Sitting of 18 March 1991

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

    Tourism
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate for the current year of the value of tourism to Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In 1989, the last year for which complete figures are available, Wales's earnings from tourism were around £1,500 million—an increase of some 25 per cent. on the previous year. It has also been estimated that the industry provides some 95,000 jobs in the Principality, approximately 9 per cent. of the total. There are, of course, other benefits—including the protection and enhancement of our culture, environment, and heritage. The tourism industry is, therefore, of considerable importance to, the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Gregory: I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the figures are most attractive, particularly bearing in mind the employment possibilities. Is the Wales tourist board co-operating with the private sector as much as possible to provide a true partnership between state and private sector? Bearing in mind the Gulf crisis, is the Wales
    2
    tourist board doing everything possible to regain the confidence of overseas tourists and encouraging them to visit Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Wales tourist board collaborates closely with the private sector, and has the use of section 4 grants amounting to some £3·2 million this year. It uses part of that money to support its local enterprise and development programme, which is part of a wider strategy over five years which is expected to generate £73 million of investment and to create 2,000 jobs. The programme is on course to achieve that target. I confirm that the Wales tourist board is working closely with the British Tourist Authority in seeking to attract visitors to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister join me in praising the cleanliness of the beaches of Gower, which the recently published National Rivers Authority report gives a clean bill of health in respect of last year's bathing season? In congratulating Swansea city council, the National Rivers Authority and everyone else on their efforts in ensuring the cleanliness of Gower beaches, can the Minister tell the people of Wales how he proposes to help them to pay the higher poll tax bills that bring that particular benefit?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Gower is a much-admired part of the country, and the hon. Gentleman is honoured to represent it. I am delighted to hear him sing the praises of Gower beaches. I would also praise the Llandudno beaches in my constituency. The proposals for bringing our beaches up to European standards of cleanliness fall within the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water. The hon. Gentleman will know that the population of Wales are also most anxious that Welsh beaches should meet the highest standards, so they should be able to contribute towards achieving that.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is to visit Bodelwyddan castle on 29 March for a recording of "Any Questions?" Will my hon. Friend the Minister remind our right hon. Friend of the importance

    3
    of that cultural landmark and of the inadvisability of premature steps being taken by Clwyd county council which might put in jeopardy the viability of that enterprise?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, have visited Bodelwyddan castle. It is indeed an attractive castle, with a superb exhibition of pictures from the national portrait gallery. It is the responsibility of the Labour-controlled Clwyd council and I understand that there has been some doubt about the future of the castle. It is a matter for that local authority to resolve.

    Hospital Reorganisation
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss hospital reorganisation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): My right hon. Friend currently has no such plans.
    Mr. Morgan: I take it from the hon. Member's comprehensive answer that he is aware of South Glamorgan district health authority's closure decisions, which were announced last week and were followed up by his visit to the Prince of Wales hospital in Rhydlafar in my constituency. Will he confirm that South Glamorgan district health authority has quietly dropped its plans for a third large district general hospital, without which none of the closure decisions announced last week makes any sense? Does he agree that it is putting the cart before the horse for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to confirm South Glamorgan's closure proposals? Will he agree to advise South Glamorgan district health authority to withdraw the six closure proposals that he has empowered it to carry out, as it no longer has the £70 million district general hospital—on which the whole plan depends?
    Mr. Bennett: The first thing to be said is that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has spent all his time misleading his constituents about the reorganisation proposals. I wish to put on record categorically that his statements in the newspaper Wales on Sunday in the past few weeks are completely untrue. The important thing to recall is that moving the children's ward at Rhydlafar to the Cardiff royal infirmary where there will be proper district general hospital facilities available is an improvement for the children of South Glamorgan. It is appalling that the hon. Member has spent so much time maligning the district health authority and completely misrepresenting what is to happen. Any proposals by the district health authority for its new district general hospital will be considered when it proposes them, but nothing in the reorganisation proposals is predicated on the new hospital; they are all being proposed because they are good moves to improve the provision of health services in South Glamorgan. Most of the improvements will mean new hospitals as opposed to old buildings which have outlived their usefulness.

    Training
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils in Wales to discuss the numbers of people requiring youth training places and the number of employment training places available in 1991–92.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I meet TEC chairman in Wales regularly and a few moments ago I was with Geoff Canning and Bob Hastie. My next formal meeting with all the TEC chairmen in Wales is on 7 May, when we shall discuss a wide range of issues, including the provision of training.
    Mr. Rowlands: I hope that the Secretary of State had a good lunch. Did the chairman of Mid Glamorgan TEC tell the right hon. Gentleman that one of the major training organisations in Merthyr Tydfil is turning young people away at the moment because it has no places, and that it will have to turn away Easter and summer school leavers because there are no places? They will either have to go further afield for training or just wait until places occur. Were we not supposed to be encouraging young people to train rather than slamming the doors on them?
    Mr. Hunt: The correct position is this. Total provision for training in Wales in 1991–92 is £151 million, after taking account of my recent announcement of an additional £8·41 million. That is slightly more than is likely to be spent this year and more than two thirds of that money will be directly available to training and enterprise councils in Wales to spend, which is more than they have to spend at the moment. However, it is up to the training and enterprise councils to settle their priorities.

    Open-heart Operations
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has regarding the number of open-heart operations for adults that is needed to be carried out for people in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We are presently developing cardiac services in Wales to reflect the advice of the Royal College of Physicians that about 560 to 660 operations per million population are required for adults.
    Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. His arithmetic will tell him straight away that, with a population of 2·5 million, Wales needs 1,200 adult open-heart operations every year, not the present abysmal figure of fewer than 700. As Wales has one of the highest rates of cardiac disease of any developed country in the world, will the Minister tell us when the promises that have been made since 1984 that the figure will be raised to 1,200 adult operations are to be kept, when the satellite unit which will perform 400 adult operations will be set up and where will it be sited?
    Mr. Bennett: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a negative view of this important subject. [Interruption.] It is a pity that Labour Members do not want to hear the facts. In the current financial year, there have been 140 more operations. The hon. Gentleman should remember that in 1979 there were no such operations. We have recognised the need for a second cardiac centre to perform some 400 operations a year.

    5
    Consideration is now being given to where it should be sited: it will be somewhere to the west of Cardiff, but there are competing claims from Swansea, Bridgend and elsewhere. We shall ensure that an announcement is made as soon as a proper decision can be reached, which will mean staffing with good consultants.
    The hon. Gentleman should also remember that the 1,200 operations to which he referred do not represent merely the total number of heart operations in Wales. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) should listen. His hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has asked a serious question and I am giving a serious answer. The total number of operations will not be just the 1,200 in Wales—[ Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rather a long answer.
    Mr. Bennett: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was a rather complicated question.
    Patients in north Wales who are now going to Merseyside and Manchester will continue to do so. The total for Wales will be more than 1,200, but some of the operations will be performed in English hospitals.
    Mr. Rogers: Despite the grave danger of being subjected to yet another party political broadcast, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of the referrals for open-heart surgery are from chest clinics, especially those scattered throughout the valleys, where there is a good deal of residual ill health caused by mining? The chest clinics are still desperately needed, despite the substantial rundown of the mining industry that has taken place under the present Government.
    In the light of that, what does the Minister think of Mid Glamorgan health authority's arbitrary decision to close the chest clinic in Pontypridd without any consultation with the community health council, Members of Parliament or anyone else who might have an interest? Given that 60 per cent. of patients at the Pontypridd chest clinic come from the Rhondda, I am very much alarmed by the methods adopted by the new type of health authority and the failure to consult anyone.
    Mr. Bennett: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not heard about this morning's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about improvements to the health service in the valleys. A further £5·65 million is to be provided and 13 more projects will be helped. All of that will help the people of the valleys to improve their health service.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the increase in unemployed 16 to 18-year-olds and males and females over 18 years has been since he last answered oral questions.
    Mr. David Hunt: As the figures are collected quarterly, no new figures are yet available.
    Mr. Powell: I hope that I shall be given the same latitude as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).
    Mr. Speaker: No—please.
    Mr. Powell: As we do not have the figures, it is important that we get the facts right. I will give the Secretary of State my estimate. In my constituency, about 200 people will join the unemployment register as a result of the closure of CATO—Community Activities and Training in Ogmore. When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils, as he has told my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that he will, will he ask them to carry out an investigation of the financial circumstances of Mid Glamorgan TEC in particular? I understand that, among all the millions of pounds to which the Secretary of State has referred, about £1 million has gone astray in Mid Glamorgan TEC alone. That could have kept in operation the five agencies which have been made redundant since they were set up, and provided training for 400 or 500 trainees.
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that the development of training and enterprise councils has been generally welcomed by the House. I also believe that they have sufficient resources. It is for the TECs to determine their financial and management decisions, including the selection of training providers. The TECs have made it clear that the contracts that are signed must satisfy the quality standards criteria. This is a matter for the training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Livsey: What advice would the Secretary of State give to one of my constituents, aged 18, who completed a two-year course and then discovered that he was applying with 81 others for a job? He failed to get it, although he was well qualified. Would the Secretary of State say to that young person, as was said to me when I was aged 18, that his only opportunity lies outside Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman's question gives me a great opportunity to blow the Welsh Office's trumpet and say that 17 new industrial projects, involving investment of more than £63 million and creating more than 1,260 jobs, have been announced by me from this Dispatch Box in the past month. The opportunities available are increasing. A number of very large industrial concerns, including Toyota and Bosch, are recruiting staff. I am determined that the number of opportunities will increase.
    Mr. Raffan: In view of the recent announcement of a total of 400 new jobs in north Wales—at W. A. Turner in Flint, Breger Gibson in Greenfield and Mita in St. Asaph—does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates not only the underlying strength of the local economy in north Wales but the job opportunities for young people there?
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to demonstrate that all those announcements are positive proof that Wales, and particularly north Wales, continues to act as a magnet for industrial investment from both home and abroad. Some Opposition Members do not like good news, but this is very good news for Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate the Department on any of its success stories, but they are being undermined by the current deep recession. Has the Secretary of State overlooked last week's loss in Pontypridd of 125 valuable electronics jobs? The Conservatives tell us that they have solved Wales's problems and engineered an economic

    7
    miracle, but do not the unemployment figures tell a different story? For example, has not unemployment in Neath increased by 12 per cent. during the last year? Was not the right hon. Gentleman's press statement in Neath this morning a grotesque travesty of the facts?
    Mr. Hunt: I am a little mystified as to why the hon. Gentleman should mention Neath, of all places. I should hate to think that he was trying to make party political advantage out of the very serious challenge that faces Wales. Since 1979, there have been a large number of inward investment projects in Neath, creating 1,200 jobs. To rehearse what I said earlier, the medium to longer-term prospects for Wales are still as good as ever.

    Overseas Companies
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inquiries the Welsh Office have answered during the current financial year from overseas companies interested in developing new manufacturing jobs in (a) Gwynedd and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am delighted to be able to say that in the current financial year there have, to date, been 189 visits to Wales by potential inward investors. Increasing interest is being shown in investment in Gwynedd and, indeed, throughout Wales.
    I am particularly delighted to be able to announce today that Euro/DPC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Los Angeles-based Diagnositc Projects Corporation, is to relocate to Gwynedd with an investment of nearly £10 million at Llanberis, which will create 200 jobs. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his help in securing that marvellous inward investment project.
    Mr. Wigley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and thank him for his positive commitment to the project. I also thank the Welsh Office, which rapily expedited these matters, the Welsh Development Agency and Gwynedd county council for the role that they played. In particular I thank Arfon borough council, whose ability to attract inward investment was exemplary. Does the Secretary of State agree that for a leading American company to have chosen Gwynedd as its European base for this major project gives the lie to those who—say[Interruption.]—that inward investment will not come to counties such as Gwynedd? Does he also agree that it is the prelude to a much happier future, with more industrial investment and more jobs?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was outrageous of Labour Members to shout "Tory friend", as though this good news were bad news for the Labour party. In fact, it is indeed bad news for the Labour party. It gives a marvellous boost to the economy of north Wales and will further help to stem the tide of bright young Welsh men and women who, traditionally, have left the area to find opportunities elsewhere. An industry at the leading edge of technology has chosen to locate in an area where the Welsh language and traditions thrive. I am sure that that decision will be seen as a milestone in the economic development of Gwynedd.
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that flat production and pay and earnings increases of 9 or 10 per cent. are bound to result in falling employment and to lessen the attractiveness of Wales to inward investors? As
    8
    the cost of living has barely risen in the past six months, those rises are quite unnecessary to counter the rise in the cost of living.
    Mr. Hunt: I agree that high wage rises are a disincentive. None the less, I am able to announce the creation of further jobs at Swansea enterprise park, where a Japanese company, Shimano UK, is establishing the European headquarters of its fishing equipment division. Another Japanese company, Aiwa UK, will invest nearly £4 million in extending operations at its factory near Crumlin in Gwent, and Therapeutic Antibodies Incorporated of Nashville, Tennessee is to establish a biological manufacturing facility in Dyfed, with financial support from the Welsh Office. I cannot hear cheers from Labour Members, but I can hear them from elsewhere in the House.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Our inward investment record is very good, and the right hon. Gentleman's news on Gwynedd will help the county very much. Given last Thursday's news that unemployment last month was the highest since June 1981, does the Secretary of State accept that the Welsh economy is suffering from the same political incompetence, mismanagement and dithering that we saw from the right hon. Gentleman on the poll tax? Does he agree that we need a budget for investment, and is he aware that according to the latest available figures there has been a cut of almost 60 per cent. in full-time manufacturing jobs in the Neath and Port Talbot area in the past 10 years? The right hon. Gentleman's press release in Neath this morning was a travesty of the facts and he should be ashamed of it.
    Mr. Hunt: I have a horrible feeling that the hon. Gentleman wrote that before he was aware of the contents of my announcement. Since our previous Welsh Question Time, I have been able to announce 17 projects supported by the Welsh Office involving investment of more than £63 million and creating more than 1,260 new jobs. I was delighted to give regional selective assistance of more than £10 million towards those new job opportunities. Although I greatly regret any increase in unemployment, that is why I say that the medium to longer-term prospects for Wales are still as good as ever and the Labour party should stop talking our country down.

    NHS Resources
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to provide additional resources to the NHS in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Planned expenditure has been increased to £1,719 million in 1991–92 which, with expected cost improvements and income generation schemes, will provide an increase of 13 per cent. over the original provision in this financial year. Additional resources will be made available for review bodies' pay awards.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has a comparison been made between the rise in inflation in the health service and in inflation generally? How much extra money is required for the growing care of all our people? Does the Minister agree that, despite the welcome increases in funding, waiting lists in many areas are still increasing? Will he call in the capital

    9
    programme of Mid Glamorgan health authority to reconsider the need to develop phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital at Bridgend, as promised six years ago?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures. He will find that, between 1974 and 1979, there was a 9·3 per cent. increase in real terms. That has been far exceeded under the present Government, who have increased expenditure by 55·7 per cent. in real terms.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to waiting lists. I, too, have looked at the matter carefully. Waiting times are as important as waiting lists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, with an increase in the elderly population and a larger number of patients being seen, there will be further demands on the service. I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of in-patients as a percentage of total throughput has fallen from 10·9 to 10 per cent. in the past 15 years. For acute sector patients, the figure is down from 13·7 to 12·8 per cent.
    There is an improvement, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the fact that more people are being seen makes it difficult to tackle the problem of waiting lists, but we are trying to do that through the waiting lists initiative and the regional centres.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in rail services in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail. They last met on 8 February.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that British Rail cannot at present spare the £2 million needed to upgrade the north Wales line so that it can take trains travelling at 90 mph, which will be necessary if we are to gain the maximum benefit from the introduction of 125s on 30 September? Will my hon. Friend press the Treasury to provide that relatively small sum, and ask British Rail in return to stop the 125s at Prestatyn rather than Lichfield?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: That is a matter for British Rail and I know that BR is anxious to upgrade the track along the north Wales coast. My hon. Friend will be aware that British Rail has chosen to invest £10 million in additional and improved stock, and that will improve the service. We shall have three high-speed 125 InterCity trains running from Holyhead to London. We shall also have the 158s operating on that line. In all, we shall have 12 trains running to London as opposed to the 10 that we have now.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Has the Minister read the excellent report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on Cardiff-Wales airport—in particular the recommendations on a rail link for the area, to bring the airport into line with all the premier regional airports in the country? Will the Minister now take whatever steps are necessary to provide such a link—especially as we could do it at such little cost?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am certainly aware of the Select Committee's recommendation. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter before, but it is for
    10
    Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council to discuss the project with British Rail and agree it or otherwise but, so far, the body has not decided to go forward with it.

    Welsh National Opera
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the board and management of Welsh National Opera to discuss their financial and artistic plans.
    Mr. David Hunt: I look forward to my next meeting with the management of the Welsh National Opera. Wales owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to that centre of excellence. I was therefore pleased to be able to find £842,000 to put the company on a secure financial footing. I was also pleased that the Arts Council decided to increase the company's touring grant.
    Mr. Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his remarkable generosity towards this jewel in our artistic crown. May I put it to him that the WNO plays no small part in helping to secure inward investment, and urge him to lose no opportunity to take advantage of that?
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more. I had the privilege and honour to be present in Tokyo at the closing performance of the Welsh National Opera. A very large number—
    Mr. Barry Jones: Encore!
    Mr. Hunt: I will give an encore if the hon. Gentleman wishes. At that performance, a large number of Japanese business men were tremendously impressed by Welsh quality. The Welsh National Opera has put Wales on the world map as representing quality.

    Tourism
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the development of the Welsh tourism industry.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Welsh tourism industry has made very considerable progress in recent years. Better marketing and provision of the infrastructure essential to tourism development have undoubtedly improved the quality of our tourism product. For this I must give credit to the roles of the Wales tourist board, the development agencies, local authorities and of course the private sector, which is the main engine of wealth and job creation.
    Mr. Coombs: I invite my hon. Friend to join me in emphasising the importance of tourism in rural Wales. Does he agree that a significant feature of the rural tourism industry in Wales is the availability of section 4 grants long after they have been done away with in England? How much is being spent in the current year on section 4 grants? Can he assure the House that those grants will continue to be available throughout Wales in future?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to state that section 4 grants are important to Wales. We are spending £3·2 million on them this year through the Wales tourist board. As I said earlier, the grants are essential to the development strategy of the Wales tourist board, which ends in 1994. I am aware that my hon. Friend was a member of the Employment Select

    11
    Committee which took a view on section 4 grants. However, I believe that tourism projects in England are legiible for regional selective assistance and grants from other sources.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister accept that the development of the tourist industry depends on efficient train services, particularly into north Wales? Will he impress two things on British Rail? First, there should be no back-up buses should trains be full in the summer when reorganisation comes—instead, there should be adequate rolling stock for all services in north Wales. Secondly, north Wales needs a third high-speed train set to provide the standard of service that we have at the moment. I hope that the Minister recognises that the proposed two sets will provide the boat train services and that there will be only one service in each direction between north Wales and Euston as a result of the proposed reorganisation.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am impressed by the fact that British Rail is only too anxious to meet demand. It lays considerable stress on demand. The new timetable and new rolling stock which it will provide for the service to north Wales will obviously have to be justified by its use. I do not hesitate to say that if the services that British Rail is to provide prove that it is meeting a market need and that further developments in the service are required, I am sure that British Rail will consider that.

    Self-employment
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of persons self-employed in Wales at the latest available date; and what it was in 1979.
    Mr. David Hunt: The latest available figures show that there are 184,000 self-employed people in Wales. When compared with the figure in 1979, that represents an increase of 50 per cent.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: That is excellent news. Does not it give the lie to the notion that the Welsh are not good at setting up businesses? Is not it a great tribute to this Government? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the rather churlish reception given to this and other good news by the Opposition suggests that they are a little nervous and that, whoever wins the Neath by-election, it probably will not be the Labour candidate?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree. The figures are a tremendous tribute to entrepreneurs in Wales. The real issue in Neath is whether the electors of Neath want to continue through the 1990s under the progressive policies of this Prime Minister or return to the failed socialist policies of the 1960s and 1970s.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the impact of the community charge in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Several.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Secretary of State, as one of the Ministers heavily implicated in the introduction of the poll tax, now admit that it was an awful mistake? If, following their review of the poll tax, the Government announce on
    12
    Thursday that they have decided on its abolition, can the Secretary of State confirm the view of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—that the process will take three years? Can the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Speaker: Enough.
    Mr. Hunt: I think that that was indeed enough, Mr. Speaker.
    I would have more time to consider the hon. Gentleman's views if he followed the example of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats and came to see me. My invitation to the Labour party is still open. We are conducting a fundamental review of the community charge and we shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are not prepared to accept the Liberal Democrats' proposal—that there should be a local income tax? Such a tax works perfectly well in many countries in Europe and it would work well in Wales.
    Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends for coming to see me and presenting detailed proposals. No final decisions have been made; we are still carefully considering the proposals. However, I still await detailed costed proposals from the Labour party. Indeed, that party has not provided any proposals and I do not believe that it is in a position to do SO.
    Mr. Murphy: As he mentioned costs, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, so far, as Secretary of State for Wales, he has spent £10 million to set the poll tax up, £20 million to administer it and £80 million to sweeten it? Is not it true that he might as well have dumped more than £100 million in the Bristol channel? Can he confirm that, this morning, he said that the poll tax, in some form, will continue in Wales, no matter what the Prime Minister wants for the rest of the country?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information. I have been very careful not to preview the results of the review, which will be announced in due course. What really has cost the United Kindom dear is the overspending of Labour councils—particularly councils in England. The message from local elections this year will be, "Conservative councils cost you less and give you better services."

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    House of Fraser
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received concerning the implications of the House of Fraser report for the work of the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider publishing a simple guide for business men? There is a certain amount of confusion in the business community that the Al-Fayeds, despite having been accused in the House of Fraser report of repeatedly lying,

    13
    deceiving and defrauding, retain a banking licence as well as their positions as company directors. Is not this the kind of injustice that simply will not go away?
    The Attorney-General: I greatly sympathise with my hon. Friend in his desire for simple guides. If I were in the business of publishing guides, I should hope, without too much confidence that I could make them simple. The code for Crown prosecutors is the only guide for which I am responsible. That code establishes that before criminal proceedings are brought, there must be a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Criminal proceedings have to be based on evidence that is admissible in criminal courts, as distinct from evidence such as is available to Department of Trade and Industry inspectors. The spectrum for a criminal court is more narrow. As for the Banking Acts, the Bank of England is the regulating authority. There is nothing that I can say about that. With regard to the disqualification of directors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, decided not to operate the sanctions under section 8 and disqualify. That decision is now the subject of judicial review proceedings and is therefore sub judice.

    Anti-Semitic Literature
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General when he last authorised any prosecution for the publication of anti-Semitic literature.
    The Attorney-General: On 23 Febraury I gave my consent to the prosecution of Jane Lady Birdwood for offences under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to the leaflets "The Ultimate Blasphemy", "Jewish Tributes to our Child Martyrs", "The Snides of March" and "Another Blood Libel or Ritual Murder".
    Mr. Marshall: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether that is the only prosecution for anti-Semitic behaviour that he has brought in recent months? Does he accept that many people look forward to the successful prosecution of such disgraceful hatred and trade in bigotry and racism?
    The Attorney-General: I know what a close interest my hon. Friend takes in this matter. In the past I have described that kind of literature as odious and, of course, the whole House agrees with that. In recent months I authorised the prosecution of two other cases. Fourteen cases have been reported to me and are being considered by the police. That probably answers my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Cohen: Notwithstanding that one proposed prosecution, has the Attorney-General's Department blocked other proposed prosecutions that have been put to him in the past by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis? Do the proposed prosecution and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer suggest a change in his policy and that he will look more favourably on prosecuting those who are guilty of distributing anti-Semitic publications?
    The Attorney-General: There is no question of a change in policy. The matter is governed by the code for Crown prosecutors, to which I have already referred. Nor is there any question that any prosecution has been blocked. In
    14
    recent years, no decision not to prosecute has been taken on public interest grounds—such a decision has always been made on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. As for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the hon. Gentleman may or may not have seen a letter from Sir John Dellow, the acting commissioner, a few weeks ago in which he said that he knew that all cases referred to the Crown prosecution service were given full and proper consideration and decisions were taken on entirely proper grounds.
    Sir John Stokes: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether there have been any prosecutions for anti-English publications?
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir. Because—I do not know whether I should say "because", but I remind my hon. Friend that prosecutions under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 relate to publications which are designed, intended or likely to stir up racial hatred and which are threatening, abusive or insulting in their character.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer of 25 February, Official Report, column 640, if he will give further consideration to the degree to which the use of napalm on civilian targets conforms to the principle of proportionality outlined in his oral answer of 4 February, Official Report, columns 14–15.
    The Attorney-General: My answer of 4 February related to operations in the Gulf. There is no question of napalm having been used against civilians. Napalm was not available to British forces at all. The Americans have stated that napalm was used by their forces only against Iraqi trenches that had been filled with oil.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the horrendous events that have been unleashed in Kerbala, Basra and other cities, and as someone must have sold those most sophisticated weapons knowing exactly what they were up to, should not more attention be given to the ratification of the relevant protocol?
    The Attorney-General: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety on that score. He will have seen the reply that was given on 14 March by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in which he said that the Government are considering whether to ratify the convention that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We have signed it, but it has not yet been ratified. That is as far as the matter can be taken, at any rate by me today.
    Mr. Fraser: When the Attorney-General advises on compliance with international obligations in the Gulf, will he have regard to some disturbing reports on BBC Radio 4 this morning and ensure that the Kuwaiti Government and other Governments are reminded of their obligations under the international conventions on refugees and the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the Geneva conventions, and the duty of common humanity which must be owed to people who have been resident peacefully in those countries for many years?
    The Attorney-General: I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's question is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and

    15
    Commonwealth Affairs. It is of the highest importance—the Government insisted on this throughout the events that have taken place since August—that international law should be upheld. Kuwait, along with ourselves, Iraq, the United States and many other countries are signatories to the Geneva convention. I understand what is behind the hon. Gentleman's question and I agree that it is very important.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If any individuals, particularly in Iraq, who may be guilty of what appears to be a war crime in using napalm against their own civilian population come within the jurisdiction of British courts, could we take action against them? If the Government cannot take action, have they any plans to bring those people within our jurisdiction?
    The Attorney-General: It is a criminal offence, under our legislation, to commit such a "grave breach" of the Geneva convention. As for liability for war crimes, the Security Council has reminded Iraq of its liability. Whether arrangements are made for the prosecution of war crimes does not rest with this country alone but must be decided in consultation with our allies.

    Courts (Taxing)
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Attorney-General whether a decision has been made on the reorganisation of the taxing function of courts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): New arrangements common to all six circuits in England and Wales provide that, as from 4 March this year, the very largest claims for costs in criminal cases will be referred to specialist taxing teams with particular expertise in determining such claims. In other respects, the taxing function of the courts, covering the vast majority of cases, remains unchanged.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the concern felt in Wales that those taxing services may be moved from Cardiff and other centres in Wales to Bristol in the south and Manchester in the north? Will he assure us that, if there is a move in that direction, it will not be seen as the thin end of the wedge, leading to the dismantling of the structure in the Wales and Chester circuit, and that the future is guaranteed?
    The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I assure him that all that is planned is that those special cases that involve the largest costs and require specialist teams will be dealt with by specialist teams. There is no question of abolishing the Wales and Chester circuit.

    City Fraud
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the mechanism for the prosecution of fraud relating to the City of London; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: On 6 March I made an extended visit to the Serious Fraud Office, whose director I frequently meet. The professionalism and commitment among staff of all disciplines and at all levels impressed me greatly. So did the innovative approach adopted by the
    16
    SFO to the use of new technology, both in case management and in court presentation. From the legislation of a Conservative Government, I am glad to say that we now have in place a far more formidable and effective mechanism for the prosecution of serious and complex fraud than anything that our predecessors evidently thought sufficient.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Attorney-General tell us whether that new mechanism will be sufficient to deal with that national organisation near to the City of London and close to the Palace of Westminster, which has been trading under three different names during the past four years? Is he aware that it has been attempting a reverse takeover bid of one major corporation and a Labour co-operative, and that a statement was made at the weekend by a leader of that group who, when he was under pressure, become known as Paddy Backdown?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time memorising that question but he has not made it entirely clear to me. Any matter that is brought before the police or the Serious Fraud Office as meriting investigation will be investigated. If enough evidence is admissible in a criminal court proceeding to give rise to the realistic prospect of a conviction, a prosecution will follow. However, I doubt whether my answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman—that will depend on many factors that cannot be taken into account by a quasi-judicial authority.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Famine
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra emergency relief is being given to alleviate the famine in Africa, over the amount planned at the beginning of the financial year.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As I explained in a written answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 6 February, at columns 146–47, the initial provision for humanitarian assistance made at the beginning of the current financial year was £66·7 million. That provision is now £74 million. No separate allocation is made for Africa.
    Mrs. Mahon: Given the scale of the disaster facing the people of sub-Saharan Africa, where 27 million face starvation, was not that a complacent reply, and should not the Minister be trying to initiate a coalition of nations to make that disaster the national emergency that it should be? Could not we start by having a full-scale debate in the House of Commons? The public have responded magnificently this weekend; cannot the Government do the same?
    Mrs. Chalker: Many right hon. and hon. Members—even Opposition Members—recognise that the British Government went out of their way, at a diplomatic level, to encourage all the main donors to do more. Britain alone cannot end the famine in Africa and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise. We have received some helpful responses, but we are continuing the pressure on all the European Community's member states, the United States,

    17
    Canada, Australia and other donors to ensure that not only the British public respond—they did so magnificently through Comic Relief—but that other donors do their bit.
    Mr. Wells: In view of my right hon. Friend's great generosity in dealing with the African famine, the refugees caused by the Gulf war and eastern European matters, is not it time, in accordance with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on famine in Africa, to ask the Treasury for more money to boost the amount available for overseas aid in the coming year?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I expect the humanitarian aid provision for the next financial year at least to match the current financial commitment. Last Thursday I was able to approve further allocations of food aid for Ethiopia. They constituted, last week alone, 6,500 tonnes for the world food programme, worth £1 million, and 1,300 tonnes for Oxfam's programme in the Ogaden, totalling another £1·25 million.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister attempts to confuse the House with her selection of figures. Does she remember, when referring to the Ethiopian famine of 1985, saying to the House last December:
    "We shall certainly at least match what we did that year."—[Official Report, 19 December 1990, Vol. 183, c. 291.]
    That would mean giving £36 million in today's prices—so far the Government have given £27 million since the famine was first talked about in September. When does she intend to honour that pledge? Perhaps she will tell the House today. Why are Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, the Disasters Emergency Committee and many other agencies desperately advertising in the newspapers for more help? When will the Government stop being so miserly and save the millions of people now dying from famine in Africa?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady seems to believe that Britain should do it all—I cannot agree with her. While the information has been coining in I have responded, not to some but to all appeals that the British Government have received, be it from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the world food programme or other agencies. I have received letters from agencies stating that they never received such a response. We shall go on responding, and I am not prepared to accept the hon. Lady's tired and empty allegations. Of course, charities are rightly making appeals—I back them fully and shall continue to do so.

    Somalia
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for humanitarian and development aid to Somalia.
    Mrs. Chanter: Conditions inside Somalia make the delivery of any form of aid extremely difficult. I have no plans at present to reinstate our development aid programme. I am ready to consider providing humanitarian aid directly once needs are defined and delivery can be assured. I have already provided emergency aid to Somali refugees who have fled from the current unrest.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has a special interest in the well-being of the people of the north of Somalia because of our past relationship with British Somaliland and because of the number of Isak
    18
    communities that there are here, including in my constituency? Will she take steps to go beyond what she has already achieved—she has given aid to people in Ethiopian refugee camps and helped the small water projects in the south—by bringing, through nongovernmental organisations, some sort of humanitarian aid to the north, which is a desperate district that has not so far been helped by the Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am very much aware of what my hon. Friend has said. The Somali National Movement controlled the north. Unfortunately, the United Somali Congress-appointed president in the interim Government in Mogadishu lacked the nationwide support that is much needed. The northern clans have now set up a separate administration. We do not know whether we shall be able to get even humanitarian aid into those areas, but we are waiting to hear from non-governmental organisations and from the UNHCR missions that have gone there. As the Somali refugees continue to cross the border into Ethiopia, I am today announcing another £430,000 to be given to the UNHCR to help.
    Ms. Abbott: Is it true that while 27 million people in Africa face starvation—including those in Somalia—the European Economic Community is diverting aid from the third world to eastern Europe? If so, do the Government support that?
    Mrs. Chalker: The EC has put up front the money that it has committed to Africa. It is not diverting funds as far as I know and we should certainly not support it if it were.

    Caribbean
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her visit to the Caribbean.
    Mrs. Chalker: I had wide-ranging discussions with the Prime Ministers of Barbados, Grenada, Dominica and St. Vincent and their Ministers and senior officials. I was very impressed with our projects and those of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and other agencies. The high commission and development division are working well in each island.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for that answer. Were the various countries concerned with the state of the Single European Act and with the implications of the European Community on their trade? If there is no access to their goods, there may be further pressure on the aid agencies in this country to assist them. Do we have any common ground with the French?
    Mrs. Chalker: I discussed the possibility of diversified agricultural production with each island and especially with Miss Charles, the Prime Minister of Dominica. We are helping the islands through current projects to maximise opportunities for export earnings as well as encouraging the European Community to deal properly with the bananas after 1992. The United Kingdom is committed to effective preferential access arrangements for our traditional suppliers. We have already put a paper to the Commission, but the paper proposed by the French

    19
    seems not to offer what the Caribbean banana producers need and it would involve a substantial levy, which we do not believe is the way forward.

