laid down were available.
150
Thirdly, and following from that, nothing can come of the Government proposals, however admirable, without the necessary resources provided by central government, which should be ring-fenced. Everybody at the conference to which I referred was deeply anxious about both the quantum of money to be made available and the channels through which it would be provided. Perhaps I shall table an amendment so that we can discuss resources in Committee. At this stage I shall illustrate how the Government have underestimated the amount of money needed to implement their proposals in the Bill.
Probation services are told that there will be an increase of 12 per cent. for the new duties to be laid upon them. Today I discussed with a senior probation officer from the North East and Yorkshire what those cash limits would amount to in his area. He said that, if there were strict application of the cash limits, far from funding the new services, the allocation would result in a total elimination of one out of the seven probation services in the area. That is a stark indication of the Government's underestimate of the resources required by the provisions in the Bill. I have received a letter from the chairman of the Magistrates' Association which lays special emphasis on resources and which bears out my remarks.
If it were not so late I should enlarge on a number of the points raised which I support. I have indicated some raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Flather. However, I should add that I have doubts about the parental responsibility proposals in the Bill, which would have the effect of undermining responsibility and not bolstering it. There is a need for bail support programmes; for an extension of the unit fine system in Crown Courts; for more psychiatric reports and for the abolition of prison for fine defaulters.
That concludes my shopping list and I give way to the next speaker.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. In relation to this Bill I am advised by the Magistrates' Association, the NSPCC and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, organisations which are fairly different from each other. I shall touch briefly on the points that they raise and which I strongly support. However, before I begin perhaps I may say that they all believe, and I agree, that the Bill in the round is a great advance. Many other noble Lords agree that the Government are to be congratulated, though there may be areas in which we shall seek amendment. I support specifically the principle of community-based sentences whenever possible and a reduction in custodial measures, as well as the principle of parental responsibility. However, like my noble friend Lord Gisborough, I believe that Clauses 1 and 3 should be expressed more clearly and simply. That will be difficult to do for we shall be up against the parliamentary draftsmen. But that is what is necessary. Community sentences must be credible and realistic in the eyes of the public, the judiciary and the

151
offender if they are to suffice as alternatives to custody. That is a point touched upon by other noble Lords.
Part I of the Bill covers also the difficult problem of how best to deal with the mentally ill people found guilty of criminal offences. As was mentioned earlier, my right honourable friend John Patten clearly stated at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place that he wanted fewer mentally disordered people in gaol. He indicated that he would bring forward appropriate amendments on Report. That was not done. Perhaps the Government plan to introduce amendments in this House. I hope so.
As I have said on other occasions in this House, I have been told from various sources, including the Probation Service and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, that up to 25 per cent. of prisoners in certain prisons are mentally incapable. Even if they are not classifiable under the Mental Health Act, as seen by the probation officers dealing with them they clearly cannot cope with everyday life. They are out of place in prison. Together with the people who are, if I may put it this way, genuinely mentally ill, they should go to other places.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Would he agree that many such people do not want to go to hospital and be called nutters? They would rather stay in prison. More emphasis must be laid on an improvement of the prison medical service.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we do not want interruptions because it is becoming late. However, I do not agree with the noble Earl. I am not saying that they should go to hospital but that they should go somewhere else. I am not specifying where, but it should not be prison. That is the important point.
With regard to Part III, in which both the NSPCC and the Magistrates' Association have an interest—this was touched upon by many of my noble friends and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss—we must tackle again the proposal raised in another place that a child's evidence may be taken by video recording at a preliminary hearing of the proceedings. That was expanded upon by other Members of your Lordships' House, mainly noble Ladies. But perhaps I may briefly mention the Pigot Report. What is needed in the Bill at this stage much of the report having been included in the Bill both originally and by amendment—is provision for the introduction of a preliminary hearing system; for the introduction of a code of practice; for judges to record their reasons in writing when they refuse to admit video recorded evidence, and for children to have the right to testify by TV link rather than that being at the judge's discretion. All those points will be the subject of amendment in due course.
On another matter relating to children and young persons, Clause 49(1) introduces a duty on the court to exercise powers to bind over a minor's parent or guardian. Magistrates' courts already have the power to bind over, and wish to retain it, though it is rarely
152
used. Binding over of parents could lead to imprisonment, which would make a difficult situation much worse. Indeed, it would seem to me to run counter to the philosophy of the Bill.
In that connection, if my noble friend the Minister can get his officials to obtain for him the March issue of The Magistrate, the magazine of the Magistrates' Association, he will see that on page 33 there is an excellent article on this subject entitled Punishing Parents for their Children's Sins by the director of the Aycliffe Centre for Children. I commend it to the Minister and to other noble Lords.
I welcome the intention to end the remanding of juveniles in custody. However, it will be necessary to have an assurance that adequate secure accommodation for juveniles is made available for all courts as soon as practicable. That is quite a tall order, but it is what is necessary. It is also necessary to have clarification of the respective powers of the courts and social services departments regarding juveniles remanded with a security condition.
All the points that I have raised, and several others, will be the subject of amendments in later stages of the Bill. I hope that, when we get to that stage, the Government, who in another place seem to have been as understanding as they could be about this Bill, will be able to give favourable consideration to all such amendments.
8.31 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this important and wide-ranging Bill is the product of much consultation over a period of years and is therefore very much to be welcomed. At a time when our prison facilities are being stretched to the limit and custodial sentences are no longer regarded as a natural remedy but rather as a sterile and often damaging experience, it is absolutely right that we should take a critical look at the types of penalty which our courts have at their disposal and create, if we can, a natural reflex action against prison and towards more constructive forms of punishment for all but the most serious crimes. This is the heart of the Bill, and with the leave of the House this is the part that I should like to talk about tonight.
As my noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords have said, the framework of sentencing which we are now considering has one underlying theme, that a convicted offender should receive his just deserts. This means that the type of sentence meted out by a court should be governed primarily by the gravity of the offence and to a secondary extent—most graphically in the case of unit fines—by the offender's private circumstances. It also means that an offender's previous criminal record should not influence the sentencing decision one way or the other, unless it tells the court something directly relevant to the new offence. I differ from other noble Lords in finding this provision perfectly comprehensible and fair. It means, too, contrary to the stated preference of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but rightly in my humble opinion, that one of the old but quietly rotting planks of penal theory, that of deterrence, is being cast aside.

153
However, proscribing a deterrent element in sentences is not the same as saying that punishments within the bounds of just deserts, particularly heavy prison sentences or substantial fines, should not serve as a warning to those who contemplate crime. In sentencing offenders, the courts are making a statement about society's attitude to different crimes, a statement which can alter over the years in response to changing public opinion. One hundred and fifty years ago sheep stealing was a serious crime; insider trading was not. Average prison sentences for sexual offences have lengthened noticeably in the past 10 years, reflecting an undoubted hardening of public attitudes. I happen to feel, in common with others of your Lordships, that this is a retrograde trend. But the point is that the way we have traditionally expressed public opinion is to give our courts freedom to impose sentences within limits carefully defined by Parliament, the maximum sentence for each type of crime being in itself a measure of its gravity and of the relativities which we can usefully identify.
The Bill refers to a framework for sentencing. That word is surely appropriate. We are not talking about a framework so dense and rigid that it is effectively a cage. I have listened with care to noble Lords who have advocated the idea of a sentencing council, and I shall continue to listen with care to later statements, but I am bound to say that I have grave doubts about it on the basis of what I have heard and read so far. I am not a lawyer. My training is in banking, so I suppose I tend to look at a new idea in terms of a balance of risk. With this idea the risks look more like certainties. Consistency in sentencing is a worthy aim, but not at the price of pigeonholing offences in a way that takes no account of aggravating or mitigating circumstances in particular cases.
One has to assume that a sentencing council's pronouncement would be both detailed and binding —otherwise there would be little point in it—but I cannot help feeling that it is idle trying to compare the relative wickedness of burglary by Mr. X and unlawful wounding by Mr. Y. One would get bogged down in circular and very subjective arguments. It is as though people feel that there is out there some platonic form of justice, perfectly cross-referenced and credit-scored, whereas justice in sentencing, though it may require the benchmark of precedent, actually differs subtly from case to case.
Towards the end of last year I read a newspaper report that a man in America had been sentenced to 10 years in prison for a sexual assault. You might suppose that there was nothing remarkable in that until you read further and learned that his offence consisted not of attempted rape or molesting unsuspecting women in the street but of tweaking two lady colleagues on the bottom. This might be laughable if it were not so serious, the court having apparently been hidebound by a definition of sexual assault as opposed to passing a sentence for the harm actually done. I admit that that is an extreme case, but it highlights what can happen if judicial discretion is diluted or removed. It reinforces my unease about a
154
proposed system which smacks of judges being told what to do in particular cases, even if the people telling them are other judges.
This is not to suggest that magistrates and judges should be isolated from the world or denied access to a flow of information about the effectiveness of sentencing practices. Indeed, at a time when new penalties are being introduced, it is all the more essential that judges should be able to exchange views with probation officers, police and those who administer sentences at the sharp end so as to keep abreast of what is going on.
The Judicial Studies Board and the Magistrates' Association already serve an important function here which perhaps could be widened. Judges also need to be kept informed of developments in the treatment of certain types of offender. I am thinking especially of sexual offenders, where public opinion can be most at variance with the views of those who know what can be done to rehabilitate such individuals. Pioneering work is taking place at the Gracewell Clinic in Birmingham, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull has mentioned, by a team which maintains that certain types of sex offender can respond well to extended programmes of therapeutic treatment designed to change attitudes and behaviour patterns and so lessen the risk of re-offending.
It was encouraging to read in The Times last week about Home Office plans to commence pilot schemes in five prisons which will apparently be modelled on techniques established at the Gracewell. They go far beyond anything being attempted in our prisons at the moment. I hope that that will give comfort to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and others and that there will be an opportunity to discuss other aspects of this initiative at later stages of the Bill.
However, this is an area which bears very closely on one of the Bill's more difficult features—which is at least difficult for me and I think for others of your Lordships. It is the proposal that for sexual and violent offenders the courts will have extra powers to impose a longer sentence than the offence deserves if they decide that the public need to be protected. There are two reasons why that idea needs to be unpicked especially carefully. One is that it runs directly counter to the principle of just deserts which is otherwise a consistent theme of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made reference to that. The other is that it confuses two strands of thought—that is to say, the severity of a prison term appropriate to a particular offence and the need to keep certain types of prisoner behind bars to protect the public. To be consistent, what we should be looking at is a way of placing additional sanctions on a prisoner's eligibility for discretionary parole.
Because the Bill postpones the point at which prisoners in general become eligible for parole, there is every reason for sentences as a rule to become shorter and not longer. But even if that does not happen, the sentence should be what a violent or sexual offender deserves: how much of that sentence he serves in prison can be determined separately. Paedophiles and similar types of sex offender are particular cases in

155
point. If they are willing to undergo therapy at the Gracewell Clinic or in prison and that therapy is going to help them control their criminal behaviour, the whole question of protecting the public falls away.
Clause 37 of the Bill seems to recognise that an extended period of supervision is desirable and necessary for a sex offender released on licence. What it does not do is acknowledge that there are important distinctions to be drawn between various types of sex offender and that those with treatable personality disorders, not mental illness, should not necessarily be bracketed with others who are more intractably wicked. It is not enough to leave the courts to distinguish the treatable from the untreatable because, as we know from therapeutic prison regimes like that at Grendon Underwood, an offender's ability and readiness to respond to treatment may emerge only when he is well into his sentence. Meanwhile, he could be somebody who has been labelled a particular danger to the public and received in consequence a longer sentence than the offence deserves.