    Cambodia
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government are giving to help the people of Cambodia with humanitarian needs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: In the past 12 years we have provided nearly £15 million for Cambodian refugees on the Thai border. Since 1989 we have also committed over £2 million for humanitarian assistance in Cambodia via British non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies. We are ready to consider further requests for help.
    Mr. O'Brien: I noted the right hon. Lady's reply, but what assistance can be given to those people who are suffering in the border camps because of the lack of fresh water supplies, which is the greatest killer of children in that area? As those people have been suffering because of war for the past 49 years, is not there something more that the Government can do to ease the situation in the border camps, especially with regard to fresh water supplies?
    Mrs. Chalker: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says about the supply of fresh water. We cannot act directly in the border camps, but we can, we have and we shall continue to act through the United Nations border relief organisation to try to bring relief to those people. It is not easy, but we shall continue to try. We also hope that some projects will come from the Mekong committee involving the provision of clean water in other parts of Cambodia. I should welcome that if we received the proposals.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the 17 motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Caravan Sites and Pitches (Rateble Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  Point of Order
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This gesture that we are being asked to enact has been presented by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Speaker: The Bill?
  Mr. Marlow: This gesture here, the War Crimes Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: We have not reached the Bill yet.
  Mr. Marlow: It has been presented by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and is supported by a Mr. Secretary Hurst. He is a non-existent Minister—a phantom Secretary of State. One can understand why
  22
  ordinary flesh-and-blood Ministers may be reluctant to support such a measure, but is it in order for the House to debate legislation that has so obviously been printed by a poltergeist?
  Mr. Speaker: My copy says "Mr. Secretary Hurd".
  Mr. Marlow: On my copy, it says "Mr. Secretary Hurd"—and that is correct—
  "Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hurst",
  and so on. I have looked carefully at the list of Members of this House and of the other place, and I cannot find a Mr. Secretary Hurst. Perhaps there is a Secretary of State who is in neither House.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it is a misprint for "Hunt". I will ensure that it is corrected.

Orders of the Day

  War Crimes Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and his hon. Friends. However, the arguments that they have advanced in the amendment may be raised in the course of the debate.
  I intend today to give some precedence to the hon. Members who were not called on 19 March last year—not total precedence, but some precedence. In view of the many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm.
  3.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill needs little introduction to this House. It is the same Bill which was considered and emphatically endorsed by this House last Session, and hon. Members will be familiar with the circumstances which led to its subsequent defeat. I should like to remind the House of the background to the measure and why the Government have decided to bring it back for further parliamentary consideration.
  In February 1988 the then Home Secretary decided to establish an inquiry to consider the allegations that were then circulating to the effect that some perpetrators of war crimes committed during the period of the second world war had taken refuge in this country. The inquiry's task was to consider what substance there might be to those allegations, to assess the strength of the evidence that might be brought before a court of trial, and to recommend whether the law should be changed to establish jurisdiction over those cases.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Can he estimate the average age of those who may be proceeded against if the Bill is successful? Also, has he been given an account of the number of such persons resident in Scotland?
  Mr. Baker: The inquiry covered those points. In the second part of the inquiry, which has not been published for the obvious reason that it would not be right to publish it because it contained allegations against certain people, there was reference to the numbers involved. The inquiry looked into just over 300 cases. Of those, it recommended that 75 should be accorded further investigation. The inquiry then came to the conclusion that there were three individuals against whom evidence to mount a prosecution existed and another three cases were considered to merit further detailed investigation.
  The House will recall that the inquiry reported in June 1989. Its findings may have surprised some people, for it concluded that among the very many innocent and decent people who had taken refuge in this country at the end of the war there might have been some who had committed the most terrible crimes. In respect of a few of the cases
  24
  that the inquiry was able to consider in detail, it considered that there was already sufficient evidence available to mount a criminal prosecution. The inquiry satisfied itself that the actions in question were in clear breach of international law as it stood at the time when they were committed. That was important if any new jurisdiction were not to be retrospective. But with that important point having been established, the inquiry concluded that the courts in this country should be given jurisdiction in respect of the offences in question even though the offences took place almost 50 years ago, and in other countries.
  The Government decided that Parliament should be given an opportunity to express a view on the inquiry's report. Debates were accordingly held in the two Houses of Parliament in the autumn of 1989, with this House indicating on a free vote its decisive support for the principle of legislation by 348 votes to 123. To implement that decision, the Bill was introduced on 8 March 1990, when the Bill was passed by 273 votes to 60 on a free vote.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: In a moment. Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way now.
  Though a short Bill, it was extensively considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and was sent unamended to another place. There the Bill was refused Second Reading on 4 June, by 207 votes to 74.
  The Government obviously needed to reflect upon the arguments which had been advanced and the votes which had been cast—not only in the other place, but also in this House. Clearly this issue is a matter principally for individual conscience.
  Two considerations weighed heavily with the Government, and I should now like to outline them to the House.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  One was the decisiveness of the Commons vote. I do not believe that it would be right to ignore the clearly expressed view of the elected Chamber. There must be an opportunity for these issues to be considered again, to see how far views have modified or changed over the months since the Bill was last considered, and whether any accommodation between the two Houses may now be possible. That was the first consideration. Views may well have changed. Tonight's vote will show whether that is the case.
  The second consideration was the Bill's particular subject matter, and the nature of the evidence disclosed by the inquiry. The inquiry's published report tells a chilling story of cold-blooded murder on a horrendous scale—killings not committed in the heat of battle, but of civilian populations in circumstances that had no possible connection with military objectives. The inquiry also showed that there is evidence of some of the perpetrators of these crimes actually living in this country. The inquiry argued that our courts should have jurisdiction over such offences, in circumstances where extradition to the scene of the crime is impossible for whatever reasons, and the Government agree with that conclusion. What we are doing is to allow the courts to consider the available

  25
  evidence, and to decide for themselves on the question of guilt or innocence. That is a jurisdiction which the Government believe should exist in this country.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He says that inquiries have come to the conclusion that we ought to look at these issues—and they are very important issues and terrible things have been done; there is no doubt about that. But why does the Bill restrict itself to 1939–45? Why does it restrict itself to parts of the world that were part of Germany or under German occupation? Why can it not be extended, for example, to Japan or land under Japanese occupation? Why can it not be extended on a more general basis, for example, to Palestine after the war? Why is it restricted? One has the feeling at the back of one's mind that we have been heavily mugged in this House by some strong lobby. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that that is not the case?
  Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. There are several reasons why the Bill does not cover, for example, Japanese war crimes. First, they were outside the inquiry's terms of reference and, as my hon. Friend has said, would similarly fall outside the terms of the Bill because there is no evidence to suggest that any Japanese war criminals have entered the United Kingdom. Many hundreds of allegations were sent to the war crimes inquiry, but none claimed that a Japanese war criminal was now living in this country.
  Mr. Grocott: The Home Secretary said that one consideration would be whether tonight's vote showed that opinion had changed since the Bill was last debated in the House. Can he give us an absolute assurance that there will be no tortuous analysis of tonight's vote if the majority is different? Does he agree that the only thing that matters is whether the House reaffirms its previous decision and that, if it does so, it will be absolutely clear that the will of the House is that the Bill should become law?
  Mr. Baker: On issues such as this I trust to the judgment of the House of Commons. There are certain big issues. This is a big issue; I do not underestimate its importance. At the end of the day, each Member of the House of Commons, irrespective of party, must make up his or her mind about the Bill. I am absolutely clear about one thing. People hold strong views on both sides of the argument. Those who believe that these matters should be pursued believe that it is essential that possible criminals are brought to justice. Others feel that the events happened a long time ago, that they concern another jurisdiction and that we should let bygones be bygones, for a variety of reasons. I know how strongly those views are held. But I place my confidence in the judgment of the House of Commons tonight. There will not be a great analysis of the Division list or anything of that sort. I hope that the House will come to a clear decision tonight.
  Mr. Gorst: Before my right hon. Friend leaves his second point, may I ask him whether he agrees that allied to it is the consideration that if we do not pass the Bill there will be a danger of trial by media? Although no member of the all-party war crimes committee is aware of the names of the three main suspects, those names are known and, under parliamentary privilege, they could be made known. In that case, the most almighty trial by media could take place. That is so odious to consider that it is undesirable that it should take place.
  Mr. Baker: If any hon. Members know the names of any of those who are alleged to have committed war crimes, I hope that they will not mention those names in the House today. That would be very unfair indeed. A trial of that sort would be the worst condemnation because it would be done under privilege and those accused would not have the right to reply. I agree with my hon. Friend that the way in which these matters can be cleared up is by extending the jurisdiction and holding trials.
  For the two reasons that I gave, the Government concluded that these issues should be brought back before Parliament, and they made that clear in the Queen's Speech. Since that decision was announced, we have made clear our hope that Parliament would reach an agreed position on the Bill. Our hope is that on further consideration the Bill will be found acceptable in another place, and that it will be allowed to pass into law. Nevertheless, we recognise that some have expressed anxiety about the way in which the legislation will work in practice, and how far it will be possible to guarantee the fairness of any trials which ensue.
  The arrangements in the Bill as drafted ensure fairness through measures such as the removal of the committal proceedings, the right of the accused to appeal to a court to have the trial set aside, and the power of the Attorney-General to agree before a prosecution is brought. But the other place may wish to make amendments. It may wish to strengthen the Bill further in that regard. If the Bill is amended in another place, the House will, of course, have the opportunity to consider the impact of any changes or amendments made and how far they are acceptable within the overall scheme of the legislation.
  The Government hope that the Bill will be allowed to pass with the agreement of both Houses, whether in the form before the House today or amended in a mutually acceptable way in another place. But the difference of view between the Houses may remain irreconcilable. I read the debate in the House of Lords. It was a distinguished debate. In a way it crystallised the strong feelings that divide people. Some Members of the other place who are Jews and had family connected with the matter urged the House not to pass the Bill. Other Members who are Jews urged the House to pass the Bill. Opinion is deeply divided.
  The House will be aware that the provisions of the Parliament Acts exist to ensure that the views of the elected Chamber ultimately prevail over the other House, in cases where no accommodation can be found. I very much hope that resort to those powers will not be necessary. To preserve the possibility of using those powers, it is necessary to send the Bill back to another place in the form that it was in on the previous occasion. That is why the Bill before the House is unamended from last time, and why it cannot be subject to any amendments during its reconsideration by this House.
  Mr. Tony Banks: This has nothing to do with being Jewish or with any other race or religion. It is to do with Nazis who may still reside in this country and who should never be given the time to take another breath of our good air. How many people are we talking about? I understand that 301 cases were investigated. So that we may have an idea of the scale of what we are contemplating, will the Home Secretary tell us how many cases will be under serious consideration?
  Mr. Baker: I told the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that 301 cases were considered. It was thought that 75 merited further consideration, that three cases were virtually prepared and that a further three merited much more extensive investigation. That is the scale of the matter.
  Ms. Clare Short: I am troubled by the fact that only four cases were scrutinised in detail. We heard about the 70 cases. Only four were investigated in detail—there seemed to be a case in three, and the person in the fourth died. Are we making a decision on the basis of only two cases that have been considered in detail?
  Mr. Baker: Other cases are brought to the Government's attention from time to time. This is a difficult matter. Those of us who have seen the evidence have found it chilling. In some cases, there is detailed evidence implicating people in certain ghastly and horrible events.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have given way a great deal, and I should proceed because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, which touches on important issues which are significant in a much wider sense.
  The House will be familiar with the heart of the Bill, in clause 1(1), which establishes jurisdiction in respect of offences of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide. It is important that those offences are covered in the Bill. This is not a Bill concerning crimes against humanity. Those who have studied and debated the matter previously will know that there is a big distinction between the position post-1957 and the position pre-1957 in these matters. The Bill is limited to the crimes of murder, manslaughter and culpable homicide committed in violation of the laws and customs of war in German-held territory during the second world war.
  The Bill is concerned with the specific wrongdoing uncovered by the Hetherington inquiry and is intended precisely to deal with that. The Bill refers to "war crimes" for the very reason to which I alluded—to keep the Bill within the terms of international law as it stood at the relevant time and not to bring in any other form of atrocity of which international law had not then taken cognisance.
  Clause 2 addresses the investigative process that will be necessary if the Bill is passed. The Government recognise the demands that that will place on the police, particularly the Metropolitan police, and have accordingly decided that the cost should be met from central Government.
  I draw attention to the schedule, which provides for a procedure in lieu of committal for war crime trials. Hon. Members will recall that that is not a new idea. Such a procedure is already available in serious fraud trials, and the House has recently agreed to a similar procedure for
  28
  child abuse cases in the Criminal Justice Bill, now in another place. The justification for the provision is the same in each case and is intended to help the defendant in that the complexity and sensitivity of the matters in question are such that presenting the evidence twice over, at committal and at substantive trial, would be an inappropriate burden on all concerned.
  I am, of course, aware that the subject matter of the Bill is sensitive and difficult and one on which there are strongly held views cutting across party lines. The Government respect those differences of opinion. To decide to bring the Bill back before Parliament is in no way to doubt the integrity of those whose views differ from our own. I am sure that hon. Members will feel that strongly as the debate proceeds. No one would suggest that those opposed to the Bill would in any way condone the terrible crimes with which it deals. Members in all parts of this House and all shades of opinion in another place are at one in our utter abhorrence of the deeds that occurred and of the perverted philosophy that gave rise to them.
  I well recognise the strength of the arguments—that the events that the Bill addresses took place half a lifetime ago; that suspects are inevitably of advancing years, as are many of the witnesses; and that the mounting of trials will not be easy. Few of us would have wished to confront those issues again now, or to be reminded of the horrors that occurred. The fact is that those allegations are before us—allegations so serious that the passage of time, however long, cannot blot them out.
  I respect those who want only to forget, but I respect also those who, without any sense of vindictiveness or with any desire for revenge or vengeance, call for justice to be done in the memory of all those who suffered so appallingly. I believe that the criminal justice system of this country is capable of ensuring that justice is done in respect both of the victims and of those accused of those crimes.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that those who have misgivings about the Bill do not have them simply because they want to forget. The memories are burned as fiercely into their minds as into the minds of those who support the Bill. When he speaks of justice, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the fear that it might not be possible to ensure a fair trial also gives rise to misgivings about the Bill?
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the protection built into the Bill and into its procedures will make it possible to have fair trials. I have already indicated certain protections in the committal process, and the need for the Attorney-General to be satisfied. There is also the protection for the accused of going to the High Court to have the matter set aside. If the House agrees to the establishment of this jurisdiction, there will be a fair hearing, in courts both north and south of the border.
  Sir John Stokes: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary passed rather quickly the question of the Bill calling in aid the Parliament Act 1911 of the Liberal Government and the Parliament Act 1949 of the Labour Government. Putting aside for a moment the curiousness of a Tory Government making this attack on another place, is it appropriate for an extraordinarily difficult Bill of this kind concerning a moral issue, and for which there has been no support either

  29
  from the nation or in the Conservative party manifesto, to be forced through the constitution and signed by the Queen purely on the vote of this House?
  Mr. Baker: I answered that point at the beginning of my speech. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an issue of great import and significance, because we are asking this House, and Parliament, to agree to a very unusual procedure. We are justified in asking the House to agree to do so only because of the unusual nature and enormity of the crimes that were committed. My hon. Friend has expressed his views in the past, and, although I appreciate his concern about retrospection and other matters, many are concerned that persons who are alleged to have perpetrated such crimes could have taken refuge in our country and be living here now, and feel strongly and passionately that they should be called to account.
  As to the differences between the two Houses, as this House has expressed its view so clearly on a free vote, it is right to allow the matter to come back again and for it to go to another place. One cannot say what is likely to happen in another place, and I should not want to anticipate whether the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and, if it is, in what way it might be changed. If it is changed, it will return to this House.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate as well as anyone the extremely difficult issues with which the Government have had to grapple in considering the Bill. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the enormity of the crimes disclosed in the evidence to which he referred. It was for that reason, among others, that the Government thought it right to present the Bill in the first place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the House reflects on the matter for a second time, it should pay some attention to the views so strongly expressed in another place? Should we not ask ourselves, as we reflect upon that—because that is the purpose of this second opportunity—whether it would be right to invite a jury to proceed to convict in cases of this kind when we have been unable to persuade the Upper House to agree on the legitimacy of the premise and the proceedings?
  The view that I took was that, with a Bill of this kind, we should seek to persuade both Houses of the legitimacy of our case. In the absence of that, in cases as exceptional as these, the House should think carefully before relying on the matters that the Home Secretary has advanced as justification for letting the Bill go forward for a second time.
  Mr. Baker: I thought that I had heard the answer to that question from my right hon. and learned Friend's own lips on other occasions. One cannot possibly prejudge how a jury will respond to these matters until it hears the evidence. Juries will have to assess the evidence in a case and consider it carefully. The fact that there are divided opinions between the House and the other place reflects the divided opinions in this House. There are divided opinions in the country on the Bill. We feel—I know that my right hon. and learned Friend felt it strongly—that the possibility of this jurisdiction should be extended, and that is what the Bill seeks to do.
  To sum up, may I say that I believe—especially in answer to the last question—that the criminal justice system of our country is capable of ensuring that justice is done in respect of both the victims and those accused of these crimes. There can be no guarantee that if
  30
  prosecutions are mounted there will be convictions, which is the point of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, as that is not Parliament's task. It is our job to provide courts with the jurisdiction that they need to hear the charges that have been made and to come to a conclusion on the facts, according to the normal principles of British justice. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: On the Opposition Benches and, as I understand it, on the Conservative Benches, there will be a free vote at 10 o'clock. Usually on such occasions, whoever speaks from the Front Bench gives advice to his right hon. and hon. Friends on whether they ought to support the legislation under discussion. I do not presume to do so today. My own doubts about my decision to support the Bill are so great—though support the Bill I shall—and my decision to support it was arrived at after such doubts and consideration that it would be simply impertinent for me to make any recommendations to my right hon. and hon. Friends about how they should proceed. All that I can do is to describe why, after much consideration and a good deal of anguish, I have decided to vote in the Bill's favour.
  When the Bill was debated in the House last year, I began my speech by describing the difficulties that I then faced—difficulties which I have again experienced, for the passage of the past 11 months has done nothing to reduce my dilemma. Last year, I voted for the Bill with reluctance and with reservations. I have decided to do the same today, but my reservations have multiplied and my reluctance has increased.
  I know that there are those who say that politicians should never express any doubts and should always advocate a case with complete confidence and without reservation. I feel that I am unable to do that today, for reasons that I shall set out to the best of my ability.
  My doubts have certainly been increased by some of the opinions expressed in the House of Lords. Lord Shawcross overstated the case when he said that the Bill was a violation of
  "the basic principles of British justice."
  However, no one could read what distinguished lawyers of every persuasion said without having doubts about the procedures involved in this Bill—which were expressed during the previous Second Reading debate—reinforced.
  My decision and my doubts have not been influenced by the eventual rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords. The House of Lords possesses the right under the constitution to reject legislation, and we possess the right to overrule that rejection. The House of Lords, this House and the Government, if I may say so, have acted with absolute constitutional propriety by bringing the matter forward again. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the powers presently exercised by the House of Lords should decide to change them rather than to complain about them. If I have been influenced by the Lords at all, it is not by their decision but by the speeches made during the debate. They were made by lawyers who happened to be peers, and they added to the enormous weight of legal opinion ranged against the Bill. I shall turn to the legal technicalities shortly, but first let me explain why, despite all my doubts, I shall vote for the Bill.
  I do not want it to be possible for anyone—no matter how ignorant, prejudiced or malicious—to have the slightest opportunity of arguing that the House has either

  31
  forgotten the holocaust or forgiven. This is not the time to appear in the slightest degree tender-hearted about those who commit war crimes or are complacent about anti-Semitism. I shall vote for the Bill for what I can only describe as essentially declaratory reasons.
  I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that no such declaration is necessary from this Parliament, and in a sense that is wholly true, but I recall the way in which votes in the House of Lords were interpreted—or, I fear, misinterpreted—even by some of the peers who took part in the debate. That misinterpretation resulted from the way in which the entire debate about the principles underlying our action has been tilted in the wrong direction by one of the sentences in the Hetherington-Chalmers report—or, rather, a misinterpretation of it.
  The most quoted sentence in that report described the crimes to which the Bill relates as
  "so monstrous that they cannot be condoned".
  That judgment is so obvious, so self-evident and so transparently true that to include it as a crucial part of the report implies that someone disagrees with it. Following the Lords debate, the unattractive suggestion was made that voting against the Bill implied that crimes to which it referred could be condoned. Although I shall vote for the Bill, I have no doubt that those who vote against it support the Hetherington judgment about
  "crimes so monstrous that they cannot be condoned"
  with as much passion as those who vote for it.
  I confess that my instinct now, as a year ago, is best expressed by the much-quoted statement that Sir Winston Churchill made to the House on 28 October 1948. I, too, feel instinctively that the time has come
  "to draw the sponge across the crimes and horrors of the past—hard as that may be—and look, for the sake of all our salvation, towards the future."—[Official Report, 28 October 1948; Vol. 457, c. 256.]
  The context in which Sir Winston made that statement is a subject of great dispute. I say no more than that it represents my instinctive view, not simply because of compassion for the feeble and senile who will be prosecuted under this Bill if any prosecutions come about—although compassion for the feeble and senile is not an unworthy emotion. I wonder whether it is right for society as a whole to relive the horrors of the holocaust and some of the more despicable and unforgivable crimes that were committed during that period, particularly given the way in which some British newspapers will deal with any prosecutions.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after the end of the war, many of us—regardless of our age at the time—believed that the allies had given a clear pledge that, once the war was over and Nazism defeated, all those responsible for monstrous crimes against humanity should be brought to justice? We were pleased about what happened in Nuremberg—a different Nuremberg from that associated with the Nazi reign of terror. What concerns us, and will always concern us, is precisely what was implied by Sir Winston Churchill's words; that, rather than continuing to bring the people responsible to justice, we have allowed many to escape justice, and, indeed, to lead prosperous lives in
  32
  Germany or Latin America. If the policy contained in the allies' promise had continued we might not be dealing with the matter now.
  Much the same applies to the atrocities committed in Kuwait. I believe that, no matter how long it takes—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That was more of a speech than an intervention.
  Mr. Winnick: May I end, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, no matter how long it takes, I believe that those responsible for the crimes committed during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait should be brought to justice.
  Mr. Hattersley: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I am sure that he will understand mine when I say to him that we have to discuss the situation as we find it now, not the situation as it was, when it was thought to be right to make promises immediately after the second world war. All of us would feel a good deal more comfortable if action had been taken then, which would have obviated the necessity to take action 50 years later. I have come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend, as he knows, about the need to go on. However, I should be doing my cause, and my attempt to describe my position, less than justice were I not to deal with some of the very grave doubts that I feel.
  Mr. Cormack: Only last week it was brought home to us in a horrific way that the wrong people had been convicted of a horrific crime. We all know that the crime committed was horrific, but the wrong people were convicted. Can we be so sure that the right people will be convicted here?
  Mr. Hattersley: I intend to deal with that point. We shall have to consider the techniques by which the operation of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be appropriate within our system of justice. I had intended to repeat that it was simply my instinct that prompted me to feel support for Sir Winston's statement, with all its limitations and generalities. I intended then to say, as I say now, that as the House examines legislation, it has to be guided by more than instinct. Therefore, it is to the practicalities of the Bill that I now turn.
  Part of my concern about the Bill is that, although it is entitled "War Crimes", it is concerned not with war crimes in general but with war criminals in particular. To put it crudely, we know at least some of the individuals whom the new law is intended to encompass. The Home Secretary said disingenuously that it would be wrong of us to mention their names in the House. The same stern injunction was not applied five years ago to Scottish Television, which broadcast programmes that purported to describe individuals who would be subject to such prosecutions were the law to be amended.
  The Hetherington-Chalmers report refers to 10 named war criminals whose names were supplied by the Wiesenthal Centre. Scottish Television broadcast a programme that named men whom it claimed were responsible for war crimes that it specified. Newspaper articles have been written about these names and a libel case is pending. So well are they known—to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that the Home Secretary did not deal with—that in the final paragraph of the Hetherington-Chalmers report reference is made to the age of known

  33
  suspects. Like it or not, we are considering legislation which may be used to prosecute suspects who are already publicly identified.
  That leads me to my first question to the Home Secretary, which I ask him in the spirit of the debate—not in the usual style of trying to score rhetorical points but with the unusual House of Commons intention of eliciting information that might help our debate. It would, I think, be of great help to the House as a whole if, in that spirit, the Home Secretary could answer my question straight away. Does he really believe that prosecutions are possible under the Bill, and is that the advice that he has received from the Law Officers? I do not refer to lawyers more distinguished than the Attorney-General, but the Home Secretary will not argue with me if I say that lawyers as distinguished as the Attorney-General insist that prosecutions under the Bill will simply not be possible and that no Home Secretary would give his fiat for prosecutions to proceed.
  I am not asking the Home Secretary whether he thinks that prosecutions will succeed or whether there will be convictions, though I realise that the Law Officers' advice is bound to be conditioned by their judgment of the likelihood of success, but, with so much prejudicial material already published, is the beginning of a prosecution even possible?
  I understand also that there may be questions concerning the general legal propriety of proceeding after such a passage of time. I shall turn in a moment to the technical difficulties of prosecutions for offences committed half a century ago, but I am advised that a 50-year delay between the commission of the crime and the prosecution of the subject may in itself be regarded as what lawyers call, in their jargon, "abuse of the process". I am told that that does not imply criticism of a lawyer who may proceed with such a decision, but it is suggested that that would be ruled out simply because of the 50-year delay between the commission of the crime and prosecution.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am not a lawyer, but even if the Home Secretary says that there will be no prosecutions and that the system will not allow it, surely Parliament must give the legal authorities the power to take such decisions. We could then hold our heads up with other countries and say that we have done everything possible. That is a question for the British legal system, and the Attorney-General cannot be asked to make that decision until the House has passed the legislation.
  Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend is correct—I mean that in no ironic sense; I am grateful to him, but I should be more grateful for an answer from the Home Secretary—he and I can vote for the Bill simply as a declaratory measure. My hon. Friend spoke of our holding our heads up high. That is not language which I would use, but I think that he supports my view that the Bill is a declaration of principle. The House must know how it is behaving—whether it is being asked to pass a Bill whose intentions are purely declaratory or whether the Government genuinely believe that we are passing a Bill which may result in prosecutions if it is passed, for instance, during the term of office of the present Attorney-General.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman asked me to advise him. It is not usual to disclose the advice that
  34
  Law Officers give Ministers, and I must stick to that constitutional convention. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 1(3), which says:
  "No proceedings shall by virtue of this section be brought in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or, as the case may be, the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland"
  We shall have to consider carefully, first, the position of the Attorney-General. Paragraph 6 of schedule 1 gives the judge the power to dismiss
  "a charge (and accordingly quash a count relating to it in any indictment preferred against the applicant) if it appears to him that the evidence against the applicant would not be sufficient for a jury properly to convict him."
  Given those safeguards, we believe that it would be possible to bring proceedings.
  I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech very carefully. So far, his reservations are so great that I should be surprised if he voted for the Bill. Perhaps he will be able to establish the bridge of conviction that we are waiting for.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am glad that the Home Secretary is listening to my speech with such care—that is a new development. His answer on the abuse of process was not a model of precision. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will no doubt develop the question in more detail. I understand that, according to convention, the Home Secretary cannot reveal the Attorney-General's advice. I can only thank the right hon. Gentleman for helping me to vote for the Bill for the reason that I keep repeating as my one reason for doing so—the belief that it is declaratory and little else.
  Ms. Short: I am terribly troubled by my right hon. Friend's reason for voting for the Bill. If he is declaring his opposition to the holocaust, we all share that view unanimously and deeply, but we do not have to vote for a bad Bill which might lead to injustice because we oppose the holocaust. If that is his reason, I invite him to change his mind and vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Hattersley: Fortunately, there will be a free vote and, putting it at its lowest, I am no more bound by the rules of collective responsibility than is my hon. Friend. She will know how loose those ties are.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I have already been speaking for rather longer than the Home Secretary and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a second question, which I hope he will answer a little more precisely than he did the first.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Very well.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Let me say straight away that I respect the right hon. Gentleman's reservations. That is the approach that I would expect of him. But he should bear it in mind that the Bill is primarily concerned with something that he has not mentioned—the acquisition of British citizenship by people who may have committed the most atrocious crimes. Does the right hon. Gentleman have doubts about the retention of British citizenship by

  35
  such people, bearing in mind the fact that both the Canadian and the Australian Parliaments have already legislated on the matter?
  Mr. Hattersley: That intervention shows the folly of giving way—even to the Father of the House—as I shall shortly deal with the aquisition of British citizenship.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No, I shall proceed because so many hon. Members want to speak. I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to help me, but I am anxious to ask the Home Secretary a second question, which I ask in exactly the same spirit as the first. Is the Bill that he has placed before the House the Bill that he wants to pass into law? His speech contained a Delphic reference to the possibility of mutually agreed amendments. I realise perfectly well that, under the Parliament Acts, the right hon. Gentleman must send the Bill unamended to the Upper House. If a measure is to be submitted to the Lords twice, the same Bill must be submitted on each occasion. I think that it would not be an overstatement of the position to say that it would be intolerable if the Government already knew that they would amend or attempt to amend in the Upper House the Bill for which they are asking the House to vote tonight. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether he has it in mind to propose amendments in the other place if that is possible, because, if he has, he has a duty to tell us now.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: If the other place rejects the Bill on Second Reading, it will come back to this House and proceed to the statute book under the Parliament Acts. I am sure that, if that happens, it will operate satisfactorily as it is drafted. If the other place gives the Bill its Second Reading, it may wish to amend it, but let me make it clear that the Government will not be tabling amendments at that stage. It will be for the other place to decide, and I know that there are strong views among those on the Back Benches there. If the other place amends the Bill, this House will have to consider the amendments when the Bill comes back. We shall be able to accept or reject them or amend the Bill ourselves.
  Mr. Hattersley: So there will be no Government amendments or Government-inspired amendments?
  Mr. Baker: No.
  Mr. Hattersley: Right.
  As I intend to vote for the Bill, I have to ask myself a further question. My first question was: is it right, under any circumstances, to proceed against those responsible for crimes that were committed half a century ago and, in consequence, prosecute the old and feeble? I have concluded that it is. The crimes concerned were so enormous that they defy our comprehension. I know that there are those who argue—they have argued since our previous debate—that more recent acts of genocide have been even more horrific than those committed immediately before or during the second world war, but I have no scale of values within which I can compare atrocities. Whether they were the worst of all time, or almost the worst, or so bad as to be beyond comprehension, there can be no statute of limitations on the crimes to which the
  36
  Hetherington-Chalmers report refers. I am not attracted to the simple principle that things have gone on for too long.
  I should have preferred the Government to introduce general legislation along the lines of the 1949 Geneva convention, which made it clear that any war criminal from any war in any sector or any continent who might at any time come to Britain would be the subject of prosecution. That course would have had an advantage: we should have avoided the concept of preparing to prosecute known individuals. I have no doubt, however, that what the Government are doing today is legitimised by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, and I can support that principle.
  My second question concerns the propriety of legislating for the punishment of crimes committed before an Act was passed. The Bill that we are debating is not quite retrospective legislation. It comes near to it, but, in my view, does not qualify for that description. We are making retrospective changes in jurisdiction.
  British citizens who had committed the crimes that we are discussing now would already be liable to prosecution. Had the alleged criminals remained in their countries of birth or not changed their nationality after the crime had been committed, they would certainly either have been prosecuted in their native countries or been liable to deportation to them.
  I do not believe that the acquisition of British citizenship should be a means by which the prosecutions for such hideous crimes is avoided. I am aware of the alternative route of extradition or deportation. However, I cannot support that. I do not think that the system of criminal justice in the countries to which they might be deported, although improved over the past two or three years, is one to which I should want to see them go. In any case, I would not agree to deportation to a country that retained capital punishment for such crimes. That must mean that, if they are to be prosecuted at all, they must be prosecuted in this country.
  Having convinced myself that neither the passage of time nor the extension of jurisdiction is sufficient argument to vote against the Bill, I considered the five main purposes of our judicial system: the deterrence of other potential criminals; the reformation of those guilty of the crime; the protection of society against a repetition of the offence; retribution and the demonstration of revulsion which society feels towards the crime and those who committed it.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am sure that it was simply an oversight by the right hon. Gentleman, but does he not agree that, on the face of the Bill, it is not just British citizens who are specified, but those who are either British citizens or resident ordinarily in Great Britain?
  Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State is quite right; that was an oversight. I am grateful to him for pointing it out. The record of our proceedings will now be correct.
  I had just offered to the House the five classic reasons why criminals are pursued, prosecuted and brought to justice. I do not believe for a moment that the first four considerations can be remotely applied in this case. The idea that passing the Bill will deter further atrocities is regrettably wholly unconvincing. In any event, were that the Government's intention, more general legislation