There is scope here for some additional flexibility in the sentencing framework for sex offenders if the Government are serious in their wish to put the emphasis on remedial therapy as much as on containment. In an ideal world public confidence in the criminal justice system is determined by how effective that system is in dealing with offenders and ultimately in bringing down the levels of crime. In that sense it is often for Parliament and the courts to give a lead and to carry public opinion with them in the process. With this Bill that lead includes devising alternatives to prison that are rigorous and demanding as well as being a force for good in the offender himself so as to reduce the chances of his re-offending.
In that context I would like to think that we get closer to real justice in sentencing by having a well-informed judiciary whose terms of reference include both choice and flexibility in the penalties available. Even if by this Bill we are unable to ensure that the crooked shall be made straight, we can at least go some way towards making the rough places in the criminal justice system a little plainer.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I believe that it will be generally agreed that this has been a debate of considerable quality. A number of matters have been identified by various Members of the House which cause them special concern. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will agree that the number of such issues identified is formidable and therefore we are likely to have a protracted Committee stage.
I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in paying tribute to the work being done in the Gracewell Clinic in Birmingham. I am surprised to hear from the noble Baroness that no Minister has visited it. It is particularly surprising that that is so given the fact that a private citizen has put in substantial sums of his own money to help treat a very substantial number of
156
sex offenders who have been convicted of serious offences. I very much hope that matter will be put right in the very near future.
The House will be relieved to hear that I propose to deal as briefly as possible with five issues this evening. Three of them have been discussed at length in the House; namely, the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment, the proposed amendments to the parole system and the question of privatisation. I intend to discuss first two issues which have attracted rather less attention. One of them indeed has attracted no attention whatever. They are matters to which we shall want to return at the Committee stage of the Bill.
I refer first to the question of the mentally ill which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The Government's policy referred to in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, at the outset of the debate is set out in the clearest terms in Home Office Circular 66/90, which says:
"It is Government policy that, wherever possible, mentally disordered persons should receive care and treatment from the health and social services".
Following the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Brixton Prison, the new Home Secretary, Mr. Baker, again drew public attention to the terms of that circular urging more co-ordinated action to divert or transfer mentally disordered people away from the prisons. However, as we are all well aware, there are still hundreds of mentally disordered offenders in our prisons. Most of them are there because of the refusal of hospitals to take them and the determined opposition of the Department of Health and its predecessor, the DHSS, to take a more positive role in dealing with such offenders.
What is the precise scale of the problem? Professor John Gunn was commissioned by the Home Office to provide a psychiatric profile of the sentenced prison population. I am told that it was submitted to the department some months ago. This is the only question to which I shall be grateful to the noble Earl for a reply: can he say when the report is to be published? Given the fact that we shall be debating these issues during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, it is wholly reasonable for us to ask for this particular document to be published. As always, parts of it have already been leaked to the newspapers. It is wrong that we should not have this information available to us.
In the meantime the House should be aware of the price being paid by some of our sad and confused fellow citizens as a result of inaction in this area. On 18th February I raised in this House the case of a woman patient at the North Wales Hospital, Denbigh, who had been charged with arson following an incident during which she set fire to her own bedclothes. Subsequently I was given fuller information about this case by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, writing on behalf of the Welsh Office. This woman, a patient in a mental hospital, was remanded in custody on seven separate occasions from 26th November,

157
when she first appeared in court, until 18th February, which is a period of about three months. She was held at Risley.
Then, on 18th February—curiously enough the day on which this issue was ventilated in this House for the first time —accommodation was finally provided for her at Ashworth Special Hospital. Again, despite protests from the Bench, it even took two months to provide psychiatric reports on her condition, and this concerning a woman who was an in-patient in a mental hospital. It seems extraordinary that people who are suffering from mental illness in the way this woman did should be kept for three months in a particularly tough prison department establishment such as that at Risley.
Then we had only last week the inquest on Mr. Kenneth Broadbent, a paranoid schizophrenic who hanged himself in Brixton prison. Why was he in prison in the first place? He had been arrested for not paying a £10 restaurant bill. Mr. Broadbent was held in Brixton for a month without a proper psychiatric examination by a consultant, a failure which was fiercely criticised by the Southwark coroner. The cases of just these two individuals demonstrate the gulf that exists between the Home Secretary's admirable sentiment that the mentally ill should not be in prison in the first place and the reality of the situation. As I have indicated, we shall be tabling amendments on this area of the Bill.
We shall also table an amendment to deal with the continued use of police cells to hold Home Office remand prisoners. Let me, if I may, remind the House of what Lord Justice Woolf said in his report on Strangeways. He said:
"The Inquiry visited the police cells at Manchester (the Central Detention Centre). While police officers appeared to be doing their best to make the prisoners' conditions tolerable, the conditions were in fact wholly unacceptable. The night before the Inquiry's visit, 101 prisoners had been held in 73 police cells. The cells had no natural light, they were small, they had an objectionable smell, they were overheated and without sanitation. The amount of exercise which the prisoners could have each day was limited to 20 minutes. The exercise area was a cage of modest size on a flat roof patrolled from above by a doghandler. The prisoners spent the major part of the day locked in their cells. They were not allowed radios",
and so on.
It seems to me remarkable that after 10 years or more of such intolerable conditions in which remand prisoners, unconvicted people, are being kept in conditions of this sort that we have to return yet again to this issue, but on this occasion with the difference that we are in a position to move amendments to a Bill precisely following the recommendations set out by Lord Justice Woolf in his report. I hope that we shall not he told that we shall have to wait for a White Paper. I am afraid we are not prepared to wait any longer for action in this area.
Now I come to the three major matters that have been discussed by many this afternoon. First, there is the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment. Like everyone else who has spoken—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord
158
Ackner, the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham, Lord Nathan and Lord Campbell of Alloway—I favour the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. What is interesting is that not a single Member of your Lordships' House has taken a contrary position. It is also my view that judges and not Ministers should take the final decision on the release of life sentence prisoners.
As a member of the Select Committee I propose to speak on this matter in some detail during the Bill's Committee stage. I hope therefore that the House will forgive me if I do not deal with this issue this evening. I turn next to the important section of the Bill relating to parole. Like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I agree broadly with the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee. There are, as the House must recognise, some problems associated with accepting those recommendations and this particular part of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly said at the beginning of our debate, unless there is a change in sentencing practice there will inevitably he a rise in the size of the prison population.
There is another problem as well. For the first time some prisoners under the terms of Clause 27 of the Bill will be released on parole licence automatically. This will be done at the halfway stage. I am perfectly content that that should be accepted, as was my noble friend Lord Hunt. At present of course some of these prisoners are refused parole because they have demonstrated that they are not believed to be suitable for supervision on licence or the parole board is disinclined to make a recommendation because of their behaviour in prison. As a result of the passage of this Bill, the probation service will be responsible for their supervision on licence. Now in many cases, I am sure, those periods of licence will lead to a successful conclusion of the licence by the prisoner concerned. However, others, unfortunately, will reject the requirements of their licences and will be recalled to prison.
As I have indicated, and I repeat again, I do not suggest for a moment that the Government are mistaken so far as this proposal is concerned. All I want to indicate is that this new approach could lead to a significant increase in the number of recalls to prison, and thus, combined with the other changes that we know are being brought into effect by the Bill, could lead to an increase, possibly even a substantial increase, in the size of the sentenced population.
I turn finally to the issue of privatisation of prisons, of prisoner escort services and of court security services. I see a powerful argument in favour of removing the duty on the police and the prison service to perform these two latter services. This proposal in the Bill, when carried into effect, will lead to a reduction of somewhere in the region of 1,400 police officers as far as their present obligations are concerned and a reduction in the number of about 1,000 prison officers. That seems to me a powerful argument in itself.
But of course, as the noble Earl will recognise, when we discuss these proposals in Committee we shall be asking some questions about the arrangements that

159
will be introduced to ensure that the people concerned will be people of good character. As a report published a few years ago by the Association of Chief Police Officers pointed out, quite a number of people in the private security industry have a formidable number of previous criminal convictions, and that includes also some of the people involved in the management of private security firms. I know that there are proposals in the Bill so far as the schedule is concerned, but I think that these are matters of some importance.
I come now to the rather more difficult issue of private remand centres. When Mr. Douglas Hurd, as Home Secretary, announced his proposals so far as this was concerned I supported the idea, and I still do. I did not object in principle for a whole series of reasons. One of the best arguments appeared to me to be that in such centres—be these one, two or three —conditions would undoubtedly be infinitely superior to the conditions that exist in local prisons at the moment. But what we were talking about then was perhaps an experimental centre, with maybe a second experimental centre and so on. But I believe, as I repeat, that those centres could introduce far more civilised conditions than we have at the moment. One such centre, as the noble Earl pointed out in his opening speech, has already been earmarked for this purpose in Humberside.
But, unhappily, since that time the proposal has changed dramatically. First, we have the remarkable idea contained in Clause 72 which gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the "director", as he is described in the Bill, of the private sector remand establishment,
"has lost, or is likely to lose, effective control of the prison or any part of it".
The Bill goes on to state that, in such circumstances, the Home Secretary,
"may appoint a Crown servant to act as governor".
A private sector remand establishment is either a prison or it is nothing. It will either have high professional standards and an ability to handle disturbances or it will not. The idea of bringing in a Home Office official to take charge in the middle of a riot seems to me to be extraordinarily ill-judged. If such a situation were to arise, I believe that the Home Office should keep out of it. It should be left to the director of the establishment and to the local chief officer of police.
I turn now to a far more substantial issue. Between the Bill's Committee and Report stages in another place we had the arrival of subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 68. The drafting is, in the best traditions, almost wholly incomprehensible. What it means is that, far from limiting the Government's proposal to one or two new private sector remand establishments, they are taking power, subject only to the affirmative resolution procedure, to privatise if they so choose every existing prison in England and Wales. That is one of the most remarkable propositions that we have seen from this or any other government. The idea that
160
we should give power to any government to introduce such proposals without detailed parliamentary scrutiny seems to me to be strange in the extreme.
We have heard in this House widespread complaints about the tendency of the Government to give themselves immense powers under similar procedures. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has made a series of notable speeches on the matter. But I can recall no other occasion when strong protest was more deserved than it is now as regards this particular issue. It is an immense pity that the Government have introduced such a divisive proposal in a Bill which contains so many sensible ideas.
There is a great deal in the Bill that we like. We hope that the Government will not only listen to constructive criticism but that they will keep a reasonably open mind when serious amendments are proposed. On the last occasion when we had such a Bill before us, the Government maintained a remarkably inflexible position during the whole of the Committee stage. I hope that we will not have a repeat performance on this occasion. However, having said that, we hope that many of the worthwhile proposals in the Bill will soon be on the statute book. They will certainly receive our support.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I humbly take this opportunity to express my appreciation that so many noble Lords who participated in this most useful and interesting debate are still present in the Chamber. I say that because when I first came to your Lordships' House I was informed that it was a convention that if one participated in a debate, one stayed until the Minister had replied at the conclusion. Over the years, I have observed that that is a convention that is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Therefore, I express my appreciation that so many noble Lords are prepared to stay until this late hour to hear me speak. After about 30 speeches have been made, a winding-up speech at this late hour is something of a misnomer. What is possibly more in your Lordships' minds is the thought that I should wind down my speech rather than wind it up.