  37
  would have been introduced. The Bill is intended to meet specific circumstances, as the Home Secretary said, by referring to men living here, as distinct from alleged Japanese war criminals who are not. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as a general deterrent. Nor can it possibly be argued that conviction and imprisonment might rehabilitate the offenders and, having reformed them, allow them to be sent back into the community as useful citizens. Nor are we locking them away to ensure that they do not commit such an offence a second time. That leaves the final purpose of the law: retribution and the demonstration of society's revulsion.
  Retribution is far too close to vengeance for my taste. In one of his short stories, Isaac Bashevis Singer reminded his readers about the real meaning of the Old Testament assertion
  "Vengeance is mine … saith the Lord".
  Singer said that the meaning is perfectly clear. It does not mean that vengeance is generally sanctified; it meant that vengeance should be left to the only authority entitled to dispense it. Singer also said that that was not only the last word on the subject, it was the first. I am, therefore, left with the final justification for the legislation, which is the demonstration of collective revulsion against the crime and the criminal and in this case that is a justification in itself.
  However, I want finally to consider what have become related matters—the proposals for legislative changes that were once outlined in the original White Paper and then spatchcocked on to a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which was in turn emasculated in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Gorst: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his dilemma with regard to the people who were named by Scottish Television? As I understand it, the worst cases do not necessarily involve those who had been named. Therefore, much of the right hon. Gentleman's argument could be based on a misconception. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot confirm or deny this, but the right hon. Gentleman's presumption is not universally accepted as correct.
  Mr. Hattersley: I think that there is a problem, and I put it no higher than that. If we are planning to extend jurisdiction to men and women who have lived here for some time and who have been named publicly—and heaven knows I am not a lawyer and I do not understand these matters—I have no doubt what a lawyer representing those people would say if a case were to come to court. On the other hand, if these cases do not come to court, will any other cases come to court? As well as not being a lawyer, I am not a gambling man. Were I a gambling man, I should be inclined to put my money on the presumption that once this Bill has been passed into law we shall hear very little more of it.
  Finally, I want to refer to the procedures that will be necessary if convictions are to be obtained. When this subject was debated a year ago, the House generally seemed to be of the view that it was very important that the normal laws of evidence and the normal principles of the judicial system should prevail. My understanding is that the changes that were once proposed for the purpose of obtaining convictions were lost with the Scottish legislation in the House of Lords. I hope that the Home Secretary does not listen to me only on those occasions on which he refers specifically to his attentive nature.
  38
  I have another question, which no doubt the Minister of State will answer in his winding-up speech. Can we be assured that neither through this legislation nor through related legislation are the Government contemplating special rules of evidence with a view to obtaining convictions? When the Home Secretary says that television links would be for the convenience of the defendant, that does very little to give me confidence in these matters. The intention of television links was to prevent witnesses from giving evidence which, because of intimidation, was inaccurate. In this case, the object of television links was to obtain convictions. I hope that we shall be told specifically and explicitly that the normal rules of evidence applying to courts in England or in Scotland will, for better or for worse, apply under this legislation. If conviction cannot be obtained under those rules, so be it.
  My final word—and I fear that it is a word of reservation—concerns the technicalities of time. In the House of Lords, Lord Hutchinson said that, putting aside the principle of time, the fact of time would make prosecution impossible as so much would depend on identification evidence. He asked who could expect identifications to be accurate after 50 years. Some chilling words were quoted in the House of Lords in support of that contention. They were described as chilling, and chilling they certainly are. The Hetherington-Chalmers report says:
  "Because of the sickening efficiency of the mass killings, we found few Jewish eye-witnesses of the actual crimes. Those who had witnessed the atrocities were usually themselves killed. Many, however, were able to help with circumstantial and hearsay evidence, and some were able to identify suspects from photographs."
  I do not know whether that would be even remotely acceptable in a court of law. However, we do not want to see any adjustments made to the law in order to compensate for such a thing. I understand that the original intention of the Government was to make those adjustments. They were prevented from doing so only by the collapse of the Scottish legislation in another place.
  Having said all that, I repeat what I have said five times already—I shall support the Bill this evening. But I shall do so in exactly the terms that I have described—as a declaration of our intention and of our principles. I shall not support the Bill in the hope that it will result in prosecutions, or because of belief in prosecutions. Rational assessment of what it provides suggests that neither of those things applies.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he recognised that this matter divides the House deeply, as it divided another place deeply, and that the opposing views were held with great depth and the utmost passion. In saying so, of course, he was absolutely right. It is obvious from the voting lists that the matter has also divided the Cabinet. We now have a Prime Minister who voted against this proposal right at the beginning of the procedures. The Home Secretary said that it would be possible to see how views had changed in the intervening period. Everything that I have heard and read and thought since we last debated the matter here has convinced me even more that the reintroduction of this legislation is wrong. I deeply regret that the Government have reintroduced it in view of the divisions that I have

  39
  described. [Laughter.] I do not know why it is a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) laughs the whole time. This is a serious business.
  Whatever decision is taken, we are within a few months of a general election. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the country—it is certainly not in the interests of our party—to have this matter brought forward at this stage when our country is confronted by so many other difficulties. It is said that it must be done because it was in the Queen's Speech. I am afraid that in my political life many matters were in the Queen's Speech but they were not proceeded with, for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad. I cannot accept that as a reason for reintroducing this legislation.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) emphasised that, in the intervening period, his doubts about this legislation had increased. I appreciate that, and I understand what he said about how that has occurred. I agree with him. Therefore, it is even more difficult to understand why he will vote for the Bill tonight than it was last time. I found it puzzling, but he knows best—he is his own judge. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will vote in favour of the Bill because we must show that we have not forgotten the holocaust. That is what his speech amounted to. I must reassure him on that point. We shall never forget the holocaust. The world will never be allowed to forget the holocaust, and quite rightly. The state of Israel will never allow the world to forget the holocaust, and all its supporters will maintain that position. It is a very weak argument to say that all his absolutely rational doubts are overcome by the fact that he wants the holocaust to be remembered.
  I refer now to the contents of the Bill and to the other various reasons for it that have been put forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the crimes, when committed, were against international law. Why has not action been taken under international law? No explanation for that is given. Of course there is now no means of undertaking it under international law. If one gets to the practicalities, these events happened in wartime and when countries had been overrun by other countries, by armies that had been given instructions.
  How many people in this House know the contents of international law today? How many of our troops in the Gulf knew whether the orders that they were being given were always in accordance with international law? They accepted that they were—we all did—but did they have any knowledge—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: I should like to finish the sentence and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  In the forces we accept that we are given orders, and we carry them out. To say that, because there was international law at the time, it meant that people recognised what the law was and that they were guilty is not a justification for what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said.
  Mr. Banks: One does not need a doctorate in international law to know that it is absolutely wrong to massacre people in cold blood in a concentration camp.
  40
  One does not need the niceties of the law to know that that is absolutely wrong. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that.
  Mr. Heath: That is one of the points about international law. I return to my point. Why was not action taken under international law 45 years ago? There is no answer to that—none at all. A former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who has been a party to the proceedings, nods his head in agreement with me.
  Mr. John Patten rose—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees rose—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mr. Michael Latham rose—
  Mr. Heath: I am asked to give way to four people at once.
  Mr. John Patten rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way to the Minister?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Patten: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I can answer his question directly. In the period 1939–45, or in the years immediately after the war, there was no suggestion that any alleged war criminals were resident in this country.
  Mr. Heath: Many of those brought to this country were believed to have been brought by British organisations to give us the information that we required. That was part of the understanding at the time. Will that be a justifiable plea if the Bill is enacted? We do not know.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who are the children and relatives of the victims, who were not born at the end of the last war, wish to know why action was not taken under international law against those people? Does he also accept that, although a distinguished but minute minority of lawyers expressed strong views against the Bill in another place, the great majority of lawyers, including younger lawyers, support the Bill and believe that its proposals are entirely practicable and just?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Gentleman's last point is debatable. I have not seen any opinion poll on it or found out the consensus among younger lawyers. It may be characteristic that those people who took no part in the war and knew nothing at first hand about the terrible things that happened now say, 45 years later, that we should take action. The weight of opinion in the House of Lords and among the Law Lords is undeniably against the Bill. No one can argue that, least of all the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  No action was taken after those crimes were discovered because the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of the day felt that we had come to the end of the process, and that was acceptable by Parliament.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry; I shall not give way.

  41
  It is suggested that we should overthrow the decision that was made with the support of both Houses of Parliament and embark on such a process 45 years later.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the Bill lies the collective guilt of Christian communities throughout the world for the enormity of crimes that have been committed against the Jews over 1,500 or 2,000 years and that culminated in the concentration camps? Therefore, is there not a genuine reason for the Bill coming before the House now?
  Mr. Heath: No one questions the enormity of the crimes that were committed against the Jews. I did not intend to repeat that argument. I said in an earlier speech that the other regiment in our brigade was entrusted with going to the concentration camps and, obviously, we heard about everything that was seen there. When my regiment went into Antwerp it passed a concentration camp, so I know all about the enormity of the crimes. Throughout history there have been enormous crimes, but they should be dealt with at the time. We should be far more in tune with the times if we were to deal with war crimes that took place in the Gulf rather than trying to deal with so-called war crimes that took place 45 years ago. However, I accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that the enormity of the crime demands action. No one disputes that.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when the wartime Prime Minister sought to draw a line under those events, he had not the slightest idea—nor had anyone else—that the criminals would receive the protection of British citizenship? As British citizens would have been liable, why should they get off scot-free by having become British citizens later?
  Mr. Heath: I tried to serve Mr. Churchill as best I could during his period in government when I was a Member of the House, and I never found him ignorant of anything. Like other members of the Government, he was informed about why many of those people were being brought to this country and was told that they would settle here. That is a well-known fact, so I do not accept my hon. Friend's argument in this case, as in so many other cases.
  I do not believe that we are embarking on a course that will be practically satisfying to the law or to the great majority of British citizens. As has been said, there will be show trials, and we know what the press can do with them. We have seen what they did with incidents in the Gulf war, when those who appeared on television were said to have been mutilated by their captors, but when they returned home they said that they had been injured in an air crash and had been treated well. The people of this country will be sickened, as they were in 1948, by the television and radio coverage, day and night, and by the coverage in the gutter press. It is not in the interests of Parliament to allow that.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Will my right hon. Friend enlighten the House and explain what he means by a show trial in the case of an offence for which prosecution must have the assent of the Attorney-General?
  Mr. Heath: Does anyone imagine that the press and television companies will not make the most of any trial that takes place? My right hon. and learned Friend may
  42
  say that television cameras will not be allowed in the court room, but the television companies will still make the most of the event through dramatic descriptions every night. I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend frowns at that. Has he not seen the extent of recent television and radio coverage of the Birmingham Six trial? To suggest that the press will not make the most of any such trial is nonsense. It will be a repeat of the situation that arose in 1948; people will be sickened by it and, if it continues and enough people can be found to be charged, public opinion will rise in an outcry against it.
  I return to the fundamental question of retroactive legislation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook tried to find a way around it by saying that it was retroactive jurisprudence—
  Mr. Hattersley: Jurisdiction.
  Mr. Heath: I cannot accept that calling it retroactive jurisprudence is a valid distinction. We are changing the law, because 45 years ago the law did not apply. One can analyse the reasons and say that the law should have applied.
  Mr. Hattersley: The law did apply.
  Mr. Heath: If so, why did we not apply it? It was not applicable in this country, and it is this country's law with which we are now dealing. I strongly object to retroactive legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I bitterly object because the Conservative party, in particular, has always objected to backdating legislation.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We oppose retrospective legislation because it makes criminal today something that was not criminal when it was perpetrated Nobody in his wildest extravagance could imagine a time when to mass-murder people, as war criminals did, was not against the law of the world.
  Mr. Heath: I know of my hon. and learned Friend's passion and motivation on the issue, but it is splendid of him to say that it was the law of the world.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was the law of the British citizen.
  Mr. Heath: Will my hon. Friend remain quiet, just for a few seconds?
  If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) went before the court as a barrister tomorrow saying that he was acting on the law of the world, what response would he expect to receive from the judge? We are dealing with the law of this country. My hon. and learned Friend says that, regardless of all our traditions and everything for which the world respects us and in which we take pride, we never act retrospectively unless it is the law of the world. I cannot accept that for a moment, even given the appalling circumstances in which some of those people may have acted in the past.
  Therefore, I object strongly to the Bill. During my time in Parliament, Opposition Members have always gone to the utmost lengths to protect the right of the individual. The Labour party has been renowned for that and has fought many battles, both public and individual, and is still doing so. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why it is prepared to support a Bill such as this when we

  43
  have not acted for 45 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not everyone] I agree, not everybody. Now Labour Members say, "We must do this regardless of the consequences."
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because there is an answer to that point. We fight because we want equal treatment for every British citizen and people living under British jurisdiction. Cutting aside all the waffle, the Bill amounts to a technical adjustment to nationality law so that every British citizen and everyone living under British jurisdiction suffers or gains from equal treatment under the British law. It cannot be denied that that is all it amounts to.
  Mr. Heath: If that is effective from the time the Bill is passed, all well and good. The hon. Gentleman will then say that everyone, whether they came to be British citizens or were originally British citizens, will be treated equally. But to make the legislation retroactive, turning it back 45 years to deal with events about which the people involved did not know, other British citizens did not know and on which Parliament, if it did know took no action, is entirely unjustified.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose argument I am following with intense interest. He implies that we are embarking on legislation that is unique in this country. He objects to that and has a right to do so. However, is he not aware that the Parliaments of two highly respected democracies—Canada and Australia—have already enacted such legislation and similar action has been taken by the Congress of the United States of America? The Bill is not unique. Many of us feel that it is tardy and should have been introduced before.
  Mr. Heath: It is unique for this Parliament. If the Australian and Canadian Parliaments and the United States Congress have changed their law, that is a matter for them. It gives me no reason to follow them and no satisfaction at being asked to do so: let us be plain about that.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that this was a purely independent decision and that we were not being lobbied. We all know how this began—with one of the biggest lobbies in history, in California. It was highly financed in order to bring, not justice, but revenge and retribution. That is how it all started, and that is why the Bill has been introduced to the House.
  Ms. Short: I intervene briefly, for the sake of the record. When Sweden considered the issue, it decided not to bring in such legislation. The United States decided to proceed by depriving people of citizenship, then offering them for extradition. Therefore, the argument put to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was inaccurate because different countries have proceeded in different ways and have not all passed the same legislation.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, whose knowledge of Congressional proceedings is much greater than mine.
  The retroactive part of the Bill is decisive and should never have been reintroduced into the House. I hope that
  44
  the House of Lords will kill the Bill. By that time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have decided to go to the country, and that will be the end of the matter.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. John Morris: I shall come later to some of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  I am glad that the House has a further opportunity to consider its stance on this important legislation. Fortunately, as we have been told, there will be a free vote, and I venture my own opinion on the subject. First, I wish to spell out loud and clear that I yield to no one in my commitment, some of it emotional, to wish to remedy injustice and bring to book those persons who can be proved to have committed horrendous crimes. That is a moral duty.
  I listened to the arguments when the original White Paper was presented and debated. I was concerned that, if evidence against a British-born person were found, he would be liable to prosecution, whereas a person who acquired British naturalisation or, as the Bill, states, was in the alternative a resident, after the commission of the relative facts, would not be. I believe that if the facts were proved, both categories of people should be dealt with in the same way. Naturalisation should not put a person, who later takes on himself the protection of the British Crown, in a more favourable position than a British-born subject.
  I understand and sympathise with the objections of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to retrospective legislation, and there is an element of retrospection in the Bill. However, the crime of murder on whatever scale is not, in itself, retrospective. If the Bill is passed, we extend the jurisdiction—that is the retrospective element that all of us must face. I am prepared, and was prepared, to accept that on the basis that a British-born subject should not be in a worse position than someone who had come here at a later date. That was my approach and I voted for the principle of the White Paper when it was debated in the House.
  By the time the first Bill was presented and debated I was not convinced about its implementation. That is why I welcome this third opportunity for the House to make a decision. It would be regrettable if, for some reason, the House decided that, regardless, it had to challenge a decision of the other place. I say that as one who believes fundamentally that the will of the Commons must prevail. But the opportunity means that it would be right and proper for us to consider afresh the practicalities of the Bill's implementation, if it becomes an Act, before any further vote. Today, I wish to dwell on the practicalities, which have caused me increasing concern.
  The Hetherington-Chalmers report noted a number of prosecution difficulties, which its authors stated should not be underestimated. The report observed that there was a likelihood that many witnesses from eastern Europe would be unable to travel to the United Kingdom to give evidence by reason of their age and/or health. Some witnesses said that they would not be willing to travel, others that they were unfit to do so. The report's authors envisaged that there would be new developments, such as video links, satellites and various new devices to overcome those difficulties. That is why, like my right hon. Friend the

  45
  Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatterdey), I want an assurance that normal rules of evidence as regards presentation of evidence will prevail if the Bill is enacted.
  Anyone with an ounce of experience of our criminal courts knows the difficulties in successfully persuading a jury of a prosecution, even when the evidence on paper might appear strong, and the warnings about identification that judges are enjoined to give, time after time. Judges also have to warn juries that honestly held views may well be mistaken. That is part and parcel of ordinary trials, where memories have to go back only for a few months, or perhaps a year or so. How much greater will be the need of warnings in the time scale of war crimes trials?
  However, a more significant difficulty would face any prosecutor of alleged war criminals: the allegation of "abuse of the process" referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. That is an important concept in common law, where the court has an inherent power to prevent its process from being abused. The thrust of an application that an indictment might be quashed or proceedings stayed on the ground that they are an abuse of the court's process does not necessarily involve allegations of bad faith or manipulation by the prosecuting authorities. It is founded on the fact that the delay in bringing the defendant to trial and the consequences that flowed from that delay may make it impossible to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. The courts have the power to consider that issue and, if they so find, have the inherent power to quash the indictment.
  The legal principles were reviewed by His Honour Judge Denison at the Central Criminal Court in the case of the Queen v. Grob and Hart. He stated that certain propositions were beyond dispute. They were, and are, first, that the court had an inherent power to ensure that its proceedings were not abused; secondly, that the power to quash an indictment to stay the proceedings on the ground of abuse of a process should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances; thirdly, that the power should not be exercised merely because the judge thought that the prosecution should not have been brought or because he felt that, in some imprecise way, it was unfair to the defendant. The judge must balance the public interest that allegations of crime should be tried and determined with the defendant's interest that the trial must be fair. The fourth proposition is that undue delay in bringing a case to trial might amount to an abuse of process. I should add a fifth proposition, which is that the fact that Parlaiment had only recently considered legislation might be a matter to which the courts would attach considerable significance.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Morris: May I develop my argument?
  In particular, the judge questioned whether "unjustifiable delay" by the prosecution was a precondition to a plea of abuse of process. He concluded that it, was not. He agreed with the judgment of Lord Justice Watkins in the Wapping policing case—the Cherry case. He stated :
  "We see no warrant for not following ample precedent now well set for the proposition that mere delay which gives rise to prejudice and unfairness may by itself amount to an abuse of the process. What has to be demonstrated to the court is that the delay complained of has produced genuine prejudice and unfairness. In some circumstances prejudice will be presumed from substantial delay. Where that is so it would be for the prosecution to rebut, if it can, the presumption. In the absence of a presumption, where there is a substantial delay, it will be for the prosecution to justify it."
  46
  The judge concluded that there were five matters to be considered in deciding whether a plea of abuse of process should succeed. I shall deal with them briefly. The first was the length of the delay. In the Grob case, the judge found that a delay of 10 years was substantial. In the more recent case of the Blake escape trial, another court found that it would not be an abuse of process to try the defendants, even though the acts complained of had occurred in the 1960s. Each case would be decided on its merits. It is obvious that the facts alleged in the war crimes cases would have occurred between 45 and 50 years ago or more. The longer the delay, the stronger the presumption of prejudice and unfairness.
  The second matter to be examined would be the reason for the prosecution to justify the delay. In this case, there would be the absence of legislation. The third is the defendant's responsibility for, and past attitude towards, the delay, which might be one of indifference in these cases. The fourth is the proven or likely prejudice to the defendant. I believe that the 40 or 50-year delay is likely to cause much prejudice against the defendant in the preparation and in the conduct of his defence. At least, I am confident that that will be strongly argued. The passage of time means that the memories of the prosecution and defence witnesses fade. Defence witnesses die or cannot be located and documentation is destroyed. We have only to go to Westminster Hall to see a plaque commemorating the trial of Warren Hastings. I am not enough of a legal historian to say what length of time the facts covered, but, as we all know, the trial lasted for seven years and at the end of it Warren Hastings was acquitted. Let that be a warning to us.
  Mr. Gorst: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned Warren Hastings, but to what extent does he believe that impeachment was an example of acting with hindsight?
  Mr. Morris: I am not sure that it would be wise to pursue that matter now. I mentioned it merely as an illustration of lengths of time and of the effects in that case.
  As the Home Secretary said in another context only last week, justice delayed is justice denied. The accuracy and reliability of recollection and identification are problems faced by the hundreds of prosecutors in our courts.
  The fifth matter is the public interest in a disposition of serious charges and the conviction of those guilty of crime. While it must be right that it cannot be in the public interest that there should not be trials of serious criminal offences merely because of the passage of time, there is a counter-balancing public interest to ensure that trials are fair and take place within a reasonable time of the commission of the alleged offence.
  On the basis of the foregoing, the prosecution would face a difficult hurdle if the plea of abuse of process were raised. The matter would, of course, be for the court to determine, but it is obvious that a strong case can be argued. Each case would have to be determined on its merits. That is not to say that the defence would be home and dry—far from it. All that I can safely conclude is that the Crown would face a difficult, but not necessarily insurmountable, task.
  In view of those considerations, are convictions likely? We cannot be sure one way or the other. However, there cannot be much—if any—similar legislation under which the Crown would be faced with such a difficult task. Would

  47
  it help the rule of law if successful prosecutions were found, time after time, to be impossible? If so, the Act would be a dead letter and would fall into disuse. Parliament cannot and should not exempt the legislation from the plea of abuse of process.
  I have drawn on my deep concern as a lawyer to outline some of the practicalities of successful prosecution and I have tried to give a balanced view of my concern. If the House wishes to pass this legislation—taking full account of, and giving what weight it wishes to, the difficulties—we must do the best that we can with it. We shall soon learn the attitude of the courts. I have thought about the issue long and hard over the past few months and, at the weekend, I was not sure how I should cast my vote—if at all—tonight. As I am so troubled in my own mind, I shall, after considerable deliberation, cast my vote against the Bill because I suspect its practicalities.
  5.9 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I shall be brief, because this is the fourth debate that the House has had on this important question. There is no doubt that the arguments for and against the Bill have been well rehearsed in all those debates, as well as in this one.
  I remind this House, and especially the House of Lords, that in December 1989 the House voted in favour of the principle of legislation by a majority of 348 to 123—a margin of 3 : 1. The House voted in favour of the War Crimes Bill receiving a Second Reading by a majority of 273 to 60, an increased majority of 4 : 1, and in the free vote on Third Reading the majority was 135 to 10—an overwhelming majority of 13 : 1. Any objective observer would conclude that the will of this elected House of Commons is firmly in favour of the principle of the Bill.
  Even in the House of Lords, when their Lordships rejected the War Crimes Bill, 74 Members of that House voted in favour of the principle and many others were sufficiently moved to write an open letter to the Prime Minister stating their opinion that the House of Lords is best used as a revising Chamber, and not to question the principles of the House of Commons' decisions on such matters of substance.
  I will not reiterate all the arguments in favour of the Bill, which have been rehearsed many times. I want simply to state the principle that the Bill is not concerned with creating a new crime or a new kind of crime. What was done 50 or more years ago was so vile and infamous that those who did those things knew that they were committing a crime under any jurisdiction and under any circumstances. In the Bill, the House seeks merely to confer jurisdiction within the two criminal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom—in Scotland, and in England and Wales—to make it possible for a case to be considered before the criminal courts.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that bringing a prosecution will be difficult. All the factors to which he referred will have to be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. However, that is not the issue for today. The House is concerned with the principle of jurisdiction and with jurisdiction alone. If the House and Parliament as a whole pass the Bill and it becomes law, it
  48
  will be for the normal processes of investigation, of preparation and of prosecution, should there be accused to prosecute, to take into account all the normal procedures.
  Those matters are for the future. We are concerned with the principle. I have heard nothing in previous debates, in the debate in the House of Lords or in subsequent discussions elsewhere to cause me to change my vote. The majority of my constituents expect me to vote for the Bill tonight and I will gladly do so.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Like those from other political parties who have spoken, I want to begin by making it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be voting individually on this matter and not according to a party line.
  I stated in an earlier debate that the proposed trials are misconceived. In the months that have passed, I have reflected on the state of British public opinion and on the difficulty of the trials with a view to considering whether it would be right to revise my views and to take a supportive line on the Bill. As time has passed, my doubts, like those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), have grown. I have been fortified in my earlier view that the trials are misconceived and cannot be attended by the standards of justice that we seek to ensure here.
  Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers, who were responsible for the report that underlies the legislation, viewed the problem too exclusively from the point of view of the prosecution and inadequately from the point of view of the defence. That may not be surprising in view of the professional occupations that those two gentlemen held with distinction for many years. In their professional lives, they had been committed to the introduction of prosecutions in Scotland and in England but, when considering the potential predicament of the defence, they did not show the rigour appropriate to reaching a balanced conclusion.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I must take my hon. Friend to task for a travesty. I do not know much about Mr. Chalmers, but I know that it was a travesty in relation to Sir Thomas Hetherington. Is not my hon. Friend aware that Sir Thomas, before he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, was the Treasury Solicitor who acted for a number of years to protect, for example, the interests of children before the court? It is wrong to suggest that he is wholly and subjectively in favour of prosecution.
  Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to tell the House whether he believes in a statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions? If he does, will he tell us when, morally and legally, he believes that murder should stop being a crime?
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not rest my case on biographical analysis of either Sir Thomas Hetherington or Mr. Chalmers, distinguished gentlemen though they are. I have no doubt that they did their best to come to the right conclusion and I have no doubt that they weighed their words with considerable care, but they condemned themselves out of their own mouths. I will allude later to some of the things that they said in their report that give rise to concern that justice and the standards of justice that we are right to seek could not be achieved if we enacted the Bill.

  49
  The Bill rests its moral case on the enormity of the crimes which, it is argued, have been committed by a number of citizens and residents of this country and which are beyond the memory of many of those who debate the matter today. It has been observed that several of those taking part in the debate, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), were not alive when these matters occurred. It is not in question that the crimes of which those concerned will stand accused are monstrous, that they are against the law of the countries in which they were committed and that they would be crimes according to the general principles of law recognised by all civilised nations. The question is not whether we believe that the crimes were of an enormity that must be condemned. The question is whether we can establish in a British court of law that the individuals who are allegedly responsible actually committed those crimes.
  It does not seem right to pass a law, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggested we should, to demonstrate to the world our abhorrence of the holocaust. As he systematically advanced his argument, with every sentence he seemed to strengthen the doubts that he had expressed in the earlier debate and ended by saying that he was proposing to vote for the Bill simply as a declaration of his revulsion against the crimes of the holocaust. I cannot and do not believe it necessary to make such a declaration. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who does not share that revulsion; nor do I believe that the British public need to be reminded of that fact.
  One of the fears that I expressed in our earlier debate was that if the trials go ahead they may elicit some sympathy for those who are alleged to have perpetrated crimes of a kind that would stand the moral order on its head. That would be the reverse of sensible.
  The crucial question that one must examine in this debate is whether the defendants to these charges could, in practice, experience the facilities that the prosecution will enjoy in handling the evidence against them. I doubt whether they can. My understanding is that most of the offences are alleged to have taken place in countries that are now part of the Soviet Union. Most of the cases will have to be subject to the evidence of eye-witnesses for identification. It must be common sense that after 45 or 50 years the evidence of the eye-witness is less than reliable. However, it is also more than common sense, because the evidence from earlier committees that considered the nature of such evidence was that even those who said in courts of law that they had seared into their memories the face of the man who committed the atrocity—I am thinking especially of the Virag case that was referred to in the Devlin committee report—had got it wrong. Identification years after the event turned out to be wrong.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when Sir Thomas Hetherington originally considered the issue he was sceptical about whether such evidence could be obtained and would be available to the defence? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, having taken a great deal of time and trouble to study exactly that issue, he concluded that the evidence was overwhelming and compelling?
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall read from what Hetherington and Chalmers said on this subject, which I find most disturbing. They stated:
  "Because of the sickening efficiency of the mass killings we found few Jewish eye witnesses of the actual crimes: those
  50
  who had witnessed the atrocities were usually themselves killed. Many, however, were able to help with circumstantial and hearsay evidence, and some were able to identify suspects from photographs."
  I do not believe that the quality of such identification is likely to convict or to be convincing. It seems probable—
  Mr. Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: No, I shall develop my argument before giving way again.
  It seems probable that such prosecutions will not stick. In introducing the Bill, the Government appear to contemplate those evidential problems being overcome by the arrangements that are being made for television and video recordings of evidence taken abroad. Such arrangements may be open to the prosecution, which can deploy the limitless resources of the state when gathering evidence, but I question whether such an approach will be open to any of the defendants who are seeking to rebut the charges—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It should be.
  Mr. Maclennan: My hon. and learned Friend says that it should be. However, I am not aware of any arrangements that have been made to finance such a trawl for evidence for the defence and nor am I aware of the practicalities of so doing. We have heard about the old people who are to be the subject of the trial. It is beyond imagination that it would be within their physical capacity to conduct their defence efficaciously.
  I further question whether the Soviet Union would feel as ready in such trials to volunteer evidence for the defence as it might for the prosecution. I recognise that substantial and important changes have been made in the administration of justice in the Soviet Union territories in recent years, but I am not unmindful of the fact that in the Soviet Union the whole history of the second world war is still fraught with high emotion. Many of those who would be charged under the legislation would be considered guilty in the Soviet Union of the most grave offences. It seems unlikely that the Soviet Union would offer to the defence the co-operation with evidence that it might be prepared to offer to the prosecution.
  Mr. Gorst: Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument tantamount to saying that if, when debating the passing of any law, the House can see difficulties with evidence, we should not pass that law, even if the crime that we are contemplating is odious?
  Mr. Maclennan: In passing any legislation one should be aware of the consequences of what one is doing.
  I find it impossible to accept the argument that this is not retrospective legislation, because it plainly is. The practical consequences of setting up such retrospective jurisdiction and of bringing into court a number of people who, by the nature of the process, will be gravely disadvantaged when compared with the prosecution lead me to believe that such cases would not be in accordance with the standards of British justice or with the European convention on human rights. Although the convention is not incorporated into the law of the land, it is none the less an indication of the standards that we have accepted internationally. Some play has been made of the international nature of the offences—
  Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not yet intervened, when I have finished this point.
  Article 6(3) of the European convention on human rights provides:
  "Anyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."
  Anyone who can say that that is possible or likely has taken a small step towards justifying the trials. However, one need only contemplate that to realise that, in practice, it will not be done.
  Mr. Latham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has given way to me with his usual courtesy. I am trying to follow his argument because he seems to be arguing that the defence would be gravely disadvantaged, yet the argument used in the House of Lords by the Master of the Rolls and others, and in this House today, is that it would be impossible to bring a trial successfully because no jury would convict. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Maclennan: The Master of the Rolls has more experience than I of such matters and he may well be right. We are considering whether such trials should be set up and the prospects that would flow from the establishment of such trials. I cannot say whether a jury would be convinced. It seems highly improbable that a fair-minded jury would consider that the burden of proof had been discharged. Indeed, it seemed to be the purpose of the report to demonstrate that a remarkably small number of people among the cases that were considered would be likely to be convicted. However, there is a small number of people who would be convicted. I believe that the number has diminished by one death since the report was published.
  The House should not legislate for demonstration purposes. We can demonstrate our revulsion of crime in many ways. We do not need to embark on retrospective criminal legislation to do so. I see the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), shaking his finger at me. Perhaps he would like to shake his lips at me.
  Mr. John Patten: I did not make a rude gesture from a seated position. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way with characteristic courtesy. He has been exact in his use of words so far, but he has suddenly suggested that the Bill is retrospective criminal legislation. Whatever else the Bill is, it is not that. It affects jurisdiction. There may be arguments about whether that jurisdictional change is retrospective, but the Bill does not change the criminal law in any way.
  Mr. Maclennan: That is precisely the distinction that I cannot understand, although I admit that I am not a lawyer. If this country does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute someone for a crime, that is a function of the criminal law. It is the limit of the criminal law. The Government are seeking to change the jurisdiction of the courts to prosecute people for offences for which hitherto they could not be prosecuted. The Minister is logic chopping. We are not in dispute about the facts. How one cares to describe them is a matter of nuance which does not carry the argument much further forward.
  52
  I was impressed by the weight of argument against the Bill in another place. I do not normally consider that the House of Lords, for all its great expertise, is more in touch with the realities of life than the House of Commons. But on this occasion, the House of Lords predicted with much greater accuracy than this House did during our debates what would happen if the Bill were enacted and the travesty of justice that we ran the risk of initiating by putting the proposals on the statute book.
  I hope that the House will think again and will realise that every month that passes makes it more likely that our standards of justice will be seen to be less than adequate and less than we aspire to in Britain.
  5.31 pm
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I understand that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) intends to change his vote from an abstention to a vote against the Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is changing from a vote for the Bill to a vote against it. The deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has changed his argument and his views, but not his vote. Nevertheless, there has been a change of opinion on the Opposition Benches.
  The Bill seeks to deal with enormous and terrible crimes which excite revulsion and strong feelings among us all. That is common ground. But before I deal with the merits of the Bill, I should like to deal briefly with the constitutional point. Formally, the Government are within their rights to employ the Parliament Acts. But, in reality, what they are doing is an abuse of those Acts. It shows, at the least, a sorry sense of proportion.
  The Parliament Acts were designed to prevent a minority party in the House of Commons from using its majority in another place to frustrate the will of the elected Government. Of course, that is far from being the case on this occasion. This is not a party matter and no democratic principle arises. All that has happened is that a heavy majority of the other place, with great knowledge of the subject, has voted strongly against the Bill and an even bigger majority of this House has voted the other way. In those circumstances, if the Government were not prepared to take the obvious and proper course—to drop the Bill—their duty was surely to amend it to make it more acceptable to the overwhelming majority in the other place. There is no excuse whatever for using the Parliament Acts.
  The Government's behaviour is wholly disproportionate. As far as I am aware, the Parliament Acts have been used only to force through Bills of major constitutional or other importance such as Welsh disestablishment, Irish home rule and the Parliament Act 1949 itself. Furthermore, the Parliament Acts have never been used by a Conservative Government. They are being used for the first time for this, in many ways, highly objectionable little Bill. That is all the more ridiculous because, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, the Bill was annihilated in the Second Reading debate in the other place.
  It was conclusively shown that the Bill was retrospective legislation, selective legislation and, in addition to those crippling disadvantages and contraventions of the rule of law, legislation which would not

  53
  produce a fair trial. Of course, the Government are not bound to defer to the vote of the other place. But surely they are bound to pay attention to the authoritative views stated there. The Government have singularly failed to do that.
  I do not wish to be rude to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who made a statesmanlike and moderate speech, and still less to the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), but why in matters of law do they believe that they know better than the extraordinarily impressive array of legal and other talents which annihilated the rationale of the Bill in another place? I am aware that the prestige of the judiciary is not at its highest at present, but, rightly or wrongly, that is because we have had some alarming cases in which the Bench was slow to realise that innocent men had been convicted. The position is absolutely the opposite in this case. The Law Lords in another place are worried that under the Bill people will not be given a fair trial. Surely their views should be listened to carefully.
  Mr. Gorst: Are not we safer with men of common sense than with men of erudition?
  Sir Ian Gilmour: That is an uncharacteristically philistine point from my hon. Friend, which is singularly inapplicable to a Bill of this nature.
  Lord Hailsham, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Ackner, Lord Donaldson of Lymington and Lord Goodman variously said that the Bill would not be British justice, that it would damage the rule of law and that it would debase the standards of British justice. Where is the matching expertise of my right hon. Friends in the Government which entitles them to dispute that view? We certainly have not heard any arguments against that view so far today.
  Almost everyone agrees that retrospective legislation is undesirable. Lord Hailsham, Lord Ackner and Lord Donaldson, to say nothing of distinguished historians such as Lord Dacre of Glanton and Lord Blake, pointed out that the Bill was retrospective legislation. Of course, it is clearly retrospective. If it were not, we should not need the Bill. People could be prosecuted without it.
  Equally clearly, the Bill is highly selective legislation. After the war I was lucky enough to visit the Nuremberg trials, which were presided over in a most distinguished and fair way by Lord Oaksey, then Lord Justice Lawrence. In 1946 much less was known about the iniquities of the Soviet regime. But even then a great deal was known or suspected. In particular, it was widely suspected that the Katyn massacres had been perpetrated by the Soviets, not the Nazis. So, even in 1946, it seemed odd that representatives of the Soviet regime sat side by side with British, American and French justices at the Nuremberg court. Yet in the circumstances of 1946 it was inevitable.
  The selectivity of this Bill is not inevitable. It is confined to offences committed in Germany or in German-occupied territory and offences committed before 1945. Such selectivity is not inevitable and it is wrong. That was demonstrated in another place by Lord Hailsham, who said that there was no attempt to be fair, by the Scottish Law Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and by Lord Donaldson.
  One may believe, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that the whole
  54
  business is declaratory—in which case I believe that it could be done better by a declaration than by an Act. Supporters of the Bill clearly want to see fair trials. Otherwise, the whole business would be pointless. Again, we have unanswerable testimony that that will not happen.
  Lord Shawcross pointed out that in 1948 two distinguished judges felt that a four-year delay was too long. We are now faced with a delay of 50 years. Apart from the delay, Lord Shawcross thought that the changes in procedure that are being introduced to help the prosecution at the expense of the defence would prevent justice from being seen to be done. I was struck by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought that the changes in procedure were introduced to help the defence—that is exactly the opposite of the truth. All the changes are biased in favour of the prosecution.
  Lord Goodman agreed with Lord Shawcross. Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, a most distinguished criminal advocate for the defence over many years, pointed out that naming suspects first and then building up evidence against them had led to many miscarriages of justice. He did not think that we could guarantee a fair trial.
  Lord Ackner made a similar point strongly and expressed similar doubt about a fair trial being provided. Lord Morton of Shuna went even further and spoke of the practical impossibility of achieving a fair trial. Lord Donaldson had the same view. He said:
  "Identification after 45 years is a wholly preposterous proposition".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 1990; Vol. 519, c. 1174.]
  Lord Blake is not a judge, but he was a prisoner of war. He said that he would have the greatest difficulty identifying any of his captors or guards 50 years later. Lord Bridge of Harwich believed that the procedures under the Bill would be a breach of the criminal process. Once again, I ask the Government: on what possible grounds do they think that they know better, on a specifically legal point, than the experienced and distinguished judges whom I named? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seemed a bit shaky on that matter this afternoon.
  There is one final point. The enormous lapse of time since these dreadful crimes were committed means that the accused men—guilty or not—were very young at the time. In other words, they were small fry who were obeying orders. If they had disobeyed orders, they would certainly have been killed. No doubt they should have disobeyed orders, but I do not think that we can all be sure that we would have behaved heroically and disobeyed those appalling orders.
  Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are known cases of soldiers serving in the German army who refused to commit war crimes and who managed not to be shot? Surely, to a large extent, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to find excuses for those appalling crimes. Day after day, men, women, children and even babes in arms were systematically murdered. Surely the fact that those soldiers were young at the time and were serving in the most monstrous army known cannot be an excuse for their not being brought to justice.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I have not been making excuses. The crimes were appalling. I am not sure that I, or even the hon. Gentleman, would have been heroic enough to disobey orders, and be shot for doing so. The hon.

  55
  Gentleman may be confident about his courage—I do not dispute his courage—but he is demanding great courage from everyone. But that is a relatively minor point.
  The main point is that these people will not be given a fair trial, even with the highest testimony. The whole debate on this matter has shown that the Labour Government in 1948 and Sir Winston Churchill a little earlier were right in saying that the process of retribution should be brought to an end and that it had gone on long enough. Sir Winston Churchill said that a "sponge" should be drawn across the whole story of horror and atrocity. The Labour Government and Sir Winston Churchill were right then and the Government are wholly wrong now. For those reasons, I oppose the Bill.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I agree with the Home Secretary that, given the developments that have taken place since proceedings in the House just a year ago, there must be an opportunity to see how feelings have changed. Already in the debate we have had ample evidence that feelings are changing and of how far accommodation is possible between the two Houses. We heard a persuasive speech from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). There clearly is a case for such an accommodation.
  Above all, there must be an opportunity for reconsideration—happily, we have been provided with that this evening—in the light of the debates in both Chambers. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out, the evidence so far suggests that hon. Members are re-examining their positions. At this stage, the argument seems to be going in one direction.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, nothing that any hon. Member says—no matter which side of the argument he is on—moves any of us either to forget the holocaust or to be prepared to forgive it. That is not in question. Like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I was intrigued to hear the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and then to note his final position. It was similar to the speech he made a year last December when we debated the principle. His argument then was persuasive most of the time, but suddenly he made a big jump and said that, despite all his reservations, he would go into the Division Lobby in support of the Bill. Apparently my right hon. Friend is content with taking a declaratory position. I thought that I heard him murmur—I hope that he will forgive me if I misjudge him—that, if the Bill is passed, we are unlikely to hear much more about it. If my right hon. Friend did not say that, that view is certainly held by other hon. Members.
  I have sat through all the debates and wondered repeatedly about the confidence displayed by, and even the authority expressed on war crimes by, hon. Members on both sides of the argument. I did not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) or with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that the passage of 50 years would make it almost impossible to identify a defendant or a witness.
  56
  Those who have known war will agree that it leaves a shadow across a person that never leaves him—it leaves an indelible mark.
  The days of the war were extraordinary times and none of those who knew them can ever really communicate the flavour of them to those who did not. Anyone who has been a party to death, much less stood in its shadow or become reconciled to it, will know that the minutest details of the circumstances are etched on one's mind—Dr. Johnson was right.
  Given the record of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in particular, I doubt whether too clear a distinction could be drawn, as some hon. Members insisted a year ago—notably the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—between the wholesale slaughter of defenceless women and children who played no part in the war and killing in the heat of battle.
  If there is one phrase that I associate with war more than any other—I am reluctant to use it because it has become a cliché—it is the fog of war. War became a fog. No matter how long it went on, no matter how clear one's recollection of part of it, there was always a fog. Unlike some hon. Members, I doubt whether, this final step having been taken, we can put the horrors of war behind us once and for all or that, given Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and now Saddam Hussein, the Bill will act as a deterrent.
  I have never been able to rid my mind of the concern, expressed by some hon. Members, about how the people of this country will be affected once the process starts. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has warned us of that yet again. I fear that this will stir cynicism, or worse, and at a time when Europe is looking to the future we shall be seen to be delving into the past.
  I came down on the side of those who were against the proposal, and then only with great reluctance—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. For me, it remained a matter of doubt so that, in common with half the membership of this House, I abstained on Second Reading three months later. The general attitude of those right hon. and hon. Members who remained committed to the Bill struck me as half hearted. That appeared to be confirmed when the Bill's defeat in another place produced only one question to the Prime Minister the following Tuesday—from the right hon. Member for Castle Point. There was no passion elsewhere in this House on that day.
  We owe this opportunity to reconsider the Bill to another place. We also owe it to the Upper House that many moral, legal and potentially constitutional issues were widely aired in the debate there, in a way that they were not in this Chamber. No one who has studied the debates of both Houses can deny that the other place had overwhelmingly the best of the argument. Despite some recent comments to the contrary, today's House of Lords is the very model of constitutional circumspection. There is no breach of the Salisbury convention. Their Lordships' treatment of the Bill is ample proof of the contemporary value of the other place as a second Chamber. It is making us think again. There is already evidence in this debate that other right hon. and hon. Members are thinking again—and I am one of them.
  I am entirely persuaded by the plea of my noble Friend Lord Callaghan. I share his belief that the Members of this House ought to express their deep conviction and experience—especially our experience of war. Concern has inevitably focused on the moral and legal issues, but there

  57
  is considerable interest in the subsidiary matters. One is whether defendants can be guaranteed a fair trial after 50 years; the other is the nature of the charges, 'without knowledge of which, given the claim that the Bill is a unique provision to meet unique circumstances—although tonight the Home Secretary substituted the word "unusual" for "unique"—right hon. and hon. M embers may find it difficult to form a view.
  The first of the major issues is moral outrage It will undoubtedly unite the House. Where mass murder is the issue, all right hon. and hon. Members will yield initially to the moral argument that we cannot tolerate in our midst the presence of unprosecuted persons, however few they are or however old they may be, who are perhaps guilty of certain crimes. There are crimes that cry out to heaven for justice.
  What of the legal response involved? The Hetherington report refers to an element of retroactive justice—that is to say, laws passed against deeds that were not unlawful at the time that they were supposedly committed. In this case, the crime is murder by non-British nationals many hundreds of miles from British soil.
  The most balanced case against altering the law was made in the Upper House by Lord Goodman, who is one of our most distinguished lawyers, and who is also Jewish. He said that parts of the Bill would alter the rule of law in Britain, and would thus do "appalling damage" to all the minorities who find their defence in it.
  When I visited Dachau, I was interested to note that, long before the horrors that were perpetrated against the Jews in the early 1940s, waves of German socialists, trade unionists, gipsies, and similar dissidents and minorities had been taken there. In 1939 and 1940, the Poles arrived—most of them Catholic priests—and then there followed the torrent.
  In the debate in another place, Lord Bauer said that he is of Jewish extraction, that his father was killed by the Nazis, but that he regarded the Bill as another step in the erosion of the rule of law. When moral outrage and the sense of legality clash with such force, where does one turn in a democracy but to public opinion?
  I distinctly remember the decision, announced after the second world war, not to continue prosecuting or surrendering suspected war criminals because parliamentary and public opinion was critical of war crime trials. I attended the London School of Economics with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and often used to visit the House of Commons. Any suggestion then that war crime trials would be revived 40 years later would have been received with incredulity. If there is one institution in this land that would have protested if there had been even the smallest dissent against that decision, it would surely have been the London School of Economics, given its character then.
  Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the British public had been told at that time that it was likely, because of inadequate vetting procedures or as a result of deliberate policy—because we needed information from the war criminals concerned—that such persons could come to this country and be immune from prosecution for ever after, British public opinion would have remained silent?
  Mr. Duffy: I am truly astonished when I hear my hon. Friends impugn the motives of the postwar Labour Government at this late stage.
  Ms. Short: In the debate in another place, Lord Shawcross made it clear that, when the decision was made in 1984 to stop prosecutions, the decision was taken also to free German generals, who were much bigger fish than the suspected war criminals who are the subject of the Bill. That kind of knowledge was available at the time.
  Mr. Duffy: The Nuremberg trials were designed not only to punish barbarism but to act as a deterrent. The Chief Rabbi fears that if such people escape justice, humanity will never be safe. The trouble is that the revival of such trials might in some twisted minds have precisely the opposite effect to that which is intended. There is a risk—and one that I identified in the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—that the passage of time may change people's perceptions.
  Late last June, I was walking down Leipzigstrasse in east Berlin before unification when a car pulled up alongside me and a couple of young Scandinavians jumped out to ask for directions. They did not want to know the way to Checkpoint Charlie, which was just behind me; to the Brandenburg gate, just two blocks away; or to the Reichstag just beyond. Instead, they wanted to know the way to the building immediately opposite the Reichstag—across the river from it—which they described as Goering's air ministry. There is a danger of desensitising a public already prone to saturation with the details of man's bestiality.
  Just as Nuremberg had little moral influence on individuals, so has it failed to serve as a deterrent internationally. What is the purpose of continuing to hunt down the geriatric remnants of the Nazi scourge? Some hon. Members believe that it will encourage other nations—notably Germany, Canada, and the United States—to proceed against other alleged war criminals. Will it serve that purpose? The failure of this House to initiate any move against Saddam Hussein, who gassed an entire town, while tinkering with its own domestic legal process to permit the prosecution of three old men and the investigation of others residing in Britain will strike many people as being misconceived.
  Mr. Winnick: This is one of the few subjects on which my hon. Friend and I do not agree, having achieved so much unity in the past few months in respect of the Gulf crisis. My hon. Friend referred to the gassing of the Kurds in March 1987—and other Iraqi atrocities were committed more recently in Kuwait. If those alleged to have committed such crimes are not brought to justice, but are found, even 50 years later, to be living in this country, for reasons that I cannot explain, is it suggested that they should not be brought to justice then?
  Mr. Duffy: I am considering their prosecution now and in present circumstances. It is difficult to project one's mind 50 years hence, into the circumstances that would be present then. We have the advantage of knowing the present circumstances, even though there is a 50 year gap.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right—we usually fight on the same side. He makes a difficult demand of me, but we must agree that we would like a move to be made against Saddam Hussein now.
  Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, and that at 6 o'clock the 10 minute time limit on speeches will begin. Those hon. Members who seek to intervene do so only at the expense of their colleagues' time.
  Mr. Duffy: In view of those remarks, I shall proceed.
  The recent concern for a just war in the Gulf reminds us how far even the most civilised nations have progressively departed from that idea in this century. The idea of the just war was complex, but ultimately rested upon the principle that violence may be used legitimately only against an opponent who possesses the means and the forewarnings with which to defend himself.
  In part, it is because the victims of the crimes that we are debating were defenceless that we all feel so outraged. However, there were other defenceless victims of the second world war. They were killed by the war strategies of the democracies. Most were German—600,000 German civilians, the majority women and children, were killed in the strategic bombing campaign. Another 2 million German civilians died during the mass expulsions from eastern Europe in 1945—expulsions to which the western leaders acquiesced.
  This is not an argument for moral balance, much less for moral equivalence. No moral equivalent accommodates genocide. The moral balance, measured in terms of the individual's conscience, even among service men on active operations in the midst of the war—notably following the 1,000-bomber raid on Cologne, the unfolding strategy of Bomber Command and the dropping of the atomic bomb and its repeat—weighed overwhelmingly to the allied side. Those of us who were serving worried throughout the war—we did not wait until the revelation of post-war horrors. We were concerned at every step throughout the war, from 1941, lest we were going too far. We may be made to pause for thought on the horror of total war if we remember that it was practised by democracies as well as by tyrannies.
  Because our sense of justice is so keen and because our obligation to the rule of law has been consolidated by such terrible deeds, we must question how far we can be morally justified in tampering with the foundations of democracy—which is the rule of law.
  The examples of Canada and Australia have been held up to us, although their experience is, as yet, limited. Interestingly, the United States has not yet passed legislation to enable trials of war criminals to be held there. It seems that the reason is that any such prosecutions would be in breach of the American constitution's prohibition on ex post facto law. Why are we prepared to proceed when our American friends are determined not to?
  Finally, as with all serious questions of law and justice, what matters as much as how the law affects suspected war criminals is what it says about us—in whose name the law may or may not be changed. We may pursue the matter in such a manner and temper as to be exposed to the charge of vengeance—and there is no emotion which is so degrading of the human spirit—or we may decide that the spirit of the times is no longer in tune with scavenging the dreadful reminders of the past. Distasteful though it is that terrible crimes may go unpunished, there are times when
  60
  the past is best left to history. When people are guilty of such terrible crimes there is an ultimate justice from which they cannot escape.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) who served in the war. I was born on the day when Montgomery's Army entered Benghazi in November 1942, so I do not remember these things, but the hon. Member does and the House listens to him with respect.
  Ten years ago I discussed with the late Airey Neave and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) a debate that my hon. Friend was about to introduce on whether Hess should be released from Spandau. Airey Neave said that he had served the indictment on Hess and I asked him whether he thought that we should have had all those Nuremberg trials. I asked whether he thought that we should have made a new law about waging aggressive war. I asked, "Why didn't you just stick them up against a wall and shoot them"—these mass murderers and Nazi leaders? I asked, "Why did you bother with trials?" Airey replied that there were plenty of people who thought that way but that if we had done that we would have been as bad as the Nazis. He said that we had to have trials to show that the world believed that men could be put on trial for such dreadful deeds. Of course, he was right—as he was right about so many other matters.
  Nevertheless, when I first considered this issue, before the first of our four debates on the subject many months ago, I was doubtful whether this was the right way to proceed and I shall tell the House why.
  I wondered whether the Bill would lead to an increase in something that has been below the surface throughout this debate, but is lurking there—whether the Bill would increase anti-Semitism. I wondered whether people would say—as was hinted in one speech today—that the Jews had got up this Bill with their money and their pressure.
  Therefore, I spoke to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I am not allowed to call him my hon. Friend, although he is honourable and he is my friend. No one has fought harder for the Jewish people than he has done. I asked him whether, as a Jewish leader—which he has been for many years—he was worried that war crimes trials would increase anti-Semitism. He said, "No, I am not worried and neither is the community. This must be done." If that is what Jewish leaders and the Jewish community think, who am Ito stand in the way and to say that it would stir up anti-Semitism? I am meeting that argument head on, because I know that it is in many people's minds.
  As a Gentile, I receive large amounts of anti-Semitic literature every time that I speak on this subject or on Israel, even when I write letters to the Church Times. If I receive that, how much worse must it be for people such as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West?
  I decided that the argument that trials would stir up anti-Semitism has to be resisted because a greater evil has to be fought—the evil of violence and mass murder, which has to be met and fought every time that it comes to light.
  When I was wondering what I should do I also thought of the extract from the Torah which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) quoted from the Dispatch Box today:
  "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

  61
  I wondered whether we should pursue the line of leaving this matter to history, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe suggested. As we are quoting a religious book, I also asked myself what theology is so robust that it can withstand babies being thrown into crematoria. What theology can say that we should put all that behind us and forget it? I do not know what theology that is, but it is certainly not one that I can understand.
  I thought about all those matters and I decided that all I can do in the House is to vote, and that I cannot withhold my vote in favour of putting in place legislation that will do something about those who may have been responsible for the murder of millions.
  6.9 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: I am very troubled by the Bill. I voted for it last time, for two reasons. The first was the horror of the holocaust—one of the most evil events in human history, if not the most evil, which can never be forgotten or forgiven. The second was my anxiety that we should enforce international law. The 1947 Geneva convention was a consequence of the horrors of the second world war and the Nuremberg trials. I want that convention to be implemented throughout the world so that the tyrannical and monstrous treatment or people can be dealt with without the need to resort to war and the destruction of the innocent.
  I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein was entirely in breach of the Geneva convention, which is part of our law, when he gassed the Kurds and prosecuted a war against Iran; yet our Government offered him export credits. The Geneva convention obliges us to arrest representatives of that Government in any country in the world. Similarly, I have no doubt that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge have been gravely in breach of the convention, and that under our law—and international law—we should take action against them. But we supported a coalition that included representatives of the Khmer Rouge.
  Painful and ironic though it is, there is no doubt that Israel is also in grave breach of the convention because of its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. International law and our law oblige us to enforce the convention and take action against representatives of the Israeli state.
  I do not believe that such action should be simply for revenge: it would be taken to prevent the recurrence of such oppression. If the international community would rise to the challenge, we should be able to protect human rights across the world, and prevent the brutalities that happen everywhere. I voted for the Bill previously because I believed that if we enforced a law on war crimes we might prevent future crimes of the same kind.
  Having followed the debate in the House of Lords, I became increasingly worried about the likely consequences of the Bill. I remember appearing on "Question Time" at about that time, and saying that I might have to reconsider my vote. I said that I would have to read the Hetherington report, for instance.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms. Short: I will in a minute.
  I received a good many letters from Jewish people who said, fairly and rightly, that the horrors of the holocaust had been such that no one involved should get away with
  62
  it. I also received many letters from older service men, saying, "All sorts of atrocities are perpetrated in a war. We have had the war crimes trials; it is wrong for us to return to the matter now." I found the difference of opinion interesting.
  Mrs. Golding: I have a copy of the record of the Second Reading debate, along with the details of the vote that followed it. My hon. Friend's name is not recorded in either.
  Ms. Short: I may or may not have missed one of the votes, but I voted deliberately—[Interruption.] We can return to the matter later, but I remember the occasion and I remember going through the Lobby. We can double-check, but I voted. I think that my hon. Friend should be careful. I will see her later. I will find the record. I object to such challenges. I know that I voted. If my hon. Friend is calling me a liar, we will sort it out later, but I am telling her now that I voted.
  Mrs. Golding: It is not me; it is Hansard.
  Ms. Short: I voted, and I voted for the Bill. My hon. Friend is pushing it too far.
  Because of my increasing concern, I read the Hetherington report this weekend, and became increasingly troubled by it. I was struck by the enormous difficulties faced by the people who have to travel around the world trying to find out the real names of the individuals concerned, establishing whether they had found the right ones and collecting evidence in faraway countries from people who did not speak English and were also very elderly. I felt increasingly that we would not be able to obtain accurate information, and that it was dangerous to contemplate any trials.
  There can be no excuse or forgiveness for such terrible crimes as those committed in the Baltics, the Ukraine and Byelorussia; but they were committed 46 years ago, and the witnesses involved are very old, as are those alleged to be guilty. It is hard to believe that identification will necessarily be accurate or, indeed, that the evidence will be so. I fear that fair trials will be impossible. I also see a real danger that, as frail and elderly people are brought to trial, the effect on public opinion will be the creation of sympathy for those who are charged and the lessening of anger about the evil of the crimes that were committed. People will not be reminded of the horrors of the war.
  My other fear is that, because we ceased to try war criminals in 1948, we will be haphazard about who is tried now. Some war criminals who committed much worse offences than others may get away with it. Surely it is deeply wrong that, because of the way in which the Baltic issue arose, the less evil criminals may be the ones who are brought to trial.
  In Australia, where powers have been taken to try war criminals, no trials have taken place. In Canada, there has been one such trial. A man was tried for enormously serious offences—organising the shipping of large numbers of Jews to concentration camps. There were many witnesses; the man was acquitted. That is another angle. First, the Bill might result in unfair trials; secondly, public opinion might be sympathetic to the old men, rather than angry about the evils that had been committed; thirdly, serious war criminals might be acquitted because of the passage of time and the attendant doubts. That is what happened in the Canadian case.

  63
  If the Bill is not passed, it will be open to the Government to consider stripping British citizenship from any individual against whom there is evidence. The possibility of extradition also remains open. I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that the Bill is not the only possible remedy.
  Mr. Allason: The hon. Lady passed over one point very quickly. Is she advocating the extradition of people from this country so that they can be tried elsewhere? The only countries likely to accept them would be those that retain capital punishment.
  Ms. Short: I am not advocating anything. I am simply saying that I oppose the Bill, and that, if we reject it, we have other options in regard to individuals against whom we have seen no evidence. I have read the report: it tells of serious allegations. There is a historical description of the awful things that happened in the Baltic states and the Ukraine, but we do not know the nature of the allegations made against the individuals whose cases have been looked into. If we reject the Bill, and if some of the evidence becomes available—if we want to take action against some monstrous war criminal living in our country—it will be open to us to consider stripping him of British citizenship, symbolically and demonstrably. Alternatively, we could decide on deportation or extradition. We may want to consider that in future, given the changing situation in the Soviet Union.
  The crimes that we are discussing—the holocaust, and all that happened in the second world war—can never be forgiven. The guilt of those involved goes with each of them to the grave. I oppose the Bill, however. I do not believe that the trials would lead to justice; I fear that they would lead to a diminution in public anger about the historical crimes that were committed. I believe that the House would be making a grave mistake if it proceeded with the Bill.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: First, let me tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has consulted the Division list and has confirmed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) voted. No doubt her hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) will apologise in due course, but not in the 10 minutes allotted to me.
  Mrs. Golding rose—
  Mr. Amery: No. I will not give way.
  Mrs. Golding: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Latham: It is injury time.
  Mrs. Golding: It is indeed. I assure the House that I have consulted the record of the Second Reading debate and the subsequent vote as recorded in Hansard and that my hon. Friend's name does not appear.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. This may be a point of interest, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It does not concern the Chair which way an hon. Member voted, or whether she voted at all.
  Mr. Amery: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will allow the clock to start now.
  We all agree that it is a long-standing convention that in the ordinary way the Executive should never interfere in the judicial process, but here we are not concerned with the judicial process; we are concerned with new legislation. Therefore, it is not only our right but our duty to consider the political circumstances that surround the Bill. It is aimed at a certain number of individuals of Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and Ukrainian origin and citizenship in their own time. They joined the German forces to fight against the Russians whom they regarded as their natural enemies. None of that in any way excuses any crime that they may have committed. However, within a few months of the crimes that they are alleged to have committed, Soviet citizens were committing similar crimes in much the same locality. The Bill does not provide for the prosecution of any of those individuals if, by any chance, they happen to be already resident in this country, which is unlikely but not inconceivable.
  The Ukraine and the Baltic states are, alas, again on the agenda. The process of liberation or reoccupation that characterised the events that we are talking about is already, in a smaller way—thank God, so far—taking place. I doubt very much the validity of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the importance of a declaratory gesture. This Bill would be declaratory against those who sided, as they thought, with those who were fighting for the liberation of their country against the Soviets, but it would not be declaratory against those who committed similar crimes on behalf of the Soviet Union. That would be to send the wrong message.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) talked about show trials. He was completely right. I am sure that the judiciary would conduct the trials in an honourable way, but we have to consider not only what our press would say; imagine the meal that the hard-line press in Moscow would make of them. They would show up Baltic atrocities on the Nazis side but would make no reference to any atrocities that might have been committed by the Soviets in a similar context. We must take account of the international context.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) movingly drew attention to the war crimes being committed by Iraq now, against both the Kuwaitis and their own people. Apart from loose talk, I can find no procedure for penalising those who are committing such crimes—the leaders in particular. As far as I can make out, we are referring in this Bill to people who would be the equivalent of non-commissioned officers or warrant officers in this country.
  Apart from the issue having been blown out of proportion, the Bill is historically wrong. We are always told that generals want to fight the last war. Here it is a question of the lawyers wanting to fight the last war. They are trying to fight the unfinished business of the second world war without paying the slightest regard in the Bill to the crimes that have been committed since then. That must offend our sense of equity and justice. To make just another declaration against the unforgivable holocaust and to say nothing about the crimes that have been committed since seems to me grotesque.
  One of the curious aspects of eastern Europe at present—I follow its affairs as closely as I can—is how little

  65
  evidence there is so far of vengeance and vendetta. There is the German protest about Mr. Honecker being taken off to Russia for medical treatment, but there have been very few charges. We should take that into account. A degree of merciful oblivion is required because, Lord knows, the crimes committed in eastern Europe, not only by the Germans in their day but by the Soviets in theirs, are equally unforgivable. We have to live with that. The time has come, to use Churchill's phrase, to pass a merciful sponge over the record. The House ought to do nothing that would revive old antagonisms and reopen old wounds. That would be beneath the dignity of this House.
  At a time when our judiciary is under some question, the Bill that we are discussing does not seem to provide a solid basis for a constitutional challenge to the other place. We should do well to reject it and to think again about the future—about whether there is the need for wider legislation to encompass war crimes in all parts of the world, if war criminals should come to reside here. I hope that they will not, but if that happened perhaps there ought to be another measure to deal with them. Entirely to direct our fire at a few old men who are the relics of the second world war and to ignore in any declaratory announcement what has happened since would be little short of obscene.
  Ms. Short: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was accused, in effect, of being a liar by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), may I say that on 12 December 1989 we endorsed in a vote the need for legislation on the basis of the Hetherington-Chalmers report. I voted for that. Thereafter, I abstained in the vote on the Bill, and I shall vote against it tonight. That is the position, which I wanted to put on the record.
  Mrs. Golding: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady sure that her point of order is for the Chair and something that I can resolve? I cannot resolve much, but I shall try to resolve this point of order.
  Mrs. Golding: Was it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to call me a liar?
  Ms. Short: I did not. I said you called me a liar.
  Mrs. Golding: I was quoting from Hansard, which cannot lie, as we all know.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had enough points of order which do not relate to the debate.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: have read every speech on this matter since the principle of the Bill was first debated in December 1989. One of the most impressive facts that I have learnt from those speeches was the absolute sincerity of Members of the other place and of this when addressing themselves, without rancour, to the issue. An interesting facet of the debate is that Members of both Houses have expressed their differing points of view with great skill, thought and responsibility. This, therefore, is one of those occasions when there is no need for any hon. Member to get upset. The House is addressing the issue in a highly responsible manner.
  66
  I remind the House that this is a Bill to
  "Confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the law and customs of war".
  We are being asked to pass legislation that would enable our courts to deal with breaches of the laws and customs of war. I remind the House that for over 100 years we have been signatories to a bank of international jurisprudence and international law—treaties and conventions that addressed violations of the laws and customs of war. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether it is correct to suggest for one moment that the House of Commons was wrong to introduce the Bill. Before the mid-1980s, the House, the Government and the country were not aware that war criminals were living in Britain, so there was no need to question our commitment to the European convention on human rights or the Hague convention. To comply with conventions made following the second world war, all civilised nations accepted that the passage of time should not inhibit a country in dealing with war criminals.
  In the mid-1980s we became aware of the possibility of war criminals living in Britain and hon. Members set up a war crimes group, of which I had the honour of being a member. We carefully considered the information that was available to us. To its credit, the group made it abundantly clear that it would not reach hasty conclusions and set about, through the Home Office, seeing how best it could assist the House in reaching a reasonable conclusion—thus, the Hetherington report.
  After that, as senior hon. Members will understand, the Government had to go through the processes of drafting a Bill and so on, so it was not a hasty process. In 1989, we were asked to discuss the principle of the Bill.
  The Hetherington report deals with restrospection. Page 92 says:
  "Both the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) contain Articles to prevent the introduction of retrospective legislation. Both, however, contain provisos to allow the trial and punishment of persons for acts or omissions which were, at the time they were committed, already regarded as criminal by the international standard."
  That is quite clear. Page 97 says:
  "In our view, to enact legislation in this country to give the British courts jurisdiction over murder and manslaughter committed as violations of the laws and customs of war would not be to create an offence retrospectively."
  That was the view of people who had considerable legal experience.
  Some specious arguments were advanced in the other place on whether we should proceed with the Bill. If we are complying with international jurisprudence on retrospection and therefore not committing an offence in our own country or abroad, it is pertinent for someone to ask, "After all these years, should we hesitate because of the possibility of an unfair trial?" As I said in debate in March last year, that is not the job of this House. Many lawyers who spoke on the Bill in the other place and in this House made the mistake of addressing a court. We give courts the powers to work. If a judge believes that a trial may be unfair, he can stop it; he does not consult the House because that proviso applies to all trials.
  Another objection to the Bill is that more than 40 years have passed. I understand that a Member of the other place said, "After 40 years, old men forget." I served as a young officer in the war and I am now 72, but I am neither old nor do I forget. If I committed an offence, no hon. Member would say "Do not go to court because you cannot defend yourself." I am quite capable of doing that.