This has been a useful debate about a Bill which, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, has many good points. There is no doubting the fact that those points have already been emphasised. But, at the same time, in the course of the debate we mentioned many matters which have been omitted from the Bill and some which should not be in it.
With regard to Part I of the Bill, many of us feel that the Government have done well in doing the job of making sentencing a very much more integrated and consistent affair. I was much moved by the speech made by the right reverend Prelate. He so often lives up to his name by being a shepherd especially as regards black sheep. Many speakers expressed the view that it is good to have consistency of sentencing. We said that we thought it was a good idea to have a sentencing council. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Richard raised that point during his speech.
However, the real objective we had was not just to ensure that fewer people went to prison, that sentences

161
were consistent and that rules were made about sentencing; we also had to consider what is being done in regard to rehabilitation. In other words, what are we doing to ensure that people do not keep returning to prison as is so frequently the case at present? Therefore, during the course of the debate, a plea was made for rehabilitation. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made her contribution on the subject as did speakers from these Benches and others from the Cross-Benches.
I hope that the Minister, who is very sincerely moved by what is happening in our prisons and what is happening as regards crime in our country, will give as much attention as he possibly can to the following positive elements. I refer to the training, the rehabilitation and the helping of offenders when they come out of prison to obtain jobs. That will ensure that they retain some dignity and respectability and will give them a part to play in our society which may make them into the good citizens we all pray they will become.
When we moved on to Clauses 1 to 3, I found that there was a missing link— a lacuna. Glibly we passed over the necessity for a social inquiry report when the question arises whether there should be a committal to prison. It is easy— is it not?— to legislate and yet to forget the practical aspects of what we are legislating about. I wonder how long it will take to satisfy all those conditions before a judge sentences, however desirable it may be—and I am sure that it is desirable —to have a social inquiry report with a somewhat attenuated probation service which will be doing so much under the Bill, and which was already doing so much before the Bill even came before your Lordships' House.
I ask the Minister whether proper resources will be available to the probation service in order to ensure that those preparing the reports will be adequate in number and ability and will be paid the respectable salaries that will encourage more people into a service which is vital from the point of view of prison reform or crime reform of any kind. If the Minister puts the clause before us, I hope that he will accept the responsibility of seeing that the social inquiry reports are available in time for the judge. In the meantime, the defendant will not know what to tell his employer, except that he has been convicted and is to return a few weeks later. Will he know that there is to be no custodial sentence or will he have to say to his employer that the judge has said that he must wait for a social inquiry report and all sorts of other information? He will have to say, "I do not know where I stand. I cannot tell you whether I am going to prison". If we have such delays, shall we not be doing harm rather than the good that we intended by including the clause in the Bill?
I move to another matter which rightly engaged your Lordships' attention. It is easy to adopt the principle of parental responsibility. We all agree that in many homes parents unfortunately do not take their responsibilities as they should. Juveniles often come before magistrates in our juvenile courts. They would not be there if they had the right discipline and care and if the right things were taught at home. To
162
walk from that stage, which is a most respectable one ethically, into putting into a Bill not just that the court can, in its discretion, call parents in front of it and, by consent, bind them over, but fine them if there is no consent, is doing something, as many of your Lordships pointed out, which is completely destructive of home and family life. It could end in the most terrible disturbance in the family that the youngster has to return to.
The Law Society has called attention to what we would be doing if the provision were passed. The moderate Law Society, of which I am a proud member, says:
"Not since the 13th century has there been legislation which has forced an individual to appear before a Criminal Court when that individual has not him/herself been the subject of criminal charges, and then placed that individual at risk of a financial penalty, unless he/she agrees to a proposed action by the Court".
Care must be exercised in the remaining stages of the Bill before this somewhat draconian clause appears in it.
I pass to another question. I do not expect the Minister to reply to it tonight but it concerns there being no provision in the Bill for those poor parents who have to appear before the court to receive legal aid. I am sure that under the present regulations they are not entitled to it. This is a vital matter for parents. They have argued the need to receive advice but there is no provision in the Bill for legal aid for them if they are required to appear in court.
I could say much about privatisation but your Lordships have already said it better. There have been arguments for and against. I utter one sentence from these Benches. When one is dealing with the liberty of the subject and detention against that liberty, the power is exercised as a right by the state. Only the state and its own officers ought to carry it through. That is true of those looking after prisoners and taking them to court. It is equally true of remand prisoners. In parenthesis, I say in honesty that I how to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Until he drew attention to Clause 68 headed, "Remand prisons" I thought that the power under the Bill to privatise existed only in regard to remand prisons. However, if we examine Clause 68(3) it negatives the provision that it must be a remand prison and gives the power by ordinary statutory instrument to privatise all the prisons in our land. If we had known that we should not have been quite so flattering about the Bill during the debate. The noble Lord is absolutely right. We must give careful attention to that clause.
The hour is late and although I could talk about the mandatory life sentence, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who so capably headed the committee of your Lordships' House, has dealt with it and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, also spoke so well, that I have an idea that the Government will have to fight hard to ensure that the necessary amendments are not made to the Bill to carry the recommendations of the Nathan committee.
Undoubtedly this is a hole and corner method. I say that with deep respect because it was almost the language used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord

163
Chief Justice when talking about the procedure into which he was inveigled back in the 1980s. It concerned the private consultation between the Minister, the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge as to what a sentence should be. Your Lordships' House will not stand for that when we have the opportunity of amending the Bill, as we have now.
In conclusion, the other place must think the world of this House. Its standing committee obviously and quite intentionally left to your Lordships' House much of the revision of the Bill. It clearly meant to say, "Your Lordships' House is where such revisions ought to take place".
9.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, always gives us something nice to think about when he sits down. On this occasion, he has resisted the temptation to ask a question of the Minister replying and then promptly to sit down. For that, I am grateful.