  67
  We are tampering retrospectively with laws on evidence, which is not our job. Our job is to provide the courts and investigating authorities with the powers to get on with their work. I do not want to criticise lawyers, but sometimes they think that they have a monopoly of reason and experience. Often, they have a monopoly of mediocrity. Those who have been in public life for many years know when to advance an objective case. No prosecuting counsel, Director of Public Prosecutions or person involved in instigating committals will proceed if there is a lack of evidence or doubts about a case.
  It was said in the other place that these trials will cost £12 million. Not long ago, £5 million was spent on finding out whether five officers were telling the truth in the Cleveland child abuse case.
  I have firmly mentioned the duties of the investigating and judicial authorities. Our duty is to comply with the letter of the Bill and to enable courts to bring someone to trial if they can do so.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. John Gorst: Although my argument is a factor for consideration, it is not necessarily the main justification for giving the Bill a Second Reading. The evidence against some of the alleged war criminals is not known only to the Home Office. Although some of the names on the Hetherington list have been broadcast on Scottish Television, it does not follow that they are the chief or the only people who will be investigated.
  Information is now available that war criminals are living in our midst—this is the new factor that did not exist 40 years ago—but do we want to endanger ourselves with the ugly and distasteful alternative of trial by media? Make no mistake, names may be leaked and the media will decide what to do if we do not pass the Bill and provide a legal procedure.
  The accused will have more protection from the processes of law than he would from the jungle of media harassment. In court, he will have to face evidence, and only evidence that is admissible and properly tested. If, as the Law Lords and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) suggest, that evidence is inadequate, the accused will be exonerated; he will be found not guilty and acquitted and that will be the end of the matter. If we do not provide for a trial in a court of law, the "evidence" that will be adduced by the media will be based on hearsay; it will be untested, tendentious and partial. The verdict will never be promulgated. The case will be inconclusive and an ugly slur will remain. I therefore believe that the Bill is in the interests not only of justice—as has been argued by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—but, ultimately, of the accused.
  I accept that an unpleasant prospect is no excuse for choosing an undesirable or unjustifiable legal procedure. That would not be my contention. However, I do not believe that the Bill is either desirable or unjustifiable. It is a necessary deterrent to show not only the willingness of the House to act but its unwillingness to forget. The Bill is justifiable because the infamies committed were so infamous. That has been true not just before their
  68
  perpetration but at the moment of their commission and ever since. The fullest possible penalties and legal processes are called for, and are justified.
  Last Tuesday, when we discussed the procedure motion, I asked whose conscience matters most in our system of government: is it that of the elected or of the erudite in another place? If we will the end, we must justify the means. If we want justice, we must legislate to obtain it. Leaving the matter to the media would be an abdication of responsibility and would be quite without justification.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: To the best of my knowledge—in case hon. Members should wish to interrupt me—I have attended every one of our debates on this matter. I have intervened from time to time, but this is the first occasion on which I have made a speech—and I came to the House today not to make a speech but to listen to the opening speeches and as much of the argument as possible.
  Let me make it absolutely clear that I have not read the House of Lords debate. I make no apology for that. I was elected to the House of Commons to use my common sense and judgment to the best of my ability. We make mistakes, and sometimes we have a second chance and can rectify them. Nevertheless, on this issue, I have remained consistent throughout.
  I read the Hetherington-Chalmers report, and, some time after it was published, I had the opportunity to listen to both authors address a small conference here in London and to question them. At that time, we also had the opportunity to question the head of the war crimes investigation offices in the United States, Canada and Australia, and I took that opportunity. I was convinced that they had made the right decisions and were proceeding correctly. I accept that the American circumstances are different. The Americans have done something that, frankly, we would not have contemplated doing. In some ways, I am sad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is not in the Chamber. The Americans have extradited back to the Soviet Union and effectively deprived people of citizenship—a concept that both Government and Opposition have forsworn. If the Bill fails, that is not an option. I cannot understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood can think that it is. How can she think that if, for whatever reason, this House, or both Houses, decide by a majority not to proceed with the Bill, there will be a long stop—that we can try something else such as depriving people of citizenship or extraditing them? We have forsworn that concept throughout by accepting the recommendations of the Hetherington-Chalmers report, which sets out the matter in detail. For reasons that all of us on both sides of the House understand, we would not extradite; that is not an option. The Bill represents our only opportunity to redress a wrong and correct an anomaly—and I accept that, in this context, that is a somewhat neutral word—in our nationality legislation, so that everyone who is at present a British citizen or residing in Britain under our protection is treated equally.
  In an earlier intervention, I caused my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to be accused of saying that this is just a declaratory Bill. I do not think that my right hon. Friend put it quite like that and it was unfair of hon. Members to

  69
  suggest that he did. In my intervention, I suggested that, once the House had passed the Bill following an open debate based upon the evidence put to us, it would not matter to us if the prosecuting authorities in their wisdom decided not to take a prosecution or, once someone had been charged, not to proceed with an action in court. That is the decision of the prosecuting authorities and it is not for the House to prejudge the issue by refusing to pass the Bill. That needs to be made absolutely clear, and as a non-lawyer I can say that because I do not have hang-ups about whether I am in court or in the House of Commons. I am here as a legislator. Unlike the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General and the prosecuting authorities, I do not have to make those decisions.
  I do not think that enough has been made of the fact that we are not talking about crimes committed during conflict between armed forces. We are talking about the mass murder of unarmed civilians of all ages—the wiping out of whole villages. In some cases, it never even came to concentration camps; the victims did not even get that far.
  Suppose that the House does not pass the Bill. I hope that that will not happen, but, if it does, the Government ought to respond by ensuring that volume 2 of the Hetherington-Chalmers report is published so that the British public can make their own judgment. It could be published without the names—I would not go so far as to suggest that they should be included—but the British public should see the details of the crimes to which volume I refers and the reasons given for our passing the Bill. It is crucial that the matter should be out in the open so that the British public can judge for themselves.
  For all the world, one might think that war crimes prosecutions had stopped around the world, but the German Government are still proceeding with war crimes prosecutions—not vigorously enough, in my view, as General Mohnke is still collecting his £400-a-week pension and the Germans still have not made up their minds whether to take any action. After the war, the British military forces were looking for General Mohnke. The evidence is there in our files and the Germans are considering the matter. If they agree that it is right to do so, they will press a charge. They have not wiped the slate clean. The Germans are also looking for Mr. Honecker. One presumes that they want him back so that they can look at what happened years ago. Time cannot diminish the gravity of the crimes that we are discussing, and it would send the wrong signals to the rest of the world if we suggested that it could.
  The concept of deterrence has been mentioned. I agree that the Bill will not necessarily provide a deterrent because we are talking about a short period of history during which a small group of people have escaped justice because of a quirk of nationality law. We are told, "This cannot happen because the quirk has been corrected both by British and by international law."
  During this debate and earlier debates on the subject, I have been reminded of a telling phrase uttered at the Dispatch Box 10 years ago and in a slightly different context. The former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, said of a statement by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), then herself Prime Minister, that it was like the rustle of dead leaves. This Bill relates to issues that date back much further than the issue to which my right hon. Friend referred on that occasion. However, crimes were committed and people are living in this country who have not been charged.
  70
  The money argument about the cost of the trial and the investigation is irrelevant. The former Home Secretary stated that there would not be a shortage of money to pursue a defence. The trials would be fair, but this House and the other place must consider the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). These issues will not go away. Many people outside the parliamentary system have names and dossiers and that information may be misused. There could very well be trial by media.
  We should not be afraid to legislate because we are worried about the standards of The Sun. Similarly, by not legislating, we might give a free reign to the gutter press. We can control matters by legislation with an organised process under which people can receive justice.
  The threat of being charged may have a salutary effect. It should be made abundantly clear that not all war crimes were committed by the losing side. In respect of evidence, there is chapter and verse to prove that, if General Patton had survived the war, he would have been in real trouble.
  However, in this case, evidence is available and charges have been made. Over the past five or six years it has become clear that this country did not know that we had allowed alleged war criminals to reside in this country and obtain British citizenship. If they are criminals, those people clearly told lies to obtain citizenship. Therefore, it should be possible to charge them under a law that would treat them the same as me and everyone else in this House. I see no justification for allowing a quirk of British nationality law to prevent them from being charged if there is sufficient evidence for it.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: A terrible thing happened half a century ago. Millions of people died and millions more were deeply and unimaginably wronged. The acid is still gnawing at their souls. They exist and they survive, but their lives have been destroyed.
  There is a justifiable motive for the Bill which one would share if one were an heir to the holocaust. One could not rest until justice had been seen to be done. We can begin to understand the feelings of some of those people, but we cannot begin to understand their full depth. However, we are entitled to ask questions on their behalf. Would it help if these dreadful details were laid bare and they were forced to relive the horrors of the past in a show trial or a series of show trials? Whatever my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General may say, there will be show trials as was the case with the Demjanjuk trial in Israel. The hopes of those unfortunate people may be justified if the prosecution is successful. If not, would not it be a harrowing experience to fall at the final hurdle?
  No one would dispute or wish to stand in the way of the motivation of justice. However, if justice is unlikely to be secured, is not that a justification for the view that the exercise is best avoided on everyone's behalf?
  Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marlow: No, I do not have enough time.
  There is another motivation involved apart from the motivation of justice. Here I am forced to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He seemed to say that the Bill was unnecessary; prosecutions would be unlikely to succeed; the Bill is not good legislation and is unlikely to

  71
  produce justice, but none the less he was forced to vote for it because he might otherwise be labelled anti-Semitic. He would be happy to see a law placed on the statute book, not for the better governance of Britain, but, as I said in my point of order earlier, as a gesture. In one of those characteristic acts of political courage that we have come to associate with the right hon. Gentleman, that exercise in moral gymnastics has been devised purely to get a persistent and effective lobby off his ample back.
  What is it about the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? He can argue passionately for a principle and believe passionately in it, but he is forced to vote against lest his motivation is misconstrued. I would rather be a used car salesman. As I said, there is another possible motive—and that is propaganda. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has naively allowed himself to become the tool of such an exercise.
  I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary why the Bill was restricted to 1939 to 1945, to areas of German influence and to British citizens. He said that there were no cases from Japan, from other periods or other parts of the world. However, the people about whom we are concerned were not British. Their crimes were not committed in Britain and they were not under British jurisdiction. Their victims were not British. If the principle of the Bill holds good, why not extend it to those cases in which British interests and individuals were involved? This is, after all, the British Parliament.
  I am afraid that we have allowed ourselves to become involved in a propaganda exercise which happens to be against British interests and British policies in the middle east. We are puppets on a string. My fear is that we are dancing to a tune that is played by the most sophisticated and heavily orchestrated lobby of the post-war world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) explained more tactfully than I, is it not at least possible that the victims and bereaved of this the most savage, extensive and depraved mass crime of our century are being used cynically in an act of policy by the state of Israel to build up a wall of moral blackmail behind which the excesses and ambitions of that state can shelter without criticism?
  We all mourn the holocaust and its victims, both dead and alive. However, we should have nothing to do with this Bill.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) mounted once again his favourite hobby horse and it surprised none of us that he saw a conspiracy linked to the same sources to which he often refers. The only surprise was that black people did not get a mention. We know how hostile and antagonistic he is to people who do not have white skins.
  I do not dispute for a moment that the Bill is in many ways unsatisfactory. I agreed with much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. He understandably argued the pros and cons and concluded that he would vote in favour of the Bill, but I share some of his reservations about the Bill, although perhaps not to the same degree. The machinery that the Bill provides is, in many ways, unsatisfactory.
  72
  I recognise some of the obvious difficulties in dealing with crimes committed 50 years ago. Neither am I unaware that if the measure become law and charges are brought, there could be what I and others would describe as misplaced sympathy for the defendants. I recognise the limitations and that is why I have reservations about the Bill.
  However, what is the alternative? If there is sufficient evidence that those who are known to have committed the most monstrous crimes against humanity are living in Britain, and if under the present law no action can be taken, we would be turning a blind eye. We would simply be saying that it was unfortunate and that we wished that we had known of those people's records when they arrived here. However, we would be able to take no action, despite the fact that the Home Secretary told the House that there seems to be substantial evidence at least against three people currently living in this country.
  I cannot accept that justice should fail to be done because such crimes were committed so many years ago. Of course, it would have been much better had justice been done at the time. The allies could have pursued Nazi criminals at the end of the war. Action after the war was promised when this House first learned of the extermination camps. There were statements about the atrocities. The late Sydney Silverman—to his lasting credit—said that the House should rise in memory of the victims. During the war, there was a very strong feeling that action should be taken. I understand that feeling. Of course, very little was done.
  To the credit of the allies, justice was undoubtedly done at the Nuremberg proceedings. There were other proceedings too. However, by 1948–49 the cold war had begun, and there was not much enthusiasm for such action. Many of the sentiments that were expressed today by the right hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Mr. Amery) could be used to describe feelings in the Federal Republic of Germany during the 1950s and the 1960s. There was no real wish for proceedings against people accused of Nazi war crimes. Only because of international pressure—to some extent, pressure inside Germany, but pressure that was much more international, which the hon. Member for Northampton, North might regard as some kind of conspiracy—did the German authorities agree that such crimes against humanity should not be covered by any statute of limitations.
  In the period since we last debated this subject, the Gulf war has taken place. One thinks of the atrocities that were carried out in Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's thugs. I take the view that the people who committed those crimes—not 50 years ago, but within the last few months—should be brought to justice.
  Mr. James Coachman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a major difference between the crimes committed recently in Kuwait and Nazi war crimes? Those that were committed in Kuwait are very fresh in the minds of the victims, whereas, in the case of those committed 50 years ago, identification is quite impossible.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my point. We know that many Nazi war criminals escaped by fleeing to various countries. If the people who committed atrocities in Kuwait in the last few weeks and months were to escape justice, and if, in years to come, they were to be

  73
  found in Britain or some other country, they ought to be brought to justice. The fact that justice was not done at the time is no reason for its not being done at all.
  One thinks of the moors murders. Suppose that the people responsible for those crimes had not been brought to justice at the time. Would anyone argue that they should not now be brought to justice because too much time has elapsed? Consider the case of the Birmingham Six, who have now been found innocent. In November 1974, 21 people died in Birmingham as a result of the pub bombings. Many others were injured, and some were paralysed for life. Why should not the people actually responsible for that crime be brought to justice, after however long a period? It will soon be 17 years since that crime. However desirable it is that justice should be done at the earliest possible date, it is better that it should be done late than that it should not be done at all.
  I should like to see established an international court, under the auspices of the United Nations, to deal with crimes such as we are debating today. Hon. Members may know that in the early 1950s the United Nations decided in favour of the creation of such a court. In view of the state of international affairs in those days—a situation that continued until recently—it is not surprising that agreement was not reached. I hope that, in the more relaxed international atmosphere of today, the United Nations will find it possible to agree to the creation of a court where such crimes could be tried. Several hon. Members have referred to other crimes committed during, and since the end of, the second world war—for example, those committed under Stalin. An international court such as I have in mind could be used to try such people.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) reiterated views with which we are familiar. He has been against this measure from the very beginning. He referred to crimes committed in Kuwait. If we had listened to his advice, those crimes would be going on right now, and would continue into the future. The fact that they have been brought to an end is due to the war and to the way in which the allies liberated Kuwait. As I have said from the very beginning, what happened in Kuwait was a just war, as the second world war was. Everything that has happened vindicates my views and the view of the large majority of hon. Members.
  The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by talking about vengeance. I am certainly not interested in vengeance. I hope that I never have been, and I hope that no hon. Member is. It is said—whether it is true I do not know—that at one stage during the last war Winston Churchill suggested that a large number of Nazi officers and officials should simply be taken out after the war and shot. I do not think that there is any record of such remarks, but it is said that Churchill made them. Perhaps he changed his mind. Had such action been taken, I would have opposed it. That would have been vengeance. What I am interested in is justice and the rule of law. Summarily shooting people—whether criminals connected with the Nazi regime, or Saddam Hussein's thugs—is not the sort of action that I want to see taken. None the less, this measure, with all its limitations, and despite all the reservations about it, is one means of ensuring that justice will be done, however long the delay.
  So long as I live, I shall remember not only what I have read and what I have heard from other people, but also the camps that I saw in a cinema newsreel in 1945. I know that several hon. and right hon. Members actually experienced
  74
  the liberation of concentration camps. I was too young to be involved in that. I do remember, however, seeing film of the opening of Belsen and other extermination camps where monstrous crimes had been committed. Then there were the events such as those at Babi Yar, near Kiev, under Nazi occupation. Day by day, men, women and children were systematically slain. Does anyone suggest that because those crimes were committed so many years ago, at a time when the people concerned were not British citizens, the criminals should be allowed to go scot free? I cannot accept that—which is why I support the legislation.
  7.8 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: I have been deeply impressed by the speeches of the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I too do not seek vengeance: I seek justice.
  I am a veteran of the second world war. During that war, I was conscious that we were fighting against something bestial and evil. The war crimes trials in Nuremberg proved that that was so. Not until 1986, when it was first alleged that Nazi war criminals were living in this country, was the spotlight turned on this aspect of the matter. We have come a long way since then.
  In February 1988, the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry was set up. At that time none of us could have imagined what would emerge—that living here in Britain, having secured the high privilege of British citizenship, were individuals against whom there was powerful evidence of involvement in the wholesale murder and manslaughter of innocent civilians.
  There have been many references to what happened in the concentration camps. I have not seen the evidence, but I know what Nazi henchmen did in the occupied territories. They committed appalling and abominable crimes against defenceless citizens who were sometimes pushed into their own churches and burnt alive. I can think of scores of such cases that have been made known to me over the years.
  Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, his Scottish equivalent, are very highly respected former prosecutors. They were the most experienced persons who could be found to assess the evidence and to apply the strict criteria that must be met before such evidence could be admitted into a British court. They produced two reports, the second of which, quite rightly, remains unpublished and locked away and contains the evidence available against a certain limited number of individuals.
  Since the publication of the inquiry's report the Government have been consistently committed to war crimes legislation. I am glad that they are not wilting now. I congratulate them on reintroducing the measure so speedily. Successive Home Secretaries, supported by former Home Secretaries now on the Opposition Benches, have wholeheartedly supported the Bill. They have seen the unpublished report, and are among the Bill's most important proponents.
  I fail to understand how, particularly during the Second Reading debate in the other place, some could argue that there was insufficient evidence. Had they, by some chance, seen the unpublished report? Were they unaware of the appalling behaviour of the Nazis and their henchmen during the second world war? Have they forgotten

  75
  Oradour and Lidice and the thousands of other Oradours and Lidices that occurred across occupied Europe and the Soviet Union? Were they oblivious to what happened at Buchenwald, Auschwitz and Dachau and all the other abominable centres of human persecution that were wiped away as a result of Nazi defeat?
  Far from having any wish for vengeance, I have been the chairman of the British-German parliamentary group for the past 30 years. Why?—because the first victims of the Nazis were the Germans themselves and because one of the greatest happenings in Europe since the war has been the way in which the German nation has purged itself of the Nazi past and governs itself in a democratic and sensible way.
  There is no vengeance in my advocacy of the Bill, but—I hope that the Government will not wilt on this point—I demand justice. The matter is simple. Those who have been accorded the high privilege of British citizenship should not be excused the liabilities that go with it. I inform the faint hearts and the doubters that if a British subject allegedly committed murder overseas during that period he would be liable to prosecution. If we had known then what we now know, the persons concerned would never have been granted British citizenship. That is what lies at the heart of the Bill.
  Earlier, it was asked why the legislation applies only to world war two. The answer is clear. It is because that is where the loophole exists. People who committed crimes after 1957 are already punishable under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Prosecutions for wilful killing and torture may take place in the United Kingdom wherever in the world the offence was committed and whatever the nationality of the alleged offender at the time. That is the answer. We are plugging a gap in our experience.
  Some have argued that there would inevitably be show trials. Why should that be? The standards of evidence necessary for conviction would be the same as for other criminal trials in the United Kingdom. Witnesses are cross-examined, documentary evidence is subject to forensic testing, and experts are heard. One does not need to be a lawyer—it is a distinguished profession—to know that judges in this country can exclude any evidence if it appears that the accused has suffered prejudice from the circumstances in which that evidence was obtained. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) asked a perfectly legitimate question, and I can easily understand why he asked it. If an accused is unfit to mount a proper defence, and if the judge is not totally satisfied that the accused had every opportunity to defend himself, the case will not proceed. In short, anyone who believes that there will be show trials does not have a very high regard for the British system of justice.
  What is the point of trials so long after the offences were committed? Again I refer to the point I made at the outset—justice. Is someone prepared to tell the family of the innocent bystander who was killed by the IRA last month at Victoria station that the perpetrators, if they are fortunate enough to escape capture for a certain period, will not be brought to justice for their crime? We have no time limit in this country for the prosecution of murder, and nor should we.
  A 45-year lapse between crimes and their prosecution is in fact a period of borrowed time. It was time borrowed by
  76
  the perpetrators of crime for the enjoyment of freedom, democratic rights, and for living under the rule of law, when all along justice had a prior claim. Indeed, such persons have enjoyed the very rights they denied to others. Borrowed time should count against the evader, not for him.
  May I say something about the rejection of the Bill in the other place? It is a Government Bill, proceeding through Parliament in exclusively Government time. It was drawn up by the Home Office and presented to the House of Commons by the Home Secretary. The measure was confirmed in the Queen's Speech. Last year the Bill received large majorities in this House—the elected House. On Second Reading the margin was a substantial 213 votes. Members of this House are responsible to electorates. We must listen to our constituents and consider their interests before making any decision. Free votes are not taken lightly in this House. The other place should be made to understand that.
  We must understand also that the crimes that we are considering were not committed in the heat of battle. I emphasise that. They are cases of the premeditated mass murder of men, women and children—often committed hundreds of miles from the war front. During the debate last year in the other House it was said that the crimes that we are considering were committed as acts of state and regarded by the Nazis as part of their war effort. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Harold Walker): Order.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be brief. I wish to quote Kitty Hart, a survivor of the notorious Auschwitz concentration camp and a witness in 1939 at the trial of Gottfried Weise in the High Court of Wuppertal, Germany.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even the Father of the House must observe the rules that have been laid down by Mr. Speaker.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I wholly agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a speech. During the previous Second Reading debate I attempted to argue the case on the merits. I do not propose to repeat everything that I said then. It was not an easy speech to make, and I do not wish to make it again. It is in the Official Report for anyone who wishes to read it.
  When we spend much of our time rightly talking about the victims of crime, we should not forget that there are still living victims of the crimes under discussion. They remember what happened. They have as much right to have those crimes dealt with in accordance with justice as has a victim of any other crime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke of difficulties for the defence in obtaining a fair procedure and fair acess to witnesses. He suggested that there may be what he caricatured as show trials and that justice could not be done to both sides. I say to my hon. Friend and others who share his doubts that justice can sometimes be a slow train comin'. Justice is not a train that runs to any timetable or even on a predictable track. However, it is a train that will

  77
  not be derailed if its destination is true. If it would be unjust for a court to proceed against a defendant—perhaps because the way in which the evidence had been assembled would put the defendant at a disadvantage or because he is so infirm that it would not be fair for him to stand trial—justice will not be derailed, because the judge will rightly say that it would not be fair for the trial to go ahead.
  If, however, a defendant is fit to stand trial and the evidence has been properly assembled, it will be open to the defence to obtain the necessary evidence. That has been done. In two recent cases—the United States against Artishenko and United States against Kowalchuk—the defence counsel could obtain his evidence. In the first case, the defence counsel secured the evidence of six Soviet witnesses even though he requested it only on the day of travel to the Soviet Union. In the second case, Soviet witnesses provided exculpatory evidence for the defence. On the basis of that testimony, the United States justice department terminated proceedings against him. Those are just two examples of circumstances in which Soviet authorities co-operated with both sides. They are conscious of their position in the world and know that they must meet international standards of justice in these matters.
  We discussed earlier the opinion of lawyers. I hope that most other practising lawyers have as high a regard as I have for the opinions expressed by their Lordships in the other place. Like all senior practising lawyers, I have a particular regard for the opinions of the Law Lords. However, they are not necessarily infallible; and they represent a small, although extremely distinguished, minority of lawyers in this country. Although they provide wise opinions on cases that are referred to them on appeal, by the nature of their position they are judges who have not heard cases at first instance for many years. With the greatest respect, they are perhaps not the best qualified people to judge how jurors, witnesses and lawyers react or how the atmosphere of the court is reactive today.
  As I am conscious of varying opinions on the. Bill, I have gone out of my way to find out what my legal colleagues think about it. I have spoken to many dozens of young lawyers throughout the country at various times. Some of them share the misgivings expressed by hon. Members, but the great majority of them—especially young lawyers whose strongly burning fire of an ideal of justice has not yet become case-hardened—believe that the Bill should proceed. They believe that, when one talks about show trials of war criminals, one is not talking about a case that is qualitatively different from, say, a celebrated murder trial. We have a free press and if they want to make a show of a case, it is up to them to do so. It is certainly not up to the House to stop them.
  Most lawyers believe that the courts can exercise the necessary control, especially now that more safeguards are built into our judicial system than at the time of the Birmingham Six trial. That control can be effective in ensuring that justice is done. I have seen cases in which one would have thought that there would have been tremendous prejudice against the accused because of what they were alleged to have done, because of their colour or where they came from, or because they had allegedly committed a crime that was prevalent in an area to which they were strangers. Yet many of those cases resulted in acquittals. Juries are capable of fearsomely and fearlessly administering justice so that those who are not guilty are
  78
  acquitted and those who are guilty, but against whom guilt cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, are acquitted. I do not think for one moment that we have reason to doubt the ability of British juries to reach such just conclusions in war crimes trials.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), to speak so soon after my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who leads Back Benchers on human rights issues, and even to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The number of times that the hon. Member and I speak on common causes is becoming embarrassing. It is a pleasure to speak because I was getting fed up with hearing hon. Members on both sides of the House say that the crimes in question were the most heinous ever committed in the history of the world but that we should do nothing about bringing to justice those who committed them.
  Two weeks ago I went to Majdanek. The fact that so few people remember Majdanek is one reason for introducing the Bill. It was a concentration and extermination camp just outside Lublin, about two hours drive from Warsaw. It is not remembered because fewer people died there than in Auschwitz, a little further down the road. However, 360,000 people perished in Majdanek between 1941 and 1944. One can go into the huts crammed with victims' clothes—one of the huts has children's clothes piled from the ground to the roof. One can see the showers into which they were told they were going to be cleansed five minutes before they were put into the gas chamber next door. One can also see the empty cyclon B containers that killed, in 15 minutes, the women and children, the weak and the old who could not work. There are also containers of carbon monoxide—there was insufficient cyclon B—which took 45 minutes to asphyxiate the innocent. I walked around Majdanek practically alone two Saturdays ago and saw the trenches that had been dug. In one day, someone gave the order to shoot 18,400 Jews as they stepped off the backs of lorries, and they fell into the graves that had been dug for them. In one day, 18,400 people were systematically shot on the orders of a human being.
  Therefore, when somebody asks whether the perpetrators of such heinous crimes should be excluded from justice because they have taken advantage of a loophole in the legal machinery that we were supposed to provide but did not provide, what am I to say? What would anyone who went round Majdanek, or anywhere else that such crimes were perpetrated, say if they knew that the people who ordered them and were responsible for them were alive today and sheltering in this country because there was a defect in our legal machinery?
  I shall try to deal with two points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). He said that bringing back the Bill was an abuse of the Parliament Acts because it could have been amended; but if he had listened to the debates in the House of Lords he would realise that it was clear that they did not want an amendment: they did not want the Bill. The Bill could not have been amended as they wanted because that would have destroyed it. This is precisely when the Parliament Acts should be invoked because what was

  79
  being said in the Lords was totally different from the view repeatedly expressed by the overwhelming majority of the elected representatives of this House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said that he wanted to know why the Government knew better than the distinguished lawyers who made the speeches in the House of Lords. Not all distinguished lawyers are opposed to the legislation. If Lord Elwyn-Jones, the former Lord Chancellor, had lived, he would have spoken in favour of the Bill. Unfortunately, he died on the day it was debated.
  Their Lordships expressed much emotion because they were closely connected with the events at the end of the war. They were involved for different reasons—perhaps they were in the Government who allowed the war criminals into this country, knowingly or unknowingly; perhaps they knew of the loophole and did nothing to close it; perhaps they were responsible for, or were a party to, letting the Cossacks go back to the Soviet Union where they died and so felt guilty; perhaps they believed that more anti-Semitism would be stirred up if the Bill were enacted; perhaps they fought valiantly in the war and were sick to death of everything to do with it and so did not want to go through the horror again. Whatever the reason, their Lordships were too closely involved with events immediately following the war. Sometimes people who are too closely involved are not the best ones to make judgments. That is not to say that their Lordships' speeches were not worthwhile, should not be listened to or examined. They are listened to and have to be examined as to the viability of their arguments.
  Some of their Lordships said that the Bill was retrospective legislation. It may be, but that is not of itself a reason for not having such legislation. Such legislation is bad, evil and not to be countenanced when it makes something a crime today that was not a crime when it was perpetrated. It is for that reason, and no other, that retrospective legislation is wrong. When the crimes were perpetrated, those who shot the 18,400 people or gave the order or gassed or hanged or burned or flogged to death or drowned the people in Majdanek could not have been in any doubt that what they were doing was a crime against the world order and the law of every civilised country. It might be time to "throw in the sponge" if the crimes had not been so heinous—shoplifting or, perhaps, one murder—but we are talking about mass murder and genocide. Perhaps the Bill should be extended to other war crimes, but that is no reason not to introduce the Bill in its more limited form.
  There are doubts about the procedures and identification, but Sir Thomas Hetherington made it clear publicly that the identification issue will not often arise. In many of the cases that he considered there was no dispute about identification—the dispute involved what was done. There have been objections that there will be no committal proceedings, but they are not held when a voluntary bill of indictment is introduced or in fraud cases, because we changed the law to get rid of committal proceedings. Live television from abroad was introduced in this House under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and is being extended to Scotland. Statements of the dead are admissible in our courts, provided that the judge thinks that justice is being done. The judge provides the protection and has overall
  80
  responsibility to ensure that justice, not injustice, is done. Whether prosecutions will or will not be possible is not a matter for us. We are talking about the machinery that gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the opportunity to say that there is sufficient evidence for the case to go forward, for a judge to ensure that justice is done and for a jury to decide whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. All we are being asked to do is to fill the gap in the legal
  It has been asked why no action has been taken under international law. It was because we are now a party to the Genocide Act 1969, which is as retrospective as anything could be—it is specifically retrospective but it does not cover the war crimes of the second world war. The "violation of the principle of British justice" has been mentioned, but the principle of British justice is that justice be done, the wrongdoer be caught and sentenced, there is no time limit on murder, still less on mass murder and everyone should receive a fair trial.
  That is British justice. British justice demands that the perpetrators of these crimes should be brought to justice. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on bringing the Bill again before the House.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I greatly appreciated the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he said that he would not presume to give advice to any of his colleagues. However, I am conscious of walking on eggshells. I simply say for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that I have been to the holocaust museum in Jerusalem recently. I did national service in an armoured regiment, and when we fired guns on the HÖhne ranges, the commander made all national service men go to Belsen; Colonel Douglas Stewart was right to insist on that.
  I should like to talk quietly to the Home Secretary and I hope that he will forgive me if I do so in terms of my constituency. The first Polish armoured division came to West Lothian—to Fife and the west of Edinburgh—during the war. As the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) knows, and as was outlined in the Hetherington-Chalmers report, many of the Polish service men said, for self-evident reasons, that they could not return immediately after the war. Those Polish people have, by their vigour and intelligence, greatly enhanced the life of my constituency and its surrounding constituencies.
  When I was a teacher I taught many of the first generation. Those children, including the Nawrockas, were bright and vigorous. I was greatly influenced by a man called Stefan Haluch, who was later to be a headmaster in one of the West Lothian schools and whose brother was, like many others, massacred with the Polish officer corps at Katyn. For many years it was said that the Germans were responsible for that massacre in the forest. Now, we know differently; it was as Mr. Haluch always told me. From that experience I have concluded that we had better be careful about trying to sort out blame, even after 20 years, let alone 50.
  The formidable nature of the task is referred to in the report, paragraph 8.26, the issue of the Cyrillic alphabet, and identifying precisely who was whom. The problem of identification to which Hetherington and Chalmers referred is formidable.

  81
  I also wish to put it on record that, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, in one particular case, I had a great deal to do with William Chalmers who was the deputy Crown Agent. In my opinion, he is a man of considerable seriousness and quality of mind whom I greatly respect.
  I shall continue to be rather anecdotal. When I was a very new Member of Parliament, I was invited to a Latvian wedding in the village of Stoneyburn in my constituency. It was a lovely occasion, but late into the night many things came out into the open which left an indelible impression on me, especially the number of relatives of the families who had been killed not by the Germans—we have to face that—but by the Russians. Subsequently, it has become only too clear that the British agents who landed on the Latvian coast—the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) may know exactly what I am talking about, because Philby and others may have been involved, but I must not pursue that idea—bumped off the Latvian people, often family by family. That caused great suspicion and resentment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is right to say that that is covered in the report.
  I remember that as a young Member of Parliament I sat late into the night at that wedding in my kilt. I was told that I should be very careful of one Latvian immigrant because his background was terrible. I asked his name—it was Hamish Mackenzie. I do not think that his name in Latvia was Hamish Mackenzie. There is a problem of identification—it is bad enough after 20 years, but after half a century the practical difficulties are formidable.
  I admit that I was greatly influenced by the speeches made in another place, especially that by Lord Goodman. I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he is worried by an element of what I believe Goering called "victor's justice". That is always a problem. We cannot pretend that all the injustices have been on one side, as I have tried to outline with reference to the Germans and the Russians. I ask the Minister to comment on what can be encapsulated as the problem of victor's justice.
  Time is short, but I should like to comment on one other matter. It is incredible that the House should spend six hours of prime time discussing this issue when the overnment have found no time since the third week in January to discuss the urgent problems of the Gulf.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Thirteen million Jews died.
  Mr. Dalyell: I understand that, but the here and now is rather more urgent for today's debate. We should be discussing who decided to bomb the road to Basra, what we are going to do about the continuing crimes of Saddam Hussein in Kerbala and elsewhere in southern Iraq, what our relations should be with the Shi'ites in the south and with the Kurds in the north, who are in the middle of what seems to be a bloody and open war. I am the last to complain because I was lucky in the ballot on Friday, but let us make no mistake—it should not be left to private Members' time to discuss the health hazards of cholera, typhoid and hepatitis, which will become more acute as the cool spring develops into a scorching summer. We should be discussing what on earth to do about the oil slicks and, above all, about the oil fires. Those issues are more urgent for six hours of prime time—
  Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to speak about the immediate problems of Northern Ireland, but I do not see what they have to do with the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Although we have a wide ranging debate on Second Reading, it is not as wide ranging as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is trying to make it.
  Mr. Dalyell: I bow to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is arguable whether we should be discussing war crimes committed by all sorts of people rather than events that took place before any of the party leaders were born. We are in danger of being highly selective about this issue. Why go back to Latvia and Lithuania? In answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), it strikes some of us that, as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, we are dealing with some rather lowly people. No one is suggesting that the major decision-makers are the objects of the present debate.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I wish that this problem had never arisen. I wish that our predecessors had not allowed to exist the conditions which permitted these people to slip into this country. I almost wish that these people had never been identified. However, they have been identified and we cannot leave it at that.
  Britain's reputation for justice and the honour of this country depend on the Bill being passed. The House is being asked simply to allow that jurisdiction be granted over all current British residents to cover crimes that were then and are now breaches of international law. It is not being asked to act as judge or jury or even as prosecutor. It is being asked to allow a legislative loophole that relates solely to jurisdiction to be corrected and to allow British justice to prevail. Prosecution is and will be—quite rightly—a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Judgment is and will be a matter for the courts. In an individual case, either or both may conclude that a conviction cannot or should not be achieved, but that is a matter for them, not for the House.
  Why should not we sweep the problem under the carpet? Why should not we—as some hon. Members suggested earlier—let bygones be bygones? The answer was given by our erstwhile colleague Lord Waddington who, as Home Secretary, said on Second Reading last year:
  "sometimes one is brought face to face with facts that cannot be buried, with deeds so terrible that they cannot be forgotten, and as long as one of those responsible survives, the world will cry out for justice."—[Official Report, 19 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 896.]
  What brought him face to face with such facts, especially as he was, as an eminent Queen's counsel, initially sceptical about all this? Unlike us, he has read part two of the Hetherington-Chalmers report which contains the detailed evidence on many of the cases concerned. Is not it ironic that that part remains confidential—so we cannot see it—to safeguard the entitlement of the accused to a fair trial, which their victims never had?
  I declare an interest. My father was a Dutch refugee who fled to this country in 1940. When he returned to his native Holland in 1945, he found that 52 of his relatives were missing. They had been torn from their homes and loaded on to trains. Men, women, children and infants in

  83
  arms went eastward to the death camps and never returned. My father believed in many of the great qualities of this nation and he believed especially in British justice. I hope that this House, the representative assembly of the British nation, will pass the Bill and let justice be done.
  7.50 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Many arguments have been put in favour of the Bill tonight and I will not detain the House by repeating them. Let me for a moment take the House back to the time when the dark clouds of war were gathering across Europe and to a time when thousands feared a knock on the door, which could mean that they would be dragged out of their homes, that their weeping children would be torn from their arms and that wives would be separated from husbands to be herded like cattle into trucks, to be beaten, starved and humiliated and to end their days in the horrors of the concentration camps.
  Are we, who, in those dark days, stood virtually alone against the evils of Adolf Hitler and all that he stood for, to condone by our inaction the crimes committed by those who enacted those murderous deeds? What is our answer to the defenceless, innocent people who suffered so much and who were deserted by so many who did not hear their cries or who turned their faces away from the suffering? Are we, who speak for the British people, to allow those evil men to remain safe in our country in the knowledge that as long as they live within our shores the law can never touch them? Are we to allow this country to continue to remain a haven for those criminals? If those murderers had been born British, they could have been tried under our present law, but because they have become British citizens or have settled in this country since the war, as the law now stands, they cannot be prosecuted. Should not all who live in this country be covered by the same laws? I believe that they should be, and that is one of the many reasons why I will vote for the Bill.
  The Bill may not lead to the single prosecution of a war criminal who resides in this country, but at least it will give those criminals the bitter taste of fear that one day someone may knock at their door and take them away to answer for the suffering and misery they inflicted on so many innocent men, women and children.
  7.52 pm
  Sir John Stokes: I am dismayed that the Bill should once again be brought before us. As the noble Lord Hailsham said recently:
  "our objections to it are ones of principle. It is retrospective, discriminatory and it will be impossible to guarantee a fair defence. It is a thoroughly bad Bill."
  I am rather surprised that the Government brought back the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister voted against its introduction on our first vote of principle. Such post hoc legislation does Parliament no good. It is wrong to alter the general law for special cases. If the Bill were passed, it would cause enormous legal problems. There would be a change in the way in which the law of evidence is presented and there would be huge difficulties over identification after such a long time.
  We all know and understand how appallingly heinous the misdeeds were, but that does not mean that we have to alter the laws of England. The Bill is all about special
  84
  cases. It is narrow in scope and deals only with alleged war crimes in Germany or in German-occupied territory which took place between certain dates. It does not deal, for example, with war crimes committed elsewhere or with crimes committed since 5 June 1945.
  The Bill has never been adopted as official Conservative party policy in any manifesto that I have seen and it has not been put to the nation in a general election. I have not had a single letter in support of the Bill and no one seems interested in it.
  I am also dismayed and surprised that a Tory Government—I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to this—should seek to pass such an odd law by resorting to the Parliament Acts, which were passed by a Liberal Administration and then by a Labour Government after the war. I thought that the Tory party believed in a second Chamber and that it supported the House of Lords. The debates in the other place were of a high order and many men of wisdom, experience and knowledge of the law expressed powerful objections to the Bill. This House has neither the expertise nor the experience to challenge the views so powerfully presented in another place. We are not a complete democracy in this country. We have the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Who are we in this special and difficult moral case to say that we are above everyone else and that what we do must become law?
  What would the great Tory leaders of the past have thought of such behaviour by this Conservative Government? If the Bill is eventually passed, thanks to the Parliament Acts, I shall bow my head in shame. Have we in this House become so craven that we are prepared to give way to a well-organised lobby and to special pleading? Have we no sense of honour left? If the Bill is passed, it will be a sad day for the laws of England.
  I am one of the few in this debate who served in the forces throughout the second world war. I hope that I have no bitterness against our former enemies. I have often said that I greatly admired—and admire—the German army. Years ago, Lord Randolph Churchill described Mr. Gladstone as
  "an old man in a hurry".
  Perhaps I may be allowed to say on this occasion, with regard to this extraordinary Bill, that the measure is being pressed on us by young men in a hurry. If the Bill becomes law, they will in time very much regret what they are doing.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It is sometimes sad when people who seek only justice for all are told that they are part of a tradition that has gone and that they are
  "young men in a hurry".
  I am glad that I am young and I do not think that I am in a hurry.
  Mr. Rees: Relatively.
  Mr. Bermingham: All things are relative.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I am 65 and I am young.
  Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has a problem.
  What are we talking about in the Bill? We are talking, as was said earlier, about murdered children, and about men and women who committed crimes that none of us can bear or tolerate. By some quirk of law, they were never

  85
  brought to justice. Is it wrong for the House to say that we think that all citizens of the world are equal before the law? That is all we are saying. We are not saying anything novel.
  My predecessor bar one as Member of Parliament for St. Helens was Lord Shawcross, who prosecuted at Nuremberg. He said recently that he thought that time had gone and that time had somehow forgiven and forgotten. That must be wrong. If I murder somebody today and, by a quirk of fate, avoid prosecution for 20, 30 or 40 years, have I committed any less of a crime after, say, 40 years? Have I somehow, by the passage of time, gained the right not to be prosecuted? We do not have a statute of limitations in this land. Why should we have a statute of limitations for war criminals? We should not, we must not, and I suspect that, after tonight, we will not.
  As time goes by, perhaps education improves and we learn how to deal with the sins of the past. Perhaps we should always deal with the sins of the past, but why? In other lands, people can be prosecuted for war crimes committed in Europe. The Bill is too limited because it restricts prosecution to crimes committed in German-occupied territories from 1939 onwards. War crimes are being committed in the name of inhumanity all over the world, all the time—
  Mr. Allason: There is a law to cover that.
  Mr. Bermingham: Of course there is not. The hon. Gentleman should look at the legislation—
  Mr. Allason: What about the 1956 and 1969 Acts?
  Mr. Bermingham: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he wants to intervene, I shall certainly give way to him. By seeking to intervene from a sedentary position, he is perhaps showing the paucity of his cause.
  Mr. Allason: Is it not the case that the Geneva Conventions Act 1956 and the Genocide Act 1969 make clear the international law and the law of this country on this issue? Is it not the case that the Bill tackles a small loophole in the jurisdiction, which it aims to close because it is exploited by war criminals?
  Mr. Bermingham: If I remember correctly, the Geneva Conventions Act gained Royal Assent in 1957, not 1956—but it matters not.
  The Bill seeks to plug the loophole for the period 1939–57. Is that wrong? Are we to pass the Billl simply because we wish to close the gap?
  Mr. John Browne: Retrospectively.
  Mr. Bermingham: Another Conservative Member intervenes from a sedentary position to say, "retrospectively". Murder is murder whether it was committed in 1940 or 1941. There is nothing about retrospective legislation in the Bill. We are not turning what was a legitimate act into an illegitimate act. Quite the contrary—we are saying that what was done in the period from 1939 onwards was illegitimate and illegal. It was murder—it is as blunt as that. If hon. Members say, "We shall use the argument of retrospection as a means of excusing the prosecution of killers", I ask them why there should be a rule for some people in the European continent which does not apply to other people in the European continent. Just because by a quirk of fate and legislation someone moves from, for example, the Ukraine or Latvia to the United
  86
  Kingdom, why should he or she escape prosecution when, if that person were to stay in the first country, he or she would face prosecution? That must be wrong.
  It is also argued that, because another place argued so eloquently against the Bill, we who are elected by the people have no right to challenge that view. I thought that was what the civil war was all about, back in 1640. I thought that we had solved that problem and decided that the elected House has the right, on certain occasions, to say, "No, we reflect the will of the people, the will of the electorate, and our view must prevail."
  The Parliament Acts have been used on only three occasions on major matters—and this is a major matter. If, by luck, someone has left the place in Europe where he or she committed a crime and has taken up residence here and therefore has not been prosecuted, we must say on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, "That is not good enough."
  The tragedy is that we did not have the courage to introduce such legislation 20, 30 or 40 years ago to bring our law into line with the European continent. That is why I ask the House to support the Bill.
  Since our previous debate on this matter, I have considered the arguments about identification with great care. As a practising lawyer—I declare that interest—I have always been worried about identification cases because there have been many miscarriages of justice as a result of misidentification. I listened with care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said earlier, but disagree fundamentally with him. Identification need not be simply a line-up in an identification parade. We have sophisticated techniques that could be used in this case. Provided that we have the safeguards which, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, are safeguards with which the English courts are well used to dealing—I concede that we do not always get it right—I do not foresee problems with identification.
  That was the problem that worried me greatly last time. I have thought about it a great deal since, because it was always apparent that the Bill would return to this House and that this issue would not go away. I therefore asked myself a simple question. If I were a member of the investigating team, would I be satisfied that suitable safeguards could be built into the system to ensure that any identification, if it forms a major part of the case, could be safely relied upon? The provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 crossed my mind and I wondered whether they were enough in themselves.
  However, there are records of what happened. There is record on film and there are photographs. There are hundreds of pieces of documentary evidence and there are forensic and other experts who can interpret the films and decide who the people were. I believe that we now have the scientific knowledge to help us with the problem of the aging process. After all, most of us go through it in one form or another as the years go by. I am no longer so worried, therefore, about the identification problem. If any trials involve identification, we must consider making available to the defence the same wide range of forensic skills and experts as are available to the prosecution. That is the one remaining area that causes me a niggling worry, but I believe that it can be overcome.
  When people kill, they take the life of another. The millions who were killed did not ask to die. They are the victims. Is it not time that we in this House thought more

  87
  about the victims than about the aggressors? Have not the victims of the holocaust a right to justice no matter how much time has elapsed? Why should those who committed the crimes and who, by a quirk of law, were lucky enough to escape the justice that should have been due to their victims escape it still? Why should those victims continue to be denied their justice? After all, they gave their lives. Those whom we now seek to prosecute took those lives.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: As a member of the all-party war crimes group, I attended the debate in the other House. I was pretty stunned by what I heard there. There seems to be a tendency in this House to assume some kind of monopoly of wisdom for some of their Lordships, especially Lord Goodman. From my experience, receiving letters which have threatened all kinds of things, Lord Goodman is just a large, big bully and I do not believe that he speaks for anybody and I do not suppose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is contrary to our conventions to criticise in that fashion members of the other place, who cannot answer back.
  Mr. Allason: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling into question the integrity of a member of the legal profession.
  When I listened to their Lordships, I noted that they pursued three particular red herrings on which I should like to take them to task. First, the essence of the Bill is a technical change in jurisdiction, rather than the criminal law—or specifically the criminal law relating to murder. When the people committed the offences, they were outside our jurisdiction. They have remained outside that jurisdiction through a loophole in the law. We do not seek to criminalise what they did, but merely to extend the jurisdiction. The unpalatable fact that their Lordships were not prepared to face was that the United Kingdom has become a bolthole for war criminals. Indeed, only one other place in the world offers the same measure of protection to these people and that is Damascus.
  Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend's argument is not quite right. We are seeking to extend the jurisdiction. I believe that that is right and I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said. But in this case we are seeking to extend the jurisdiction retrospectively. That is the crucial issue.
  Mr. Allason: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment, I shall come to that point. It was one of the more bogus points raised in another place.
  It is not a matter of reviving old memories. The individuals are known. There are no difficulties over identification. They know who they are and, of course, their names have already been published on Scottish Television. Those two issues are complete red herrings.
  I now come to the business of retrospective legislation. I have rarely heard such utter rot from the other House. We constantly pass retrospective legislation. If anyone challenges that, I simply refer them to the Official Secrets Act 1989, in which we created a new offence. Anyone who has ever served in the security and intelligence services at any time has suddenly been drawn into a brand new Act. They did not sign anything relating to the Act. They may
  88
  have served long before the last world war. The creation of that offence was entirely a retrospective exercise. That the Bill is retrospective does not automatically mean that it is bad. In this case, retrospectively to extend the jurisdiction of the House seems perfectly satisfactory.
  The third issue that their Lordships appeared to ignore was the whole business of the time limit. It was suggested that, because the events happened an awful long time ago, somehow those responsible should be excused. I am prepared to listen to that line of argument, but there is one logical question to be asked. If one gets away with a murder, at what stage can one stop looking over one's shoulder wondering whether one is going to be arrested? Is it 10, 20 or 40 years? That logical question must be asked of their Lordships. They were not prepared to answer it in the debate. All that they said was that it was an awfully long time ago and it was a great shame to dredge it all up again.
  Mention was made of defendants being feeble and senile. Of course, that is not the point. The legislation will allow our legal system to address a particular problem presented by individuals who have sought asylum in this country. We shall not automatically prosecute such individuals. If they are not in any condition to stand trial, of course the judge will sling the case out immediately.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not in the Chamber. He raised several issues which, again, were red herrings that must be addressed. He wondered why these people had come to this country. More to the point, he said that the British authorities were aware of the background of those individuals when they entered the country. That is a grave allegation. I simply do not believe that that is the case. But if my right hon. Friend persists in making that allegation, there is no clearer argument for ending the secrecy that surrounds all the cases.
  I hark back to one of the first questions that I asked in the House. I asked whether it was possible to see the British files—admittedly in Foreign Office archives—relating to Klaus Barbie. I was told that because the British Government had employed Klaus Barbie in an intelligence capacity after the war, the information was too terribly secret to be revealed. What could be more preposterous?
  I hope that the House will support the Bill. Moreover, if, sadly, the Bill is rejected, I urge the authorities and Sir Thomas Hetherington to publish part two of the report to demonstrate to all hon. Members exactly how overwhelming is the weight of evidence against these individuals. I urge the House to support the Bill.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The point that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has just made about the information available in part two of the Chalmers-Hetherington report is extremely important. I shall return to it later, if only to argue that, at present, the information is in the hands of the Home Office. Only the Home Secretary and his closest advisers have seen it. I believe that, if the Bill is not passed, that information will not remain secret. Several people who supplied it will make sure that it is made known. That is a factor which we should take into account because it has greatly influenced successive Home Secretaries who have read the report. As is said in the report, the information is horrific. I have

  89
  always felt that that is what influenced the Government and what may well have influenced the new Prime Minister, who previously voted against the Bill.
  I support the Bill as chairman of the all-party war crimes committee and for myself. Over the weekend, I re-read our debates in the House over the past two years and the White Paper by Hetherington and Chalmers. I have read the papers that were prepared for the use of the war crimes committee, some of them by eminent lawyers explaining—with the aid of the Home Office, I am glad to say, which certainly did not approach our endeavours secretively—why the other approaches, of extradition or altering citizenship, were not the correct avenues to pursue. I must say that the citizenship avenue attracted me at the beginning.
  It is good training and concentrates the mind to read the explanatory and financial memorandum, which encapsulates the purpose of the Bill. It says that clause 1 provides that:
  "proceedings for murder and manslaughter (or culpable homicide) may be brought against persons who are British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands in respect of actions committed in violation of the laws and customs of war in Germany or German-occupied territory between I September 1939 and 5 June 1945."
  I have had letters asking why Japanese and Russian war crimes have not been included. It is because the Home Office, in its wisdom, with the information available to it, said that it did not know of any Russians or Japanese people who came here to live. Large numbers of people came here from eastern Europe as displaced persons, as is set out in the Hetherington-Chalmers report. The Bill was spawned out of that report.
  Referring to a draft convention to which the United Kingdom might have become a signatory and quoting Home Office papers in 1944, the report stated:
  "The United Kingdom need not sign this convention because there is little or no likelihood of 'War Criminals' or `Quislings' escaping to this country since for no doubt many years after the war all persons coming here from abroad will require a visa".
  In 1944, in its wisdom, the Home Office thought that there was "little or no likelihood" of people with war crime backgrounds coming from mid-Europe to this country, so there was no need to sign the convention. The Home Office was wrong.
  For economic reasons, because of work in the textile industry in the north or in the coal mines in south Wales, large numbers of people were brought to the United Kingdom. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to read page 42 of the Hetherington-Chalmers report, 'which states:
  "the existing screening arrangements … were as good as could be devised".
  A large number of people came to this country for economic reasons. Some had been involved in the commission of war crimes in mid and central Europe. That is the genesis of the Bill.
  I am as worried as anyone about the practicalities of any trials. Although I was only marginally involved in the Birmingham case, I was heavily involved in the Guildford case. I am glad that the Government have said that a royal commission will investigate the criminal justice system. It is necessary to investigate the police and forensic evidence. I am sure that the Home Secretary will deal with those matters in the short term, but the problem associated with the Court of Appeal will not be dealt with overnight. The more I become involved arid the more I prepare evidence
  90
  for the royal commission—which I was preparing for the May investigation—the more I realise that this is not an easy matter. There are problems in terms of the practicalities of the court.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred, in a way that I could not, to the way in which courts deal with jurors and witnesses and identification. I am glad that lawyers in another place said that they were concerned about fair trials, but I wish that there had been equal concern about fair trials for those involved in the Guildford case, for example. I hope that there will be a fair trial for anyone who is dealt with under the Bill.
  It is 17 years since the Birmingham case was first brought up. It may be another 20 years before those who committed those horrors in 1974 are caught. Should we therefore argue that, as nearly 40 years have passed since a crime was committed, it should be forgotten?
  Mr. Gorst: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, in relation to much of what he said about the Birmingham and Guildford cases, that what happens depends on the quality of the investigators?
  Mr. Rees: I agree. That was to be my next point. Once the Bill is passed, investigation will determine the nature of a trial. I have some sympathy with those members of the judiciary who say that they take what comes in front of them. Investigation is very important.
  My experience partly explains why I became involved in the war crimes issue. I saw the evidence of war crimes in Lyons in France, the town where Barbie operated, but I do not want to develop that point. I have never forgotten what I saw. Those were not crimes committed in the heat of battle. I have often argued with members of my family, who have now grown up, about how to distinguish between Dresden, the cab-rank operations in which I was involved and the events on the Basra road. When I took my children to France, I saw acre upon acre of graves of the millions of German, French, British and Irish people who died in the first world war—
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: And Scots.
  Mr. Rees: And Scots. I am not making a silly point. There were large numbers of people from all parts of Europe. The whole thing is an obscenity. The real war crimes involve those who committed the crimes in the cool light of day. Some of the stories told in the Hetherington report reflect the horrifying events.
  As a young man, I was astonished to find that the young soldiers who were taken prisoner in the south of France were, we were told, Russians—they were Ukrainians. I do not know whether Germans or Ukrainians committed the crimes in Lyons. The same things happened in Yugoslavia and in Austria-Hungary. Thousands of people poured in. We now read that they were enthusiastically on the side of the Germans. That is as may be—I am not concerned with that after all this time.
  What is a war crime? In much of the debate, we have gone beyond the Bill. The Hetherington report states:
  "It is … appropriate to consider … the terms 'war crime' and 'war criminal' … Most of what are termed 'war crimes' in the Second World War were committed far from the front

  91
  line and have little to do with the actual waging of war. Most of these crimes would be more appropriately termed crimes of occupation".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who served with the Fleet Air Arm during the war, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) expressed a view which I understood. Those who have seen war realise how horrific it is and pull back from considering war crimes. I do not pull back from war crimes but am concerned with the horrors that took place in mid-Europe in the cool of the day—not the heat of battle—when thousands of people were done to death for anti-socialism.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That is all right.
  Mr. Rees: I am proud to be a socialist. This is not something to be funny about. Good socialists were done to death by communists in central Europe. They had stood up for their cause throughout the war. It is interesting to note who supported the communists when the war was over—many were slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. They had a home in the communist party. There is a certain circularity in this matter, fascism and communism becoming very much the same. A socialist understands that.
  "War crime" is defined in the Hetherington report. What did Governments do in the 1940s? I referred to the Home Office statement in 1944, that quislings and people who committed war crimes would not come to the United Kingdom, but the Home Office was wrong. Many of us get things wrong because we do not comprehend what will happen. The Hetherington report stated:
  "War criminals were not given an assurance that they would not be prosecuted here, and we see nothing in the policy or practice of successive British Governments that would prevent the present Government taking whatever action it considers suitable."
  Similarly, on retrospection, the report stated that
  "enactment of legislation in this country to allow the prosecution of 'war crimes' in British courts would not be retrospective: it would merely empower British courts to utilise a jurisdiction already available to them under international law since before 1939, over crimes which had been internationally recognised as such since 1939 by nations including both the United Kingdom and Germany."
  The report adds that that argument is not made in respect of offences of genocide, which would be retrospective, and which were not attended to until the 1957 legislation.
  I comprehend the need for legislation as a matter of principle. The principle involved was that cited earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The Bill really exists to plug a defect in our nationality laws. If I, who was British born, had committed such a crime, I would be brought to trial, but the man or woman living next door to me who did not tell the truth when they were made British citizens or when they completed the forms to enter this country as displaced persons would not be prosecuted.
  Ms. Short: As my right hon. Friend knows, if someone lies for the purpose of acquiring British citizenship, they can subsequently be deprived of it. It is not true to say that the Bill provides the only remedy against a liar who wrongly secured British citizenship.
  Mr. Rees: No, but I said earlier, when my hon. Friend was temporarily absent for a spot of dinner—understandably, because she has been present in the Chamber all evening—that that point had been made in the Select Committee and was put to the Home Office. It is not just a matter of depriving a person of his British citizenship. It is not—as I know, as a former Home Secretary—just a matter of making an executive decision, because the case will end up in the courts. My hon. Friend may be concerned about The Sun splashing a particular case over its first and second pages. It would do the same if British citizenship was rescinded, because the case could end up in the courts. There is no way of avoiding court action.
  Ms. Short: But it is not the only remedy.
  Mr. Rees: No, it is not the only remedy. That point is made in the Hetherington report, as it was in the report published by the appropriate Home Office department some time ago.
  Mr. John Browne: The right hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent argument for plugging the gap, with which most right hon. and hon. Members would agree. The question is whether that gap should be plugged retrospectively. It may be convenient and popular to take that action, but would it be just?
  Mr. Rees: I quoted earlier the advice offered by Hetherington and Chalmers. One is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and the other held a similar appointment in Scotland, as Crown Agent. They argued that it is not a case of retrospection in relation to the crime itself, but to the jurisdiction.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inception of the idea embodied in the Bill was a merciful alternative to extradition?
  Mr. Rees: Replying earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), I said that we had considered the option relating to citizenship, which appealed to me. I wish that we could get around the problem of citizenship in this country, but we are haunted by nationality and British subject status, going back to the days of a British empire on which the sun never set. As to extradition, one thinks of the days to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred, when we were both students. I wonder whether he sat in the Strangers' Gallery when the House debated a famous extradition case involving a Pole, which featured in all the newspapers. Extradition was found to be not as easy as all that.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of the Batory case.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Extradition does not provide an easy solution either. The Government came down on this side—
  Mr. Archer: The objection came from them.
  Mr. Rees: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the objection came from "them". I take his words in the way that he put them.
  Plugging the gap of citizenship and of nationality is of the greatest importance. I am old enough to recall that, even in the first year or two of the second world war, many people on the right ignored the reality of Hitler. It was a

  93
  long time before the reality of the concentration camps was accepted. Equally, after the war, many on the left ignored the reality of Soviet Russia. We are back to the circularity that I mentioned earlier—the way in which intelligent men and women can close their eyes and ears to the reality of the world, which is extremely surprising.
  Sir Alan Glyn: I recall that a command paper published in 1939 set out all the atrocities that had been committed. I obtained a copy from the Library.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is right. I had other things on my mind at the time, but I imagine that many people chose to ignore those facts. Ignoring reality is not a function of academic attainment either.
  There is no reason why those who live here as citizens or residents should be treated any differently from the rest of us. I keep saying that I have been a Member of the House for a long time, but it is germane. I have never quite faced up to being a politician, because politicians are great ones for shouting and attracting the attention of the national media when something happens to get coverage of what they intend to do. Not long ago, right hon. and hon. Members were denouncing the way in which RAF pilots were being treated as prisoners of war and saying what they intended to do about it. I will tell the House what will be done about it—nothing. It was good stuff at the time.
  I mentioned that because I have been in correspondence with Wing Commander Stapleton as a result of a letter that he wrote to The Times. He pointed out that, in. June 1944, following the Gestapo murders of 50 allied air crew officers, the Foreign Minister, Anthony Eden, assured Parliament that the Government were firmly resolved
  "that these foul criminals shall be tracked down to the last man wherever they may take refuge. When the war is over they will be brought to exemplary justice."—[Official Report, 23 June 1944; Vol. 401, c. 481.]
  What was done? They were forgotten. It is easy to forget, but I do not want to forget those who came here to live as British citizens. If they had gone to another country, it would be someone else's responsibility, but as they came here to reside, they are our responsibility.
  I commend the Bill to the House, on the basis of both parts of the Hetherington and Chalmers report. I do not believe that the second part will go away. It has affected successive Home Secretaries, and in my view it affected the Prime Minister and led to his change of mind. If the Bill does not die a natural death, I do not believe that many people will be touched by it—and I do not want them to go to prison, to be hanged, or locked up. They will be old men of my age, and older. I want them to face the light of day. In some small way, that will show others that there is no hiding place for those who commit the kind of war crimes that have been listed by Hetherington and Chalmers. If we do not take that action, someone else will, because although that information is privy to the Government—as long as they want to keep it—others provided it, and it will be provided. I would rather that the press dealt with a trial, instead of the untested evidence in part two of the Hetherington-Chalmers report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see that five hon. Members seek to catch my eye and there are 40 minutes left for debate. I think that the arithmetic will be obvious.
  8.39 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I respond with care to what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has just said, and let me remind him that two of those at Nuremberg were executed because they signed the order for the airmen in question.
  Let me also remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the four international judges went out they decided to get the easy cases out first. They said that von Papen, Hjalmar Schacht and Fritsche were guilty, but eventually those three were acquitted. So let us not be too pompous about the certainty of justice in the wake of Birmingham and Guildford.
  As a Scots lawyer, what I find most objectionable about the Hetherington-Chalmers report is not that it is retrospective or that it alters the extraditional concepts of the law, but that it alters the evidential concept of the law—the idea that one can be convicted on the hearsay evidence of someone who is dead, when that evidence is not capable of any form of investigation.
  My goodness, if we were not able to get a conviction right 17 years ago, are we likely to get it right on hearsay evidence when the crime happened 50 years ago? I find the concept contrary to the theory of justice upon which the law of Scotland is formed, if not the law of England. Uncorroborated hearsay from the dead seems to me to be a strange basis for attempting to try people for crimes, however frightful they were.
  Let us not forget that it took this Government to admit that it was the Russians who murdered the Polish officer corps at Katyn. It was this Government who allowed the memorial to be built. It was blown up by Russian agents and then recreated.
  I have a great friend called Zoe Polanska-Palmer, who was taken from Russia, at the age of 12, to Auschwitz. She was the principal object of experiments by Dr. Mengele. She was moved to the pleasures of Dachau by a Polish officer. During an air raid she escaped and walked—speaking only Russian—from Dachau over the Alps and was hidden by the partisans. Then she was taken to Klagenfurt and, on the orders of Sir Toby Low, she was loaded at bayonet-point, to be taken back and shot. Because she was only a young girl and she was injured, a British officer pushed her off the lorry and that is why she is still alive, in Tayport in Scotland.
  I do not have any sentimentality when it comes to the wrongness or the brutality of those who committed these crimes, but I believe that if we attempt to get these old jellyfish into court now, they would either be wrongly or pointlessly convicted.
  Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Russians, Czechoslovakians and Poles—how many thousand war crimes did they each commit? Let us bury the past.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I can be brief because the contributions against the Bill that we have heard today, especially in the earlier part of the debate, have been first class and extremely persuasive. There is no doubt whatsoever that the balance of the argument is now substantially against the Bill.
  Although I have been against the principle of retrospective legislation—legislation bent for the purpose of establishing cases against alleged war criminals—from

  95
  the very beginning, in view of the speeches that we have heard against the Bill, it is not necessary for me to speak at length.
  One of the best contributions was that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) because he demonstrated conclusively to anyone who had not already made up his mind about the Bill—
  Ms. Short: Or hers.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Yes, or had not made up her mind. He showed that it would be wrong to proceed with it. It is certainly a pity for his argument and for his reputation that he rested his opposition to the Bill upon a matter of such little merit, namely, that it is desirable to declare that we are against the holocaust. Of course we are against the holocaust, but that is not part of the argument.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook put the Home Secretary on the spot by asking whether there will be prosecutions under the Bill if we pass it. The Home Secretary did not answer in a satisfactory manner, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would not allow me to intervene to point that out. The argument, which ought to be pressed home, is that unless the Bill is passed, the people concerned—three elderly individuals who now live in this country—cannot be prosecuted. The Bill must be passed to enable that. Only one Law Officer can decide that they will not then be prosecuted.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Two.
  Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. and learned Friend is right—two. Another Law Officer is responsible for Scottish jurisdiction. It is said that at least one of the three lives in Scotland.
  However, the ultimate law enforcement authority in this country has to decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest. That cannot be laid down in the Bill. It is not in the Bill. The Bill does not contradict the existing constitution of this country—or not as far as England and Wales are concerned.
  The Attorney-General must decided ultimately whether any case should go forward for prosecution and whether to prosecute it would be in the public interest.
  I thought it rather daring of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General not only to be present for the earlier speeches, but to intervene in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to suggest that the Attorney-General could not possibly authorise a trial that became a show trial. That must be one of the strongest arguments against the Bill. If it is passed, the chances of a show trial, or show trials, for the three old men is very great.
  I felt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was skating on thin ice when he posed that question. Ultimately—whatever happens to the Bill—if some jurisdiction is given to the British criminal courts to try the people concerned, he will still have to decide whether, in the light of the evidence and every other consideration, it is in the public interest to pursue the matter. He should keep that judgment clear and separate in his mind. I have no doubt that he will do so, but it would be better if he expressed no opinion until the time came.
  There are good reasons why prosecutions are not in the public interest. Let me list three of them. The first lies in
  96
  the concept of retrospection—for, no matter what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the proponents of the Bill may say, this is retrospective criminal legislation. The Minister says that it is not criminal legislation; that, while it may be retrospective, it extends only to jurisdiction. This is the first time that I have heard anyone say that a change in the jurisdiction of a criminal court is not part of the criminal law. Of course it is—especially, and more definitively, because in this instance the jurisdiction will be changed in a particular way, in relation to particular events, at a particular time and in a particular place. That is very selective, and cannot possibly escape the label of retrospective criminal legislation.
  Many arguments have been advanced against treating the Bill as retrospective legislation; we have heard some tonight. Let us not forget, however, why we do not like retrospective legislation. Not only would it be unfair to charge someone with an offence when no such offence existed at the time of its commission; it would also be unfair if, because of what had passed since the commission of the offence, it was impracticable or, indeed, almost impossible to initiate a prosecution. Do not let us become involved in arguments about whether we knew in 1948 that certain people had come to this country whom we knew to be guilty of certain offences and whether that was deliberate, a question raised rather unworthily by some hon. Members in regard to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Such arguments are irrelevant.
  To change the law after 50 years is to say to the individual concerned, "No matter that you kept no records, no documents and no memories of the events of 50 years ago. No matter that you have not kept in touch with friends who could possibly help you to defend yourself. No matter that you did not keep alibi evidence. You simply did not know that you would be prosecuted." It is fundamentally unfair, 50 years on, to bring a charge and to ask the accused to defend himself against the weight of a Government machine that has spent half a million pounds, engaged the services of 20 or 30 police officers and toured eastern Europe for 18 months trying to obtain the evidence that, according to part two of the report, will be damning enough to justify the legislation.
  Retrospection is the offence embodied in the Bill—an offence that we should not contemplate, because, in view of the time lapse, it is doubly unfair. If we cannot give these people a fair trial, we cannot say that we are exercising British justice, for a fair trial is fundamental to all British justice.
  My second point has already been made—although with less force—by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). For the purposes of the Bill, the law has been changed in the past 12 months to enable evidence to be admitted in court that is derived from sources who are deceased, or, for some other reason, unable to appear as witnesses to give honourable testimony. We should bear in mind that 50 years have passed. Written statements from witnesses can be used, regardless of how they came to be made—up to 50 years ago—and regardless of the possibility that they are forgeries.
  Ms. Short: The Hetherington report even suggests that statements from people who are now dead can be used, whatever the conditions in which they were made.
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is indeed one of the report's recommendations. The report has proved very useful, in that it gave us the sources that we needed; but, when discussing the legal difficulties, it effectively told us, "The way in which to bring a case is to bend, or change, the law." The ultimate consequence is a Bill like this, which changes the jurisdiction of the courts. That is an inherent injustice. If the Bill is enacted and trials follow, three people will be arraigned—three known people: the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has made sure that the newspapers, and everyone else, know their names and where they live. Simon Wiesenthal's own people have paraded up and down outside the House of one of the prospective defendants, accusing him of being guilty.
  If the Bill is passed, the law will be directed solely towards the object of bringing three people to court on evidence that has been changed and adjusted for that specific purpose. As a practising barrister of some 30 years' standing, I would have voted against the Bill on that ground alone. There is, however, another argument—the argument that the people concerned should be entitled to obtain witnesses and evidence in their defence. It has been pointed out that legal aid is available to them, but those of us who have used legal aid in such circumstances, or have tried to, will laugh at that. It is difficult enough to obtain a witness from overseas; to obtain a witness who can testify to events of 50 years ago is another matter, and the resources of the legal aid fund will not rise to such a challenge. The argument is spurious: it would riot be practically possible for any of the accused to defend themselves. In the end they will have to answer these charges, unsupported by all the paraphernalia that applies to prosecutions and without all the resources that are available to the prosecuting authorities.
  Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether we intend to legislate for an injustice. It is no use those who support the Bill saying that justice can be done. Due to the way that it has been contrived, it will be impossible for the defence to establish credentials and evidence of such a nature as to enable it to make its case.
  The question of identification was referred to by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Can one imagine the difficulties of identification after 50 years? One case was in 1941, 50 years ago. Identification ought to depend not on whether the individual was there but on whether he committed the crime. He may well be identified as having been present, but British justice ought to require that it is proved that he was the criminal, not a bystander, with German guns in view and German soldiers standing around.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, South suggested that modern techniques—DNA testing, no doubt, and all the other wonderful techniques that are now available—are used to identify defendants as criminals. However, they could not be used in Lithuania in 1941, under wartime conditions.
  Please let us not legislate for an injustice. We cannot say that it is possible for British justice to be applied now to what happened then: It is no use talking about what happened in this country years ago but has been discovered only now. Trials could take place at any time in this country under our jurisdiction. The evidence would be available in a civilised country where law and order is, happily, the normal rule. Documentary evidence would have been preserved. We are not, however, talking about such a case; we are talking about doing an injustice to
  98
  people who at the moment are living under the British system of justice. Justice will not be obtained if we bend the law in the way that the Bill requires us to do. Therefore, I call upon the House to vote against it.
  9.1 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was very well constructed, valuable and helpful. I pay tribute to him for what he said against the Bill and recognise his knowledge of the issue. However, I believe that the Bill ought to be supported. Therefore, I intend to put before him a different point of view—though briefly, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Perhaps each generation sees the war that it experienced as the war—the benchmark of evil, the hallmark of horror, the epitome of brave deeds and thus its war criminals as unique in the evil that they committed. The Bill addresses only the second world war and the criminals that it spawned.
  Alas, there is no end to the cruelty of mankind. Man's inhumanity to man continues ceaselessly and with a ferocity that is heightened and deepened by today's fiendish inventions, Cambodia's genocide—that mountain of skulls—Iraq's barbarism—what we read of the abominable cruelty to Kuwaitis—and the impassive horror of China's army in Tiananmen square, with the blood of students flowing over the stones. We do not attempt to deal with those killers tonight, nor do we plan to do so in the future. Why, then, this Bill, when the voices of all those who have been treated cruelly, or who have been tortured, maimed or killed, echo throughout the centuries? It is because we, as a Christian nation, played our part in the anti-Semitic European movement over the centuries. Today, as a multi-faith society, rooted and grounded in a more tolerant Christianity, we have a small chance to make reparation. We can rebalance the scales. Anti-Semitism is not dead. The Jews are persecuted always. In England and Scotland in the 12th century, we piled Jews into chimneys and lit the fires beneath them. In the 1940s, those chimneys were recreated in Auschwitz, and with the freeing of Poland we now have the opportunity to see them.
  That shows the uniqueness of the Bill; anti-Semitism is the key. As a Christian, I have some responsibility to wipe out that evil.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: If my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will forgive me, I shall not follow the sentiments that she expressed.
  Three speeches reflect the dilemma in which I find myself in confronting this issue. One speech stood out: would that I had the eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). The three speeches were made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
  We all agree about the enormity of the crimes that were committed. I do not intend to impugn any hon. Member