We have had a long and interesting debate on the whole panorama which surrounds criminal justice and its implications. Those who have taken part in the debate today are experts. We have had a variety of contributions from all kinds of people with different interests. The Government will take note of what has been said and of your Lordships' views. My noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Windlesham said that the object of the Bill should be to reduce crime. They are correct. It is also to deal more fairly with criminals or offenders. That in itself will lead, one hopes, to less crime.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, welcomed the Bill. I believe it must be the first Bill that the Government have ever introduced that the noble Lord has welcomed. I wondered for a moment whether the Government were right to introduce the Bill. However, I believe we were. I could make the same comments in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who also welcomed the Bill. With those two noble Lords welcoming the Bill, we must be getting on famously.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, remarked that the subjects which have been discussed were formidable subjects. Noble Lords have promised in a most courteous way to table a vast number of amendments. I shall not hold noble Lords to their promises: if we are not careful, I rather fancy that that course of action would make severe inroads into the Easter and Whitsun recesses of noble Lords. I caution against over-enthusiasm in that regard. Nevertheless these are important matters and they will have to be discussed in Committee.
I find it difficult to wind up or, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, correctly said, wind down—a debate of this kind. It is difficult to refer to everything, even if it were regarded as essential to refer to everything. On the other hand, it would be impertinent to refer to very few of the matters that noble Lords have raised. All I con do is speak to the main points that have been made. I shall do my best in that regard, and if I miss a few points I hope that your Lordships will not feel
164
I have omitted to refer to those points because they were de minimis, or to my mind of no importance. I may omit a few points merely because it is impossible to refer to everything.
One of the foremost matters which has been raised and which has obviously caused a certain amount of concern is the mandatory life sentence for murder. A formidable assault on the Government took place over this matter. My noble friend Lord Windlesham made a characteristically powerful speech on this subject, as did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Other noble Lords who referred to this matter included the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—he is the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee —my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. All those speakers found the position taken on the matter disagreeable.
As I listened to the assault on this point, my mind was taken back to the time when the Romans used battering rams against the ramparts of the enemy. The assault was formidable hut, if 50 per cent. of your Lordships' Select Committee take part in the proceedings on the Bill, it is not surprising that views are expressed in a formidable manner.
I was interested to hear the views of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on capital punishment. Those views may not have been reflected in the speeches of your Lordships this afternoon. However, the views my noble friend expressed are widely prevalent. He was quite right to express those views this afternoon. The Government believe quite simply that murder is the most heinous of all crimes. I respect the opinions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, enormously. However, I was surprised to hear him set about my right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold for her remarks on murder.
I have taken the opportunity to look up the dictionary definition of "heinous", which is utterly odious or atrocious. I believe that murder might fall quite conveniently into that category. The noble and learned Lord said that certain murders may almost be considered murders of sympathy. However, the fact is that murder is the most heinous of all crimes. Before 1965 the fixed sentence for that crime was the death penalty. When the death penalty was abolished, the alternative had to be one which continued to mark out the Unique wickedness of that crime. That is why we have a mandatory life sentence for murder.
When the abolition of the death penalty has from time to time been reconsidered in another place, it has always been voted upon against the background that the alternative to the death penalty was the mandatory life sentence—"life sentence", not "life imprisonment".
The deed requires the person to be imprisoned for life but released at the discretion of the state. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that it ought to be the judges and not Ministers who took the final decision on release. There is a difference of view here. Those who take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would say that the judges are the

165
right people to ascertain whether the criminal has received his just deserts in prison. The other side of the coin is that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for public safety and it is his responsibility to decide whether to allow people back into society.
I believe that to abandon the mandatory life sentence for murder would greatly damage public confidence in the criminal justice system and its ability to punish properly the gravest of crimes. The Select Committee's understanding and belief is very important and it has been expressed very firmly this afternoon. However, I say with the greatest respect and modesty to members of the Select Committee that although that may be their view they must not necessarily expect everyone, including the Government and the public, to accept their views.
The question was also raised as to whether the decision to release life sentence prisoners should rest with a judicial body rather than the Home Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also referred to that matter. I believe that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is quite right. At present the final decision in this matter rests with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The release of life sentence prisoners raises fundamental issues which are central to my right honourable friend's responsibility to protect the public and to maintain the Queen's peace. I am not sure how acceptable it would be to public opinion for offenders who have committed the most serious of crimes to be released into the community under arrangements which did not include the ability to call Ministers to account to Parliament for the consequences of such release. That is not a change to be made without the most careful consideration of all its implications.
With regard to the European Court of Human Rights' judgment we must now look for an alternative procedure which will both meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and be acceptable to public opinion in this country. That is by no means a straightforward matter. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Harris, jumping up and down. Does he wish to jump up?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with the encouragement of the noble Earl I shall jump up. I am grateful to him. Is he aware that that matter has been before us year after year after year? There is now a clear European Court of Human Rights decision on the non-mandatory life sentence case. Are the Government preparing an amendment to the Bill which will be introduced at Committee or Report stage to give effect to that judgment, which we are obliged by treaty to accept?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, always was given to extravagance. The matter has not been in front of us for years and years and years. The European Court of Human Rights gave its judgment last October and that related only to discretionary life sentences. Until that judgment was given there might have been uncertainty about the extent of the application of the Weeks case, but the
166
judgment was clear in distinguishing between discretionary and mandatory life sentences. It does not apply to the mandatory life sentence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I asked the noble Earl a question about non-mandatory life sentences and the European Court judgment. Do the Government intend to bring in an amendment to this Bill to give effect to that judgment against the British Government? It is a simple question and I should be very grateful if the noble Earl would answer it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is a perfectly simple question. I had answered it, and the noble Lord was premature in bouncing up and down from his Bench. I said that we now have to find an alternative procedure which will both meet the requirements of the European Court and be acceptable to public opinion in this country. It is by no means a straightforward matter and we have to try to find a solution to it.