  99
  who expressed hatred and abhorrence about those crimes, but it takes little imagination to know the evil that was perpetrated.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood expressed the dilemma truly in wanting to hit out and to express the rage and concern of humanity by saying that those crimes are unacceptable.
  Why should not we pass the Bill? The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook addressed that issue powerfully—so powerfully that he reached the conclusion that, should anybody be mistaken about the fact that he regarded these crimes as an anathema, he was going to set aside the most formidable list of reservations that I have heard about the Bill in order, for declaratory purposes, to show that he could not be associated with a scintilla of doubt about his distaste and hatred for the activities that took place almost half a century ago.
  I shall not question the conclusion that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook reached from the evidence that he adduced. That evidence was well expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who, in a detailed, clinical, detached but cerebral manner, reminded us of the principles of our legal system.
  I sympathise with all three expressions of opinion. I do not condone the activities that took place 45 or 50 years ago—no hon. Member would wish to be associated with them—but I must ask myself, not as a lawyer but as a human being, whether I honestly believe that we shall effect justice according to the terms of our courts. I doubt whether we shall do so and on that basis, mindful of my abhorrence of the acts that took place, I cannot support the Bill.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. John Browne: I support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the eloquent speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). As they put the case extremely well, I shall make only one fundamental point about retrospection. Most hon. Members, if not all, would agree that war crimes are horrific and should be punished.
  Indeed, I would go further than many hon. Members, because I support capital punishment. Although the punishment may be severe—
  Ms. Short: This is a very funny time at which to be talking about supporting capital punishment. If ever two groups of criminals would have been hanged, it is the six men convicted of the Birmingham bombings and the men convicted of the Guildford bombings. Years later, we know that they were wrongfully convicted. In view of that fact—quite apart from all the other arguments—how does the hon. Gentleman now dare to stand up and say that he supports capital punishment?
  Mr. Browne: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that it is a funny time. It is an important time, and the hon. Lady has made my point clearly. The more severe the punishment—capital punishment even—the more we must strive for justice. There can be no justification for supporting capital punishment if trials admit of the
  100
  possibility of injustice. That is my key point in this case, and I am glad that the hon. Lady said that. However severe the punishment, it must be just and not just convenient. In this case, it may be popular. It may be politically convenient. But it must also be fundamentally just.
  It is for basic justice that we and our forefathers have fought over centuries.
  A key element of our principles of justice is the onus of proof. The accused is innocent until proved guilty. At the weekend, I heard a well-meaning member of my own party saying on television, "Oh, but the Guildford and Birmingham men had not been proved innocent." Surely they had to be proved guilty. That is the fundamental point. We in the House have already bent the rule of the onus of proof in respect of some of our anti-drugs legislation. I do not support that principle because it leads to a slippery slope.
  My second point relates to the right to cross-examination.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Before we get lost in the idea that the debate is about the holocaust, let us not forget that 60 million gentiles died in the last war.
  Mr. Browne: I am sure that we shall remember that.
  My second point relates to the right to cross-examine witnesses, which is fundamental to natural justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made it clear that, in this case, the rules have been bent to suit this Bill.
  The last of my three basic points concerns knowledge of the law, which is assumed in our system of justice.
  I support the argument of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who made an eloquent speech in favour of plugging the gap. I agree with him that the gap should be plugged and that its very existence is abhorrent. However, attractive as it may be, it should not be done retrospectively.
  I believe that the Bill would lead to show trials. Doubtless, they would be very popular and highly convenient politically. But they would be a travesty of justice.
  The Bill was debated in the other place and their Lordships, many of whom are extremely well versed in the law, voted against it. Their Lordships do not have party constituencies and were able to speak and vote relatively unaffected by considerations of public popularity and political convenience. They defeated the Bill by a large margin—by 273 to 60. That may have been a political nuisance but it was right because it was just.
  I believe that the Bill represents retrospective legislation which would be intrinsically unjust, and I urge the House to vote it down.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: This has been an extremely thoughtful debate—on both sides of the argument. It is interesting to note that several hon. Members appear to have changed their minds since we last debated the matter. It will be extremely interesting to see not only the outcome of tonight's vote but the number of hon. Members who, for whatever reason, choose not to vote. It is to be a free vote, and there will be no rancour if hon. Members choose to go different ways when we divide.
  Before I deal with the substance of the argument, I should like to refer to one matter raised by the hon.

  101
  Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who is not in his place at the moment. The hon. Gentleman said that, if the Bill fails to be given its Second Reading tonight, there will be those who will publish the information contained in the second part of the Hetherington-Chalmers report. That is a dangerous and threatening statement. If there are to be trials, they should be conducted in a court room and not in newspapers or on the streets. We do not want witch hunts. The Minister must make it clear when he replies that the report will not be published under any circumstances unless a trial was to proceed.
  Mr. John Patten: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I agree entirely that it would be wrong for the Government at any stage to publish that information? Does he also recognise that to do so would be deeply prejudicial to those who might in future find themselves accused of a crime and also to the many people whose names were brought forward for the investigation, were examined and found to be totally innocent and were exonerated? If that were to happen, it would be deeply prejudicial.
  Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Minister of State and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I hope that those who follow our proceedings and those who might have access to information that might be highly damaging to individuals will take note of what has been said.
  The principle underlying the Bill remains correct. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I have reservations about how it would work in practice. I did not intervene when hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, said that my right hon. Friend had rested his entire case on the need to make a declaratory statement against those people who might have perpetrated such horrific crimes. He did not peril his case simply on that statement, because it would have been wrong to do that. Like me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook believes that the principle underlying the Bill is correct.
  It is wrong that British courts have no jurisdiction over crimes of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide committed abroad by people who were not British subjects at the time but who have now become so. That problem has not arisen since 1957 and British courts now have such jurisdiction. However, it is wrong that a person accused of such crimes can escape prosecution while another person who was a British subject at the time cannot do so. That is especially important when we consider the nature of those crimes.
  Ms. Short: Under the Geneva convention that was incorporated into British law around 1956 and under the Genocide Act 1969 to which my hon. Friend has referred, we have powers, but we have never prosecuted in relation to the killing of Kurds or other awful war crimes. This debate is not simply about powers; it involves war crimes in recent history as well as distant history. Does that not trouble my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. Since 1957—and since 1969 when the legislation was considerably widened—British courts have had jurisdiction to hear the case of an individual accused of such crimes who is resident within any of the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
  102
  Many crimes have gone unprosecuted and will continue to go unprosecuted and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) identified some of them. If someone is living in this country against whom charges can be made, it is wrong to say that nothing should be done simply because there are others elsewhere in the same position or perhaps in a far worse position. I accept that the people who are likely to come before our courts may feel aggrieved because others may be responsible for far worse crimes. However, it does not seem to be any more right to say that we cannot prosecute anyone for any crime on the ground that there may be someone somewhere else who is guilty of a worse crime. That argument does not stand up.
  While I have no doubt about the principle of the Bill, I have every doubt about the implementation of its provisions. Before I consider the provisions, I want to refer to retrospection, which particularly taxed members of the other place in their debates on the matter last year.
  Of course the legislation is retrospective in the strict sense. We should not be here tonight if it were not. However, it seems that there is an important point: the Bill seeks to give British courts retrospective jurisdiction. It does not seek to create a new crime. It would be wrong to do that. As such atrocities have probably always been criminal and since the Hague convention of 1907 they have certainly been criminal, we are not establishing a new crime; we are merely making it possible to prosecute those individuals in one or other of the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Surely it would be a new crime if a Lithuanian were to kill a Russian in Germany, and surely it would be new if that person were to be tried in Scotland. I have never heard of such a thing.
  Mr. Darling: The crime is the act of killing. The subsequent charging of someone is no part of the crime. In Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, it has always been a crime to kill someone. The purpose of this Bill is to enable a court in England or Scotland to hear the case and, if it is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence, to convict. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is misconceived.
  On the question of retrospection, it is important to bear in mind the fact that in 1950 the European convention on human rights anticipated that someone might be prosecuted for an act even though, at the time of the offence, there was no jurisdiction to hear the case.
  When the other place declined to give the previous Bill a Second Reading, it was said that that decision was controversial. Indeed, the Home Secretary made the point that the other place had overruled the elected Chamber. I accept that entirely. There is some force in the argument that, in the event of a conflict between the two Chambers, the will of the House of Commons must prevail. Indeed, it would be far better if the second Chamber were elected. In that case, its revising and delaying role would be fully accepted as part of the democratic process. Thus, that element of such a controversy would be removed.
  In answer to a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), I should make the point that legal arguments were not the only ones to be employed in another place. The Members of the other place who are lawyers are quite capable of raising points that are entirely political. Indeed, they do

  103
  just that. As Parliament is currently constituted, they are entitled to express their views. We should be in some danger were we to believe that everything that lawyers say must be right. In saying so, I speak as a lawyer.
  Let me say something about my doubts. It seems to me that the fundamental duty of any court is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial. That is a matter which has troubled many hon. and right hon. Members during the debate today. Before deciding to charge an individual, the Crown must give serious consideration to the weight and quality of the evidence. Once a person is charged, the die is cast. There will be publicity, and set in train will be certain events that would be difficult to undo. If there is a doubt, the Crown should not proceed.
  I lay some emphasis on the role of the Crown, as it seems to me that it is a strength of the Scottish system, and now of the English system, that the Crown is given a considerable degree of judgment. It is important that the Crown should evaluate the evidence that it is prepared to lead—the quality of the evidence that the court is likely to hear—before deciding that prosecution is justified. Indeed, one of my reasons for supporting the Bill is that it will enable the Crown to make that judgment—to weigh the quality of evidence against any individual, and decide whether prosecution is justified. Of course, the prosecutor will still have a duty to have regard to the public interest. If the Crown's view is that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute an individual, nothing in this Bill will take away from that.
  Reference has been made to the possibility of show trials. It would be wrong to characterise any trial in this country as a show trial as we understand that term. Not even in our wildest moments would we accuse the present Government, or a Government formed by my party, of being so crass as to stage a show trial for political purposes. The media, especially in England and Wales, have quite wide latitude in the way they report matters, both before and during a trial. We must be very careful that, before the Crown decides to proceed, it is satisfied that it has a case that it can prosecute to a successful conclusion. No proceedings should be started on the basis of the mere chance of success, or in the belief that, once this Bill becomes a statute, we must be seen to be doing something about the problem. That would be quite wrong.
  The Crown will have a number of substantial difficulties. The first, which was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), is delay. Delay in itself is not a bar of trial, but it presents formidable difficulties. It is not enough to stop the prosecution in its tracks, but none the less the Crown will have to have regard to the fact that nearly 50 years have elapsed since the crimes were allegedly committed. I strongly believe that the fact that a crime took place some years ago should never be a reason for not prosecuting. We do not have a statute of limitations, and nor should we have one. In fact, within our recent memory is a case in which the body of a baby was found in an individual's back garden and it was found that the baby had died in the 1960s or late 1950s. No one ever argued that that individual should not have been prosecuted. As it happened, if I recollect correctly, he was subsequently convicted. I understand that delay may be a ground for
  104
  stopping a trial in England, but I am less certain of the position in Scotland. The position in Scotland was referred to in the other place.
  Connected with delay is consideration of the quality of evidence. It has been said that old men never forget. I accept that, but I cannot believe that old men, or even young men for that matter, always remember things exactly as they happened. Anyone who has been in a court room must be aware of the difficulties that arise even after a short period. In Scotland, people in custody are brought to trial within three months, yet it is quite common for a witness not to remember what he saw, despite being quite certain about it until he went into the witness box and was cross-examined. How much worse would the position be after 50 years? Indeed, a witness may remember an event that sticks in his mind—perhaps the killing of an individual—but will he remember the circumstantial evidence and the various bits of evidence that fit into the crucial jigsaw?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Darling: Once more, out of deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman from the same Bar as myself, I shall give way.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am anxious to know whether, when it comes to evidence, the law of England is to be raised to the qualifications of the law of Scotland, or whether the law of Scotland is to be lowered to the laxity of the law of England.
  Mr. Darling: I was about to refer to that very point. There is one difficulty that the Government must address, and that is the problem that they face with different laws on corroboration. It is ironic that the Home Secretary should announce a royal commission last Friday—I hope that it will address the desirability of corroboration being part and parcel of English criminal law—yet trials may take place under this legislation before the royal commission reports and certainly, I suspect, before anything is done about its findings. It will be ironic that someone accused of a war crime and prosecuted in Scotland will be entitled to various protections that he would simply not have in England. For example, the evidence that is laid against him will have to be corroborated. It will not be possible in Scotland to have evidence delivered by video.
  In Scotland, identification of the accused is vital. The Crown cannot proceed without it. In England the system is different because there is no dock identification; instead identification is done by a different system that may have many advantages, but I suspect that in this case an accused would rather be brought to trial in Scotland, where it will be necessary for witnesses to appear in the witness box and to point the finger at the accused and say, "That is the man whom I saw do those things 50 years ago."
  I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know whether the Government will try to resurrect the attempt to introduce video evidence in Scotland. The Minister will recall that, last year in the debacle on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, that was one of the provisions that were lost, and so also was the Chalmers report recommendation that statements made by people who are now dead should be admissible. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the Government still intend to amend the legislation.

  105
  Although I believe that the Bill should get a Second Reading and that people who are accused of war crimes should be prosecuted, I would take great objection if any attempt were made to amend the laws of evidence to bring about those prosecutions. If those people are to be brought to trial, it must be done under existing criminal procedures. The law must not be altered to secure a conviction, as that would be wholly wrong and objectionable.
  The Hetherington-Chalmers proposal that evidence on commission should be widely accepted is not satisfactory. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a jury will convict if it cannot see the witnesses, evaluate their credibility and demeanour and do everything normally expected of juries. I strongly believe that if witnesses are to point the finger at individuals, they should—except in the most exceptional circumstances—do so within a court. Juries should not be invited to convict on the strength of documentary evidence, perhaps taken on commission or from some old, frail individual giving evidence on a video against an accused person whom they cannot and will never see.
  I support the Bill because if a charge is to be brought against those individuals, it is important that they should be prosecuted. The trials must be fair and be seen to be fair or far more injustice will be done than if we simply let matters lie.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said that the Hetherington-Chalmers report mentioned that many names were translated into the Cyrillic alphabet. It is easy to make mistakes—indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that deliberate mistakes were made. During the cold war under Stalin, Soviet officials may have altered the records for their own reasons. It would be wrong for someone to be convicted on bogus evidence that cannot be cross-examined. I suspect that those who made the alterations and those responsible for keeping the records are now long dead or, if not, would certainly not be keen to speak up.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member rightly mentions various constraints and caveats. He seems to be coming to the conclusion that the chances of securing a conviction in a war crimes trial would be minimal. Does he agree with that, and, if so, why does he support the Bill?
  Mr. Darling: I do not believe that. If I believed that there was no prospect of a conviction under the law of evidence in Scotland or England, there would be no point in supporting the Bill. I support the principle of the Bill because I believe that, although there are formidable difficulties, a fair trial is possible. As I said earlier—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present—the Crown must weigh up all those considerations when deciding whether to mount a prosecution. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is possible to support the principle of something while holding honest doubts about it. Ultimately, the question is whether the doubts are sufficient to change one's mind. In my case, they are not.
  Other matters were considered this evening and in the debate in the other place. There was a question about what happened in 1948 and whether the British Government decided to abandon war trials for all time. Although I was not born then, I understand why the Parliament of the day decided that it did not wish to go on with the war trials in Germany. However, we must differentiate between investigating about 8 million possible former Nazi party
  106
  members—who would all have been culpable to varying degrees—while at the same time trying to rebuild West Germany and Europe, with the position that exists in 1991, when we are confronted with evidence that a few individuals may have been responsible for horrific crimes about which we can do nothing because we lack the jurisdiction.
  Ms. Short: The Bill empowers us to prosecute anyone for murder, but we know that after 1948 people accused of the monstrous organisation of mass murder were not prosecuted. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Darling: I thought that I had already dealt with that matter. I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's question. In view of the shortage of time, if she would like to pursue the matter later I shall be happy to discuss it with her.
  I believe that the principle of the Bill must be right. However, one issue troubles me, and it did so when we debated the subject in Committee. It involves pre-trial publicity. Ostensibly the law in England and Scotland is the same. I can do no better than rely on the Minister of State, who told me that they were the same, so that must be right. However, those of us who read the newspapers, north and south of the border, wonder whether there is any relationship between the two legislations. In Scotland, once suspicion has been focused, the press are severely restricted in what they can report, but in England that does not seem to be the position.
  We are all familiar with the concept of trial by newspaper. In the fairly recent past, trials have attracted great publicity, and newspapers have felt free to publish photographs and highly damaging articles about an accused individual. The Government must consider whether it is time to amend the law in England to stop such things happening. The issue of the innocence or guilt of an individual is a matter for the jury alone. It is no use saying to the jury, as judges frequently do, "You must ignore anything you read in the newspaper, hear on radio, or see on the television." That is like throwing a skunk into the jury room and asking the jury to forget the smell—that simply will not work. I hope that, having had a year to reflect on the matter, the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to do something about that problem. If he does not, perhaps it is something to which the royal commission could attend when considering what should be done with British criminal law.
  On the last two occasions that the House debated the Bill, a majority supported the principle behind it. I hope that that will remain the case. Most people accept that there are difficulties, most of which will have to be shouldered by the Crown. I also hope that if we give the Bill a Second Reading, the other place will note that we have given a considered judgment and have not taken a hasty decision. This debate was born not out of great emotion, but out of a recognition that there is a problem in this country and there are individuals against whom serious allegations have been made which should be answered. We do not underestimate the difficulties that will face the Crown or the accused in the event that he or she is brought to trial.
  It seems to me and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the principle behind the Bill must be right,

  107
  notwithstanding the difficulties. For those reasons, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I shall endeavour to do all I can to reply to the points raised by hon. Members in what, by any standards, has been an excellent debate. By my counting, if my arithmetic is correct, there have been 32 speeches, including mine, since 3.30 pm—a prodigious number. I have done a rough running count of those in favour and those against, and, to borrow from your terminology, Mr. Speaker, the ayes seem to be 19, including me and my right hon. Friend and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and the noes 13. However, this is a matter to be decided not by the numbers who spoke in favour or against the Bill, but in the Division Lobbies afterwards and in another place.
  I must address the majority of my remarks to those people who are against the Bill, so I shall not say a great deal about those who have spoken strongly in its favour, except to say that, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, the debate has been marked by extremely calm and lucid argument on both sides, with little emotion and certainly no acrimony, apart from one enjoyable outburst between a Whip and an hon. Lady on the Opposition Benches. The incident entertained the few of us in the Chamber who were privileged to see it, but I suspect that it has nothing to do with us or the Bill.
  Of those who have spoken in favour, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said that prosecutions were difficult, but that we should proceed on the issue of principle, and I agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said that he had consulted widely in the British community, including the Jewish community, because he feared that the measure might lead to a growth in anti-Semitism in this country. He and others had seen none of that, so he felt that the Bill should proceed unencumbered, with which I agree.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made a remarkable speech. As I sat listening to him, I could not believe that he had not been legally trained. He stressed the importance of the House exercising its judgment and of individual Members of Parliament deciding the law, willing the law, willing the means and then leaving it to the courts to decide. I entirely agree with him; and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) felt much the same. I also agree with the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who had not intended to speak, but I am glad that he decided to do so.
  The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), spoke with authority, and I agree with all that he was allowed to say in 10 minutes before he was so cruelly cut off by the rule.
  I was especially glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) managed to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker. He was able not only to examine the arguments of learned Law Lords and others in another place where, generally speaking, legal experts tend to take one view, but to compare and contrast the views of the senior judiciary—Law Lords and others—with the
  108
  developing views of those who are much younger. It was a case of, "Let generation speak to generation". What the hon. and learned Gentleman said perhaps illustrates a substantial generation difference between some of those in another place and some of those who practise with him or who sometimes sit under his eye when he is in court as a recorder.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke most movingly of his recent visit to a concentration camp, but he also spoke unemotionally, and his speech was all the more telling for that. Nobody tried to play on the emotions of any other hon. Member. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) broke her Trappist vow by sprinting from the Whip's seat to the Back Benches to make a powerful speech in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason) also made powerful speeches. We were then treated by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to what the Michelin guide used to call "a little history". I am glad that he gave us that little history of war crimes from 1939 to 1945 and the period immediately after the war, because his speech set much in context. I should like to return to some of his comments when I deal with the important points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) also supported the speech in an intervention.
  From the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said that they would support the Bill, although they would not seek to advise their hon. Friends. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said. I understand his deep thinking on the issue since last year and the concerns that have moved him to cleave to his earlier decision to support the Bill, although there was a large declaratory element in the reasons that he gave for doing so. The Home Secretary and I are also grateful to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook for expressing the view that the Government have acted with constitutional propriety. Some people would not agree, but I do, unlike one or two colleagues who feel that we have not behaved with constitutional propriety. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill represents a change in jurisdiction in the criminal law but does not introduce any new offences. I shall deal with that point when I respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I certainly agree with the strong view—and I have not heard it disputed by any hon. Member from either side of the debate—that there should not be a statute of limitations in this country. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  I owe the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central an answer to the points that they raised about Scottish legislation. I tread with some temerity into Scottish law, all the more so as I see the menacing shape of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) behind me. I am no expert in Spanish—[Laughter.] I am no expert in Spanish practices, which I am sure are not practised at the Scottish Bar.

  109
  The Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry recommended that the facility of live television evidence should be available in war crimes trials. The law already provides for that generally, as we saw in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
  Mr. Hattersley: What about Scotland?
  Mr. Patten: I am coming to that point. I was comparing and contrasting England and Scotland. That provision is now in force for many serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter and serious fraud, and not especially for war crimes. Following a period of consultation. the Government proposed that a similar general facility should be provided in Scotland. A provision to that effect was included in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill last Session. The provision was removed from the Bill during its parliamentary passage because, I am advised, of the pressure of parliamentary time. The Government remain of the view that live television links should be available for the giving of evidence from abroad in all Scottish trials of all serious crimes. It is the Government's intention to add a provision to that effect and to have it introduced at an early legislative opportunity.
  Mr. Darling: Will the Minister tell us when the Government intend to introduce the change? It seems to us that it is being introduced only for the benefit of this legislation. I do not know what consultation the Minister has had. Presumably, from what he said earlier, he is having that consultation in Spain rather than in Scotland. He must understand that there will be deep resentment if the law in Scotland is to be amended simply to enable convictions to take place under this legislation.
  Mr. Patten: Any future legislative changes will not be brought forward before the end of this Session. If such changes were made to parliamentary law as it affects Scotland, had any trials begun, they would not be affected by any changes in the law that were coming at a later stage.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: It is difficult to mix it with my hon. and learned Friend, but I will give way on this point on Scottish law and then no more.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It would be absolutely outrageous if it were thought in the House that the reason that the Government withdrew that absurd condition in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was time. We in Scotland are not willing to have our laws of evidence mucked about and watered down just to suit English legislation.
  Mr. Patten: The north and south sides of the border should sometimes learn from each other about evidential and other procedures. I am content to say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that we might learn from some of the ways in which pre-trial publicity is dealt with in Scotland. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) that the subject of a Scottish allegation raised interdict proceedings following the preparation of a programme on war crimes. Perhaps we should listen to what Scottish law says and, equally, the Scots should look to English and Welsh law to ensure that television evidence, which can be useful in obtaining convictions under proper process of
  110
  those who are accused of murder, manslaughter, fraud, forgery and other serious international crimes, can be achieved.
  Mr. Darling rose—
  Mr. Patten: I must try to answer the rest of the arguments. I have given way on the Scottish point and I must now turn to the important points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I greatly respect him and I know that I will not be able to persuade him to change his mind. His speech gives me the opportunity to try to lay to rest two ghosts about what happened in post-war England. The first is that somehow the post-war British Government decided not to proceed against war criminals in this country. With great respect, I must advise my right hon. Friend that not only is there no evidence that there were any such war criminals in this country, but we did not have any laws at the time that would have enabled us to proceed against any such people in this country. That means that at no stage could Her Majesty's Government have decided to stop prosecutions. In any event, it would not have been Her Majesty's Government who would have taken that decision; it would have been the prosecuting authorities of the time.
  The second important ghost that we need to lay to rest is that a distinguished Minister came to the Dispatch Box in 1948 and said, on behalf of the Government, that all war crimes trials should come to an end. I shall tell the House what was said on that occasion; indeed, it was widely reported. I have gone into this matter in great detail because I respect the views of those who feel that a binding statement was given at that time. Let us forget the issue whether it is possible to bind one's successors. I have looked at the papers myself and have indirectly employed some historians. It may interest some of my hon. Friends to know that we have a surprising number of historians in the Government service. It is clear to me that the only announcement that was made in this place in 1948 was that the quadripartite allied hearings of alleged war criminals in Germany or German-occupied territory of nationals or foreigners who were then in German-occupied or German territory should cease and that it should be the legislative task of the future German Government to take over those prosecutions. The Federal Republic of Germany took over that legislative burden from 1948 and prosecuted alleged war criminals, not just in 1948, 1958, 1968 and 1978, but almost up to the present day—and those provisions still remain on their statute book.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was, rightly, concerned about fair trials. In his opening speech his right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook flagged the fact that we should listen carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and we did so. He raised three important points. The first related to identification and its importance. As I understand it, judges can give clear warnings to juries about identification and its dangers. The English and Welsh system varies from the Scottish system, with its different dock identification system.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point related to process. Under the present law and present procedure, there is nothing to prevent any judge at any time stopping a case from proceeding if he thinks that a

  111
  fair trial would not be possible. That important common law principle exists now. I note that I have the assent of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and others.
  The third point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham in his important speech. We have the judgment of the Deputy Chief Justice of England, Lord Justice Tasker Watkins, on this issue. It will always be up to the courts to decide whether a delay acts against the interests of a fair trial. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind can be set at rest on that matter.
  Several other opponents of the Bill made their views starkly known, including the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who made several interesting interventions. The opponents also include my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. Among their number is also my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who has considerable expertise in extradition law to which we all pay tribute—[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members visit the Library where they will find that "Stanbrook on Extradition" is the standard text for anyone wishing to bone up on that subject.
  We have also heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Winchester (Mr.Browne). I guess that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I will never have a meeting of minds over what is and what is not retrospective legislation. But he was unfair to Hetherington and Chalmers, a pair of distinguished former Directors of Public Prosecutions. I do not have any DPPs as close personal friends, but I have taken advice and I am told that they are not men normally given to rash judgments or to setting out on quixotic crusades to achieve prosecutions. The hon. Gentleman was less than fair to those retired DPPs.
  I wish to say three things in response to the important speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. His speech will bear reading. First, the making of statute criminal law in this place is in the hands of all Members of the House, not those of lawyers, however distinguished, in another place or in the courts. Secondly, the very nature of legislation is that it is selective. My right hon. Friend has been in this place a long time and he must know that in the criminal law, for example, we legislate to deal with specific nuisances and evils. These days we rarely legislate generally because much of the generality of criminal law—thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal and so on—has already been dealt with.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That is common law.
  Mr. Patten: Of course, it is common law. That is an important element in England and Wales.
  I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington that in the Bill before the House we are not inventing any new offence. Murder was an offence in Germany and in German-occupied territory between 1939
  112
  and 1945. As many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, international law finds its fountainhead back in the fourth Hague convention of 1907. That made it absolutely clear that activities involving murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide were against international law. That was recognised in the manuals of both the British and German armies. There is no doubt that murder, manslaughter and culpable homicide were crimes then, as they are now. It is rather a matter for the judgment of the House and the other place: we must decide whether to extend our jurisdiction and provide the laws, which the courts may then interpret.
  In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, let me say that our judgment must be of equal standing to that of any lawyer outside the Chamber.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked about the present state of international law on any alleged incidents connected with the Gulf conflict. All the states involved in the Gulf conflict are parties to the Geneva convention of 1949. We took that convention into our own law in 1957. So we have a wide jurisdiction over war crimes committed anywhere in the world after 1957 under international law.
  Ms. Short: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: No. I am afraid that I do not have time.
  There is no need for new legislation to deal with those who might be accused of crimes in the Gulf conflict, but there is definitely a need for legislation in the cases which may be covered by the Bill.
  As a result of the procedural motion which the House passed on a free vote last week, if the Bill receives a Second Reading—I am confident that it will—it will go straight to a formal Third Reading at a subsequent date. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council explained on Wednesday why we were following that course. The House has given overwhelming support to both the principle of war crimes legislation and the Bill itself. I have no doubt that that support will be expressed again this evening. As my right hon. Friend explained last week, that was one of the decisive factors in the Government's mind in concluding that the Bill should be reintroduced.
  As we have said, the Government hope that accommodation will be achieved between this place and another place without the need for any special measures. Nevertheless, the Government concluded that the Parliament Act 1949 should remain in reserve as a means of resolving any irreconcilable differences. The Bill is a good Bill. The task may be regarded as a difficult one, but the Bill should be passed. I look forward to its reaching the statute book, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, at an early date.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 88.

  Division No. 98]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, David

  Ailason, Rupert

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Allen, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Alton, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Amess, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  113

  Battle, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beith, A. J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bell, Stuart

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bellotti, David

  Gorst, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gregory, Conal

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blunkett, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hague, William

  Boyes, Roland

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Haynes, Frank

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Brazier, Julian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bright, Graham

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Burns, Simon

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Butler, Chris

  Howells, Geraint

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Janman, Tim

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Janner, Greville

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Kilfedder, James

  Corbett, Robin

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Crowther, Stan

  Knapman, Roger

  Cryer, Bob

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Latham, Michael

  Curry, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Darling, Alistair

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

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

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dixon, Don

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Eastham, Ken

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maclean, David

  Evennett, David

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fatchett, Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fearn, Ronald

  Madden, Max

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mans, Keith

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

  Maples, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Derek

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Franks, Cecil

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Freeman, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fry, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Gale, Roger

  Needham, Richard

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  114

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Norris, Steve

  Squire, Robin

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stevens, Lewis

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Pendry, Tom

  Sumberg, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Summerson, Hugo

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Price, Sir David

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Redwood, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Tracey, Richard

  Reid, Dr John

  Tredinnick, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Richardson, Jo

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Wallace, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waller, Gary

  Rogers, Allan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Worthington, Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Tim Boswell and

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Knowles, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Couchman, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Dalyell, Tam

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dewar, Donald

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mudd, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Faulds, Andrew

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Robertson, George

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Grylls, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Harris, David

  Short, Clare

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hayward, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Speller, Tony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  115

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. John Browne and

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Mr. Tony Marlow.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow, pursuant to Order [12th March].

  War Crimes Bill [Money]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the War Crimes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) sums in respect of expenditure by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District on the investigation by officers of the Metropolitan Police (with or without other officers) of offences to which that Act applies; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  10.13 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I should like to know how much the Bill will cost. Over what sort of period will money be expended for the investigation and bringing to trial of anyone who is prosecuted under it? How many officers of the Metropolitan police will be taken off their normal duties to pursue inquiries made under the Bill? That is the true cost of what we have done this evening. Police officers, who are urgently needed to fight crime elsewhere in the country, will be bogged down in investigations that will prove fruitless and are likely to be thrown out by any decent British jury.
  10.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has asked me those questions. As the explanatory and financial memorandum clearly states, the expenditure incurred will depend on the number of trials.
  My hon. Friend asked how many Metropolitan policemen would be needed for the special investigative unit that will have to be set up. The unit, which will indeed be set up by the Metropolitan police commissioner, will require nine officers and supporting staff. At current prices, the unit will cost about £742,000 a year. In Scotland, the equivalent work will be undertaken by the Crown Office. According to the current estimate, the investigative work will cost about £2·1 million in a full year, and the Crown Office in Scotland will incur equivalent expenditure if any trials are pursued there.
  I cannot predict the number of trials that will be brought, but they will involve further expenditure on the costs of court rooms and legal aid, both of which, in England and Wales, are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department. In a full year, the costs might be upwards of £2·4 million. The provision of live evidence in England and Wales could cost between £1·5 million and £3 million in any one year.
  Last but not least—in view of the importance of ensuring fair trials—is the legal aid fund. We estimate a cost of about £500,000. A low estimate of a full year's costs in England and Wales would be a minimum of £7 million, and the possibility of a maximum of £10 million. After enactment of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make additional funds available to the Metropolitan police to pay for any officers who are needed.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: My right hon. Friend has spoken with some confidence. Will he tell us how many prosecutions have been brought in relation to offences that took place between 45 and 50 years ago in other countries, on which he can base his figures?
  Mr. Patten: We have consulted a number of authorities that have changed their legislation in the way that is being proposed. The United States authorities have done it rather differently, by seeking the use of extradition to the countries where people are accused. The costs have therefore been different there. We have, however, also taken advice from the prosecuting authorities in Australia and Canada, where a number of investigations have been made and a number of trials have been mounted. That international evidence, as well as the detailed material evidence that is available to the Lord Chancellor's Department, has led us to the figures that I have given.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to give us the rough cost per prosecution, given the number of prosecutions that he thinks will result?
  Mr. Patten: I cannot do that, because I have no idea how many prosecutions will be made in a full year. The cost will depend on the investigations, the decisions made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General under clause 1(3) and other important issues.
  Sir Giles Shaw: I understand the complexity of the issues. Surely, however, my right hon. Friend appreciates that many police forces—excluding the Metropolitan police force—are now engaged in trying to maintain establishments against heavy Government restrictions such as rate capping. Such expenditure as a consequence of the Bill can hardly be justified, in the light of the claims being made for genuine police expenditure in many other parts of the country.
  Mr. Patten: This is the west Yorkshire question, to which I always look forward. I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about the police force in his area, as do a number of my hon. Friends. The 43 police forces have to deal all the time with a particular range of burdens. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made available considerably increased funds. Moreover, in the coming year, 700 additional policemen and policewomen will be employed. However, no police force could reasonably have expected this special process to fall on its shoulders. That is why, with the Treasury's concurrence, special provision has been made for it.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: When we debated the War Crimes Bill in Committee last year, I believe that the Minister gave me the undertaking that he is giving to his hon. Friends—that if extraordinary expenditure is incurred by a police force outside the Metropolitan police, which is funded in a different way, the Government would consider reimbursement. My recollection may not be right and the Minister may therefore correct me. I did not check the point. Can he assure us that, if a police force incurs extraordinary expenditure, it will be reimbursed? This is of particular relevance to the Lothian and Borders police force in Scotland, which may be the primary police force with responsibility for investigations in Scotland. That expenditure will not be part of the Home Office budget.
  The Minister will remember that in Committee the only concession that was made was that an annual report would be prepared giving an account of what had happened in terms of investigations, prosecutions and cost. Can he assure the House that, notwithstanding the fact that the
  118
  House cannot amend the Bill, due to the peculiar circumstances in which it is being given its Second Reading tonight, the Government will consider favourably an amendment in another place that would allow a report to be made so that both Houses can monitor the costs involved? I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of them, as he prepares his Budget speech. Given those costs, does not the Minister think that Parliament ought to be told how much is being spent each year? Will he repeat the undertaking that he gave to me 12 months ago? I believe that such an undertaking would be welcomed in all parts of the House.
  Mr. Patten: Certainly I stand by the words that I uttered in Standing Committee. I have here the relevant Hansard reports of the debates. I remember that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) spoke powerfully in favour of an annual report, or a series of reports, not just about the cost of the War Crimes Bill, should it pass through both Houses, but about how the war crimes legislation, if it comes into play, is conducted. I undertook at that stage, and I undertake again tonight, to continue to consider the possibilities of instituting a reporting mechanism. The costs of administration in respect of Scottish courts and the costs of legal aid in respect of the Scottish Home and Health Department would have to be met. I note in particular what the hon. Gentleman said about the Lothian and Borders police force.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the War Crimes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) sums in respect of expenditure by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District on the investigation by officers of the Metropolitan Police (with or without other officers) of offences to which that Act applies; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.

  War Crimes Bill [Money]
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
      That the draft Vehicle Inspectorate Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
      AGRICULTURE
      That the draft Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
      FEES AND CHARGES
      That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
      ROAD TRAFFIC
      That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
      SOCIAL SECURITY
      That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      NUCLEAR FUSION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9025/90, relating to research into controlled nuclear fusion and amendments to the Statutes of the Joint European Torus joint undertaking; and endorses the Government's view that agreement to the new Community Fusion Programme and to extension of the Joint European Torus Programme to 1996 will maximise the scientific value of the latter project and the associated experiments of Member States and that the Community's programme for fusion research should be subject to a rigorous independent assessment of the prospects of fusion in the light of the evidence of progress, before any long-term decisions on a Next Step device are taken.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.

  Select Committees (Membership)
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendments to motions Nos. 10, 12 and 15 for debate. I remind the House that this is a narrow debate and should be confined to whether hon. Members should be removed from Committees and replaced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and, under motion No. 15, by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is technically competent to invite the House to divide on each of the motions that you have selected?
  Mr. Speaker: It is certainly competent, but the hon. Gentleman knows why I have selected the amendments.
  10.25 pm
  Sir Marcus Fox: I beg to move,
  That Mr. Gerald Bowden be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Patrick Thompson be added to the Committee.
  I shall speak briefly to the motion and to the other motions which it may be convenient to discuss at the same time:
  That Mr. Malcolm Moss be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. Cecil Franks be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Keith Mans and Mr. Robin Squire be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Hugo Summerson be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. Ivor Stanbrook be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. David Sumberg be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. Charles Wardle be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Sir Richard Luce be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. Jonathan Sayeed be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Michael Knowles be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. David Harris be added to the Committee.
  The motions affect seven Select Committees, and nine colleagues are prevented from carrying out work that is vital to Parliament, or so I am told.
  I can add little to the speech that I made on 21 January. I understand that one or two colleagues thought that it was provocative, which I find unbelievable. Given the number of interventions in that debate, brevity could be the solution.
  Having read the debate on 21 January, I can believe only that this is a re-run of that debate and the one before that. If hon. Members wish to place new facts before me, in my usual manner, I shall deal with them as expeditiously as possible. I therefore trust Opposition Members will be as brief as I have been.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall not detain the House too long.
  The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) mentioned new facts being put before him, but they should be put before the Leader of the House, in whose gift many of the changes lie. The right hon. Gentleman has yet to resolve the question of which the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is aware and which is the basis for tonight's debate.

  121
  I understand that the debate is narrow, but when such changes are proposed, it is worth questioning the reason for changing the membership of Select Committees. We should question the qualifications of the new members and what contributions they will make. It might be appropriate for the House to suggest subjects for consideration by Select Committees. It is possible to discuss such matters under the terms of the motions.
  We must also consider the lack of departmental Committees for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. If nothing is being done to remedy that, it is right to cross-examine and question the Chairman of the Committee of Selection about those important points. The Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts, on Home Affairs and on the Environment have no Scottish Members. It is true, however, that the Select Committees on Energy and Defence each have two Scots Members—that is Scots representing Scottish constituencies—while one Scots Member is a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. These are important facts to bear in mind when we are considering appointing new Members to Select Committees. It is unfortunate that not one of the Members proposed represents a Scottish constituency.
  Mr. John Gorst: I have followed carefully the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he aware that geographical considerations, and even the consideration of party membership, do not reflect only complaints that can be addressed to the way in which Members are selected for membership of Select Committees? There is a paucity of representation of certain political strands of opinion, even within parties, in the selection of those who serve on Select Committees. That will never be admitted but it is a fact.
  Mr. Kirkwood: These are extra complexities—they were never known to me—that will add to the difficulties of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. They constitute another reason why the Chairman should have a discussion with the Leader of the House. Surely the Committee of Selection should discuss some of the grievances that are held by Conservative Members in addition to some of those that I am suggesting that we should consider.
  Surely we are entitled also to consider the relative merits of alternative nominees. I suggest humbly that I might be considered as a member of some of the Committees, but by no means all of them. I readily defer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a well-known defence expert. I say that as one who watches "Newsnight" each night. He has Leuchars air base in his constituency and he is a man who knows a tactical air-to-surface missile when he sees one. I defer with great ease and facility to the greater knowledge and experience of defence matters of my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Perhaps the Committee of Selection will take into account the lamentable representation of the minority parties on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. A member of a minority party has failed to attend that Committee for almost three years continuously. I have been engaged in correspondence with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for at least two years, asking whether the minority parties will provide a representative for a Committee which everyone in the House agrees is an important scrutiny Committee to control Ministers.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I agree. Each place on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is an important one. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is not responsible in any party-political sense for the hon. Member to whom the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) refers. He should take up the matter directly with those who are concerned. We are talking about the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes).
  I was arguing my case to be considered for membership of six or seven Committees. As someone who was born and bred in Scotland, I have an admirable pair of qualifications, surely, for membership of six of the Committees in the context of the debate.
  One of the principal reasons for debating the motions is that the Select Committee on the Environment is precluded from considering some of the important issues that obtain north of the border. The one that immediately comes to mind is the disposal of nuclear waste. Some of the proposals that are being brought forward are causing much controversy, heartache and soul-searching north of the border. As things stand, the Committee is constrained within the remit of the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for matters south of the border. I know, of course, that the Committee has been doing some excellent work in the preparation of reports, including that on Nirex, that are important north of the border. It is engaged in an inquiry on the landfill of waste and one on the pollution of beaches. It is also conducting an inquiry into eco-labelling. It has recently prepared an important report on the main estimates for the Property Services Agency. All those matters are important, but they relate exclusively to issues that are south of the border and they have no bearing on what is happening in Scotland.
  It is important that in this debate we convince the Chairman of the Committee of Selection that if we cannot have departmental Select Committees to deal with issues affecting Northern Ireland and Scotland, he must take urgent steps to place hon. Members representing Scottish and Northern Ireland seats on the other Select Committees and he must also prevail on the Committee Chairmen to go north of the border, consider subjects that are important north of the border and report on those issues. In that way what is happening in Northern Ireland and Scotland can be considered.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring with such approval to some of the reports that my Committee, the Select Committee on the Environment, has published. However, he missed our report on Northern Ireland. We conducted an inquiry there which was well received in Northern Ireland. My Committee's remit is the remit of the Department of the Environment as constituted here. We could therefore go to Northern Ireland. However, even placing a Scots Member on my Committee would not enable it to carry out an inquiry in Scotland; that is another matter altogether. -I should like to have a Scots Member on my Committee and if one were to give his name to the Chairman of the Selection Committee, that would encourage me.
  However, with regard to the minority parties, I had a Liberal Member on my Committee until 1986 when he became the Liberal party Chief Whip. We kept that place empty for the rest of that Parliament, but no one came forward to fill it. We were disappointed that the minority

  123
  parties were not anxious to fill that place. Since then, the Committee has been composed entirely of Conservative and Labour Members, because we decided that it was impossible to ask anyone else to come forward.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I pay tribute to and acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's distinguished service as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. However, he does not understand the difficulties that we face. The hon. Member to whom he referred who relinquished his place on the Environment Committee was obliged to do that because we were offered, and then chose to take up, one of the number of places to which we are constrained on another Select Committee. He had to come off so that we could get someone else on to another Committee. We do not have the luxury of simply coming off a Committee. We have to deploy our resources as best we can and that applies to other minority parties.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that he would dearly love to have a Scots Member on his Committee. Here I am. I humbly offer myself and my experience. I modestly offer to be a diligent attender. There may be a division on one, if not three, of the motions and I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets his way. He may even vote for me.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: With respect to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and without impugning his versatility or modesty, if he wants to spread his resources among the Committees, why has an amendment been tabled to place him on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee which already has a Liberal Member?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Berwick-upon-Tweed used to be part of Scotland and we still have territorial ambitions in that direction. Perhaps the answer to the problem is that we should annex Berwick-upon-Tweed as that would give us a Scottish Member on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. However, that is a slightly roundabout way of achieving our end. There are more direct ways of getting Scottish Members on to Select Committees.
  Scottish Members on Select Committees is very much the second best. I am not arguing for additional Scottish Members so that a Scottish flavour and tone can be brought to the deliberations; I am putting forward these points because they are my only means of trying to force the Leader of the House to implement the Standing Orders. Technically, he is in breach of the Standing Orders as he has not put forward names for Select Committees to deal with Scottish affairs and with Northern Ireland affairs.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman says that he has no option. I thought that all was now sweetness and light between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. In the past few days the leader of the Liberal Democrats has been saying that, as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is no longer the leader of the Conservatives, things between their two parties are different.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Let the hon. Gentleman come to our next conference.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that all that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said the other day does not mean anything? Is his party still falling out with the Tories? We want to know.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am tempted to stray out of order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants to come to our next conference I shall pay for his day ticket. If he listens to what is actually said, he will not have to make it up on the hoof. Of course, he is merely trying to score points.
  Mr. Gorst: How will the hon. Gentleman cope if the votes go in his favour and he is elected to all the Committees? I put the question not as a disaffected, non-selected Member, but out of interest.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I shall cross that bridge when I come to it. I am very willing to learn. I am young, fit and eager for experience. It will be time enough to start worrying when I am elected to all the Committees.
  Scots Members have a record of assistance to Select Committees. Two of the most formative experiences of my life are relevant to this debate. I attended a comprehensive school—Cranhill senior secondary—in the east end of Glasgow. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who was there at the same time, has just told me that the school is about to be closed. I could indeed bring some interesting educational experience to bear on the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee. Having graduated from Heriot-Watt university—I took a BSc in pharmacy—I became a Member of this House. A few weeks later the right hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but then a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Education and Science—announced that the school of pharmacy at Heriot-Watt was to be closed, on the ground that the quality of the graduates was not high enough. Thus, my combined school and university experience has certainly provided me with something to say in the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee. In addition, I have played in pop groups, so I could contribute to debates on the arts. We used to get 27s 6d for playing at scout hall gigs on Friday nights. A panoply of experience could be brought to the deliberations of these Committees, of which the Education, Science and Arts Committee is but one.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has insight and experience in a wide range of the subjects with which the Select Committees deal. Does he agree that, important as the work of these Committees is, the really important scrutiny must be done by a Scottish Select Committee and Northern Ireland Select Committee, as Scottish affairs and Northern Ireland affairs are two areas of government in respect of which this House is not scrutinising Government action properly?
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman states the case very succinctly.
  I do not need to say very much more. I do not take any pleasure in saying to the Leader of the House—it is not meant as a warning—that the motions that are tabled every time the membership of a Select Committee changes will be used by us for the purpose of making the point that matters pertaining to education and science in Scotland

  125
  and in Northern Ireland are not being considered as thoroughly as are such matters as they affect other parts of the United Kingdom.
  In particular, the Energy Select Committee has direct relevance to what is going on in the North sea. The Environment Committee and the Home Department Committee examine matters south of the border. I refer also to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Defence Select Committee and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee which are crucial in respect of public policy. At the moment they have the luxury of scrutinising the work of Departments south of the border. That opportunity does not exist in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
  Every time the Government try to change the membership of Committees, the same device and procedure will be used so that hon. Members who seek to serve on Committees, let alone come off Committees, will have to sit and listen to half an hour or longer of debate. Perhaps Divisions will take the odd 15 minutes here or there. That will happen time after time until the Government get it into their heads that the situation will not change to any great degree after the next general election. The Government of the day, of whichever party, will have to face the difficulty in future.
  There are alternatives. The Joint Select Committees are looking for English hon. Members who are Scots born and have bona fide interests in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The Government are not examining those matters properly and urgently, and the House of Commons will have to consider changes time after time until they do so.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to say, but never once did he indicate to me or for the purposes of the Official Report that he was moving an amendment, and I cannot propose the amendment until he moves it. Will he now do so?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out `Mr. Patrick Thompson' and insert `Mr. Archy Kirkwood'.
  10.46 pm
  Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was so overcome with modesty that he omitted one important point, which is that the Select Committee on Procedure considered this matter in October last year. In its report, it made it quite clear that the initiative for putting the matter right lay with the Leader of the House. I understand that there is a convention that the Government should respond to Select Committee reports within three months. The Leader of the House and the Government have not responded to that Select Committee report. The right hon. Gentleman is doubly in dereliction of his duty and should tell us what he will do in response to that Select Committee report on this important matter.
  Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he was formally moving the amendment to motion No. 12, which Mr. Speaker selected for debate. You read out, Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) cannot do that until later. He moved the amendment to motion No. 10 on education, science and arts. I have that very clear.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he was concerned about hon. Members from Scotland being on Committees. Of course, several hon. Members from Scotland represent the Labour party on Committees. Truth to tell, if we examine the amendments, we shall find that they represent not so much Scotland as the Liberal party. Although I can understand the desire of the minority parties to have representation on Select Committees, as I said earlier, with the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, representation by minority parties has not been too successful. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) disclaimed any responsibility for the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), from a minority party, who has not attended the Committee for several years. When that hon. Member's name was put forward, it was at the request of the minority parties that an hon. Member should be placed on the Joint Select Committee of Statutory Instruments. Naturally, the Committee that I chair turned to the minority parties and the Whip of the largest minority party to ask for a replacement so that the membership of the Committee should not be burdened by an absentee.
  It is true that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is not a glamorous part of parliamentary work. It does not have television coverage. That is not because of any lack of desire for it on the part of the Committee members; it is simply that no televison channel wants to go to the Committee to record its proceedings. Therefore, it remains a relatively obscure and hidden part of the work of Parliament.
  I should have thought that, under the terms of the Standing Order that established the Joint Select Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, the description entirely accorded with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—it is an absolutely crucial sector of public policy. The Joint Select Committee was created in order to scrutinise Ministers who had been granted powers under primary legislation to ensure that they do not abuse their powers, the huge volume of delegated legislation—more than 2,000 statutory instruments and regulations every year—are intra vires, within the Minister's power, their drafting is clear, they do not contain ambiguities, make unusual use of powers or contain any retrospective provison when the primary legislation does not do so. All of those issues are important to Parliament and provide some safeguard and scrutiny for the people of our country. Ministerial powers should be curtailed where there is any possibility of abuse.
  The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, unglamorous and obscure though it is, was established because, in the past, Ministers have exceeded and abused their powers. I can well recall that the Joint Committee made a report about the powers of officers to collect information for the Scottish poll tax that clearly exceeded the powers of the primary legislation and was the subject

  127
  of a heated debate in the Chamber, when the Opposition spokesmen made a powerful case to show that the Government were riding roughshod over citizens' rights and exceeding the powers of primary legislation.
  It seems curious that the Liberal Whip should repudiate someone who was put on a Committee with the Liberals' agreement, when they were friends and waved to each other, albeit from separate buses. Now, they have stopped waving to each other and go, not just in separate buses, but on separate trains and keep well away from each other except to exchange an occasional scowl. It seems that the Liberal Whip cannot evade responsibility for that original action. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows, I have made several approaches to him, the latest of which was that if any of the minority parties cannot provide a Member for the Select Committee, the Labour party would be pleased to do so because it is keen to exercise scrutiny on behalf of the citizens of this country.
  Mr. Wallace: The Chairman of the Committee of Selection is present and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong. The Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is set up not by the Selection Committee, but by the House, and has been doing a good job without the help of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) have been nominated to all the Committees, not so that an additional minority party is represented, but because we needed the consent of the Members involved to table the motions? Nothing would have pleased me more than to submit the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I was unable to do so. The point we are trying to make is that the absence of Scots Tories holds up the Scottish Select Committee—we are using this device to raise that issue.
  Mr. Cryer: It is a particularly poor device in view of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman's party has created for one Select Committee—[Interruption.] As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be prepared to acknowledge, if I may continue without the continuous heckling that is going on behind me—something that is entirely within the traditions of the House—the Chamber establishes all Select Committees, including the Committee of Selection, and all Select Committees are responsible to the Chamber. The parallel that I draw tonight is absolutely apt and accurate. In the midst of some vicious heckling from the Liberal Democrats—their smooth face has fallen tonight so that we can see the viciousness and the political chicanery that go on beneath that facade—I want to make the point that if the Liberal Democrats wish to make a case for an extension to Select Committees, they should have a good record themselves. That is palpably not the case. It is fair for the House to take such a record into account.
  10.54 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not realise that he was unwittingly ambushing a united attempt by Scottish Members to get something done about the lack of a Select Committee on Scottish
  128
  Affairs. That was the whole purpose of tabling the amendments. Scottish Labour Members support that attempt.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: It would have helped if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had made some reference to that point in his speech.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did so, as Hansard will show. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was getting some heckling from behind, he should have been puzzled by the satisfied smiles of Conservative Members. He has given them some arguments to bolster their own case, although not successfully. The reason why we are taking up the time of the House is to highlight the enormous injustice to Scotland of not having a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, although other Committees cover all the other Departments and work of the House—except Northern Ireland and Scotland.
  There is a perfect attendance tonight by all the women Scottish Members. There is nothing unusual about that, yet only one woman, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), is a member of a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) talked about the criteria for selection for Committees. He mentioned geography, party composition and the possibility of someone standing within the parties. He did not mention whether any effort was made to provide a fair balance of women Members. That is another issue which I am willing to take up, for its own sake and as another means of drawing the House's attention to the lack of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I hope that there will be a fair balance of women Members on such a Committee when we manage to achieve it.
  Mr. Gorst: The hon. Lady has slightly misunderstood my intervention. I tried to get across the point that the Liberal Democrats addressed themselves to the criteria that the hon. Lady has enumerated, but that one heard little about liberalism, non-conformity and an approach to the facts rather than party-political criteria. Those are often lacking in the approach of the Committee of Selection—or at least some members of it. That is my complaint. I should have been more inclined to support the Liberal Democrats if they had made it their complaint.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when the Government concede this matter of justice and finally let us have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, if my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his colleagues have anything to do with it, the Committee will be full of reason, justice, truth and light, and will have every possible quality that one could imagine. [HON. MEMBERS: "And women."] Yes, it has a fair proportion of women and that will help to ensure that it has all those qualities.
  Until the Government provide a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady and other hon. Members that we are not discussing the non-existence of a Select Committee. We are discussing the motion and the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Lady will oblige me, keep within the procedures of the House and discuss what is on the Order Paper.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I believe that this is relevant to the motion—[Laughter.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should like to hear the hon. Lady, not the laughter of hon. Members below the Gangway.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  In conclusion, I thought that my remarks were entirely relevant to the issue because the amendments would not have been tabled without that concern, on which Scottish Members are united. These matters will continue to be pressed until we succeed.
  11 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I start with a rather obvious point that I would not normally make, although it is often factually correct. I refer to the total absence from this debate of any hon. Member from the Scottish Conservative party.
  There is no doubt that one of the underlying causes of the motion is the refusal of hon. Members who represent Scottish seats in the Tory interest to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Their absence is a mark of considerable disrespect, because although I know that some of them were in the House this evening, none has come into the Chamber now either to listen to the debate or to put a point of view. It is also disappointing that no representative from the Scottish Office is on the Front Bench—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) wishes to make a point, she may do so by intervening.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Since Scotland is not mentioned on the Order Paper, I can see nothing odd about that.
  Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Lady will listen to the argument being unfolded—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am.
  Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to hear that—[Interruption.] I am delighted—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Scotland is not mentioned on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Dewar: I have not, Madam Deputy Speaker, felt so affrighted since I was in primary school.
  Serious matters are at stake. This debate is part of a continuing argument of real significance to those involved in the Select Committee system and to the Committee of Selection. The absences that I have referred to are unfortunate. I am also disappointed because I understand that the Leader of the House does not intend to enter the debate. Although there is a constitutional theory that the Leader of the House has nothing to do with these matters, none of us is naive enough to believe that or so to undervalue the right hon. Gentleman's activities among his colleagues.
  Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is understating his case. It is not a question of a constitutional convention. I repeat that the Select Committee on Procedure has particularly charged that the Leader of the House must try to resolve this matter, but he has not.
  Mr. Dewar: It is extremely uncharacteristic of me to understate my case. I am astonished at my own modesty, and am delighted to be corrected. It is a fair point. As I remember, there was some trenchant criticism from the Select Committee on Procedure about the failure to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It is remarkable that we are only now beginning to tempt—as I see from the body language opposite me—the Leader of the House to break his Trappist vows. I gladly give way to him.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I do not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurray."] I must advise the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that I do not remember any Trappist vows. The reason for my not seeking to speak in the debate is simple. I am obeying your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, because some of the points that have been raised are entirely irrelevant to the debate and to my position. It is a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). At the appropriate time I shall, of course, respond to the Select Committee on Procedure, but that is not an issue this evening.
  Mr. Dewar: Well, perhaps I shall be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that that is a mistaken impression.
  I must welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) who, in a cloud of dust and good intention, has arrived on the Treasury Bench. I doubt whether his presence will do us any good, but I am glad to see him there.
  I make it clear that, among Labour Members at least, there is no animus towards the hon. Members whose progress out of and into Select Committees we are attempting to block tonight. No one is throwing aspersions on their character or competence. I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will not misunderstand if I also stress that we do not necessarily imply that he has superior or particularly valuable qualifications for the work of the Environment or any other Select Committee, but he has one qualification which seems extremely relevant: he represents a Scottish constituency. It is perhaps an accident of geography or a peculiarity of the Scottish system that he has been elected in Roxburgh and Berwickshire, but he has been elected.
  The point of the motion is that there are real reasons why we should artificially reinforce the Scottish membership of the Select Committees. That is not an argument that I would normally sustain. In a way it is an odd argument. I understand entirely why the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who has risen on several occasions, is antipathetic to that argument, but it is an important argument and it is justified by the strange fact, in the Select Committee system, that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has not made its appearance, for reasons that we understand.
  It would not be possible to move the motion, in defiance of the advice of the Committee of Selection, if the Scottish Affairs Select Committee had not failed to appear and if it was scrutinising the work of the Scottish Office. That is the kernel of the case for removing the hon. Members who have been proposed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir

  131
  M. Fox) and his colleagues and substituting that ever willing workhorse, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
  There is a certain air of good nature about these proceedings, but no one should underestimate the strength of feeling on the issue, the sense of grievance about the parliamentary machinery and the lack of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the remarkable gap that exists. I recognise that there is a tendency among Conservative Members to shrug off the absence of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee and, therefore, to devalue the positive case for the substitution that we seek to make, but that is a mistake.
  I would be open to the argument that we should not press the motion if I were convinced that there were ways in which we could set up a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which would remove the need for the artificial reinforcement represented by the motion. I do not wish to labour the point, but I am satisfied that for many years we have done everything that we can within the rules of the House to persuade the Government, the Committee of Selection and Conservative Members to moderate their view and set up the Select Committee. It is because we have failed to make progress that there is a strong case for the substitution that we seek to make.
  We have offered to reduce the number of members of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which was originally the largest Select Committee.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing a Select Committee which does not exist, a matter to which I have already drawn attention. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would direct his comments to the amendment and the main motion.
  Mr. Dewar: I do not intend to deal with the Select Committe on Statutory Instruments, &c., for example, or any of the other Committees that I could discuss, which are not mentioned in the motion. I am entirely in your hands, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]—or arms, if Madam Deputy Speaker wants, but there would be no case for the motion if there were a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. There would be no strong case for the motion if there was a genuine opportunity to establish such a Committee or to persuade the powers that be that there should be a Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
  I merely wish to explain—it might be a matter of contention—why I at least am satisfied that there is no way to proceed other than by the tactics represented by the amendment. I was simply making the point—I shall not dwell on it, Madam Deputy Speaker—that we have made every concession that we reasonably can on the numbers on the Committee, and by accepting representatives from non-Scottish seats and one-off ad hoc Committees to consider a specific and important matter of interest in Scotland. We have in vain made several such concessions.
  I wish to clear up a slight dispute to which reference was made in recent weeks. I am aware of only one occasion when the Labour party baulked at a suggestion which, it was said, might clear the way for a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. The authorities suggested to me that if I were prepared to waive the Standing Order that demanded that there should be 16 Scots on Scottish Standing Committees considering Scottish Bills, thus relieving the burden on
  132
  Conservative Back Benchers, something might be possible. That was interesting, because it implied that, if the right bribe were taken, it would be possible to form a Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
  I did not believe that it was right to go down that road. Short of that, we have offered every conceivable concession that we could responsibly offer. We have got nowhere. That is why we are considering motion No. 12 and why Labour Members believe that that approach should be pursued tonight and in future when the opportunity arises.
  There is another reason why the motion has considerable substance. I pray in aid not only the present Leader of the House but his predecessor, now Secretary of State for Energy. We have been told more than once that we do not need to worry too much or to mourn the absence of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee because Scottish Members serve on other Select Committees which can do valuable and useful work considering Scottish issues.
  The implication is that we should use other Select Committees to form a surrogate scrutiny machine and ensure that there is Scottish representation on them. Taking the advice of the Leader of the House, it is not unreasonable, therefore, to believe that what perhaps in normal circumstances would be seen as a preponderance of Scottish Members on other Select Committees is justified in these special circumstances. That is the purpose of the motions.
  The Leader of the House mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. I heard tonight from one or two of its members that the Committee was thinking of considering a particular Scottish subject. Of course I welcome that, but it is a limited approach. The Chairman of the Environment Select Committee—the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—said that there are often difficulties in defining the remit. That makes Scottish subjects difficult or even impossible to tackle.
  As I am sure that you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, within the past day or two, we have had a Department of Trade and Industry report dealing with the Scottish steel industry, particularly the vexed issue of Ravenscraig. Strangely, we proposed that specific, one-off subject for a special Scottish Affairs Select Committee, but it was turned down by the Government authorities. The report was useful. It established beyond peradventure that, according to the evidence, the Department of Trade and Industry had been totally inactive in promoting the cause of the Scottish steel industry. We were given extremely interesting information about the way in which the Scottish Office laid down—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straying far from what I see on my copy of the Order Paper.
  Mr. Dewar: I am certainly prepared to heed your words, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: With great respect, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the report. Its recommendations are very different from what he says.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not concerned with that report. I have just made that point.
  Mr. Dewar: I apologise if I have entered a note of controversy into the proceedings, for that was not my

  133
  intention. The last thing that I want is to quarrel with the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, who produced an excellent and extremely helpful report—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not eulogise about a Select Committee report to which the Order Paper makes no reference.
  Mr. Dewar: I thought that there was always room. in the House for the occasional gracious pleasantry, but I see no percentage in flattering the hon. Gentleman. I leave that matter because I am confident that there will be a debate soon in Government time on the Floor of the House, as the Committee recommends. I know that the Chairman of the Select Committee and I will make common cause on at least that point.
  Perhaps I was misled, Madam Deputy Speaker, because although there have been one or two useful Scottish reports from other Select Committees, they cannot play the role of a surrogate Scottish Committee that examines the Scottish Office as required. If there is to be any hope of getting useful service out of those Committees, it is not unreasonable to seek proper representation of Scottish Members on them. I refer to representation not only of the Liberal Democrats—as I am sure they would be the first to agree—but of all the other parties as well.
  I therefore take the view that we should support the general drive, thrust and intention of the motion. Perhaps I should leave it there—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I recognise that there is a certain restlessness on the Conservative Benches as such arguments are deployed. I stress that that is so of the Conservative Benches, because I know that there is no restlessness elsewhere.
  I hope that this will not be taken as a threat, but late night sittings such as this are likely to become a feature of the remainder of this parliamentary Session. There exists a good deal of justified anger, and in those circumstances it is unreasonable for the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) to expect such measures to pass through the House without scrutiny or challenge. Although he made a charmingly brief speech, the hon. Gentleman was a little flippant, and I hope that he will think again.
  The Leader of the House made it clear that he does not believe that he can shift, but I hope that he will indicate whether—to follow the logic of his own argument about the role of other Select Committees in the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—he has some sympathy with