My noble friend Lord Campbell and other noble Lords referred to the penal element in the life sentence, believing that it ought to be announced in open court and open to appeal. We are still considering that recommendation of the Select Committee. The issues are not as straightforward as some might think. There are two types of life sentence: the mandatory and the discretionary. As matters stand at the moment, the Home Secretary is bound by the tariff set by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice in discretionary life sentence cases, much as the judgment of the appeal court earlier this year confirmed that in the case of a mandatory life sentence the Home Secretary may depart from the judicial recommendation when deciding when the case should first be reviewed. That distinction reflects at least in part the fact that the mandatory life sentence is a penalty fixed by law to reflect the uniqueness of the offence of murder. It is a punishment laid down by Parliament. I suggest that it would be rather difficult and artificial to try to break it down into self-contained elements such as deterrence, retribution or protection.
It has been suggested that it is wrong for the Home Secretary as a member of the executive to be able by departing from the judge's recommendation to vary the sentence given by the court. But we must remember that the sentence is a life sentence and the Home Secretary does not have any power to vary that. The Home Secretary's role is confined to determining the proportions of that sentence which are to be served in custody and out on licence and when consideration of the possibility of release on licence should begin.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to uncorroborated confessional evidence. That is important. It is one of the matters that is being considered by Sir John May in his inquiry into the Guildford Four and the Maguire cases. With regard to the Birmingham Six case, my noble friend will be aware that the Court of Appeal is still considering the case. As such it would be wrong for me to comment in any detail on it. I can assure my noble friend that the Government have this matter under review and will make a Statement to the House as soon as it is right and proper to do so.

167
There were a number of references to the sentencing council —from the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Irvine of Lairg and the noble Earl, Lord Longford —all of which came curiously from the Benches opposite. I understand the reasons for that. The arguments were also supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with great respect, all strongly repelled.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. In my haste not to detain your Lordships for too long I wrote down in my notes, "Ackner against". I forgot the last word. I am so glad that he put me right over that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, blasts out of the water everyone who has a contrary view to him, I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to that business about the sentencing council. We take the view that sentencing councils would not be a proper way to do this, not least because it would involve a regimented system of sentencing; whereas what we propose under the Bill is a continuation of the system whereby the Court of Appeal gives guidance.
A number of noble Lords referred to privatising the prisons. These included the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris as well as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who, much to my surprise, found that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had alerted him to something in the Bill which he, as a lawyer, had missed. That is very unusual.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that prisoners ought to be looked after by the state. This Bill is only in reference to remand prisoners—those who are unconvicted or unconvicted but not yet sentenced. The Secretary of State has the power to extend contracting out to prisons holding sentenced prisoners but only after affirmative resolution. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that that is not an answer. An affirmative resolution means that the issue has to come before both Houses of Parliament. That is what will happen and therefore Parliament has a view on the matter which can be expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether proposals to privatise existing prisons with regard to sentenced prisoners will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I had explained that that will be so. At present we plan to put out to tender only the operation of the new Wolds remand centre. Any further proposals depend on the experience that we receive there.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was also anxious about the Home Secretary's power to intervene in disturbances in private prisons. Clause 72 puts a private prison in the same situation as an ordinary prison. If there is trouble, the private sector management will he expected to run the place properly in order to avoid trouble. However, if there is trouble, the Home Secretary must be able to take the proper steps to protect the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to longer sentences discriminating against homosexuals. I do not believe that that is so. The extra sentencing powers
168
for sex offences operate in the same way for homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. Clause 1(7) makes it clear that those powers are available only when the offending behaviour involves a risk of serious personal injury to the victim or potential victim. Moreover, sexual offences are defined in Clause 25 in a way which excludes any offence which is in all the circumstances victimless and consensual.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and other noble Lords referred to the problem of keeping mentally ill people out of prison. He was right to be concerned about that. We shall bring forward an amendment at Committee on that issue.
In what I agree was a most impressive speech the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool referred to the treatment for Rule 43 prisoners—sex offenders. We welcome the recognition of the work at Her Majesty's Prison at Grendon Underwood. It is not the only place where work is being undertaken with sex offenders. Valuable work is being done in other prison establishments such as Wakefield and Littlehey. The sentence planning approach underlying the new parole scheme will focus attention on tackling offending behaviour, helping to prevent offending. My noble friend Lady Faithful] and other noble Lords referred to the Gracewell Clinic. The Government are interested in different treatment methods for sex offenders. The work of the Gracewell Clinic has been drawn to our attention. It is still in its infancy relative to Grendon. We shall watch with interest how it develops.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about mentally disordered people. He asked when Professor Gunn's report will be published. That will he as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked why none of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations was implemented in the Bill. The majority of the Woolf recommendations do not require legislation. Action has already been taken on some of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations. Careful consideration is being given to the others. A White Paper will be published later in the year to announce the Government's conclusions and to chart the direction of the prison service for the remainder of the century and beyond.
A number of noble Lords referred to problems relating to children. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked about children's evidence. In consultation with experts in the field and the main voluntary organisation, we are drawing up a code of practice to provide soundly based advice on how best to produce a video of a child's evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings. The code will not be statutory or bind the parties, but should promote good practice and reduce the risk of the video being ruled out of court.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the requirement to bind over parents which he thought too rigid. Courts already have power to bind-over parents. In the Government's view that power is not used enough. The courts should be under a duty to do

169
so if the child is under 16. The parents of those young people must have their responsibilities brought home to them.
My noble friend was also concerned about Section 38(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It is clearly desirable that if at all possible juveniles should not be detained by the police. However, it would not be sensible to abolish police powers to detain juveniles charged with offences. There may be some circumstances in which it is impossible to place a juvenile with a local authority. The new Home Office codes of practice which are issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act come into force on 1st April of this year. Those give guidance on the use of police discretion to detain a juvenile.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked why the Government did not take up the Pigot proposals that a child should never be required to appear in court in public and that there should be a pretrial cross-examination. Such a provision would risk exposing the child witness to recalls and to further such hearings, thereby creating a whole series of mini-trials before and in parallel with the main trial. We believe that that would lead to delay and further stress for the child. Furthermore, it would carry the risk that the defence might unfairly exploit the child's confusion at being questioned on so many occasions. Under our proposals the child need be cross-examined only once and then by live television linked from outside the courtroom.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that the Bill made no provision for the codes of practice in respect of video recording children's evidence. Codes of practice will be issued: they will be an important part of the arrangements.
The subject of racism was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, my noble friend Lady Flather and the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The Government support the ethnic minority rights in the criminal justice system. Monitoring is in place in the prison service and is being introduced in the probation service. However, that is not the only way to obtain information. In depth research studies can also be invaluable. It goes without saying that the courts should not have any form of racism within them. That is against all the basic principles of British justice. There is a form of monitoring system in Clause 79 referred to by the right reverend Prelate. The onus is put on the whole system to say what it is doing and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary must make an annual report to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to a number of issues of complexity in Clauses 1 to 3. Much thought went into the procedures set out in those clauses. They were not made complicated for the sake of doing so but in order to answer all the likely eventualities that may arise. I accept that the sentencers will need training and practical guides to help them apply the provisions. The noble Lord asked why only one other offence can be considered under
170
Clause 1(2) (a). This allows flexibility to deal with the multiple offender but prevents a whole lot of petty offences being put together in order to justify custody.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Hutchinson, asked why we should not extend the sentencing restriction to all indictable court offences. Indictable-only offences are almost always serious. An unnecessary burden would be placed on the Crown Court in expecting it to follow all the procedures required in the Bill in such cases. An exception is made where an offender has not served a previous prison sentence. The first step into custody is always grave and should be considered with particular care.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to a quorum of Parole Board panels. We have made no final decision about that matter. We shall bear his comments in mind together with the argument that there should be three and not two. The noble Lord also referred to delegation to the parole board. My right honourable friend intends to delegate responsibility for the final parole decision to the parole board for all parole-eligible offenders serving sentences of four years but less than seven years. Only a small minority will be excluded; for instance deportees and compassionate releases. A delegation will not be restricted by any criteria.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to cuts in training and educational counsel funding. I recognise the difficulties to which the noble Baroness referred. Success in placing trainees in employment cannot be the only criteria for determining how employment training should be provided for ex-offenders. We continue to keep in touch with NACRO and the Department of Employment on those matters.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me specifically about bomb hoaxes. I agree with him in his condemnation of those who irresponsibly make hoax telephone calls. In the 24 hours following the Victoria and Paddington bombs, 84 hoax telephone calls were received and by the end of the following week there had been nearly 800. I can confirm to my noble friend that the Government are giving serious thought to what should be the maximum penalty for such behaviour. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be announcing our plans on this matter very soon.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft asked about the treatment for drug misusers. Schedule I makes it clear that courts have the power to require offenders who are given probation orders to undergo treatment for drug misuse. The treatment may be provided by any suitably qualified person, not only qualified medical practitioners. Therefore, that includes community treatment facilities, including, if appropriate, those provided by the private and voluntary sector. The funding of the treatment is a matter for the Department of Health and we are taking up with that department the implications of the Bill's provisions for the treatment of misusers.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to AIDS in prison and asked what we are doing about it. The prison service is aware of and sensitive to the problem

171
of AIDS. I assure my noble friend that her remarks will be drawn to the attention of the director of the Prison Medical Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the requirement for a social inquiry report or pre-sentencing report. He said that it may lead to delay. I give a firm assurance that the probation service will receive the resources necessary to do the job.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross referred to the parole scheme. I am glad that the chairman of the Parole Board and his colleagues have been actively involved in consultations on the new scheme. I hope that that will continue. I agree that sentence planning is critical to open reporting and the giving of reasons. The Government will give that priority. It will be important to ensure that there is consistency as regards recalls between the magistrates' courts and the parole board. That will be achieved by ensuring that the probation service is consistent in reporting breaches of licence.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the number of people expected to be in prison and asked whether the Government still stick to their figures. Any projection into the future can only be based on what happened in the past. The projection is that there will be fewer people in prison, but that does not take
172
account of the provisions of this Bill. The noble Earl will see in the Explanatory Memorandum how it is expected that the numbers will increase and decrease because of these provisions.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can the noble Earl say that more clearly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I said that the projections are that there will be fewer people in prison in future. However, that does not take into account the provisions of the Bill, which was the point made by the noble Earl. The projections are based on what happened in the past, and it is impossible to say what the future will hold. However, I assure him that it is anticipated that there will be fewer people in prison than was the case a short while ago.
I am conscious of the fact that I have taken up your Lordships' time in trying to answer some of the questions put to me. I hope that I shall not be considered cavalier if I have not answered all of them; that is merely to avoid detaining your Lordships any longer. I hope that in Committee there will not be an abundance of amendments but perhaps one or two.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  SOUTH AFRICA: NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL CAPABILITY
  SOUTH AFRICA: NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL CAPABILITY
  ZAIREAN ASYLUM SEEKERS: DETENTION
  ZAIREAN ASYLUM SEEKERS: DETENTION
  R&D REPORT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
  R&D REPORT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
  MIDDLEZOY: PROPOSED GYPSY SITE
  MIDDLEZOY: PROPOSED GYPSY SITE
  CAMBRIDGE: PARKING PERMITS AND THE COMMUNITY CHARGE
  CAMBRIDGE: PARKING PERMITS AND THE COMMUNITY CHARGE
  COLLIERY SPOIL DISPOSAL: EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK
  COLLIERY SPOIL DISPOSAL: EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK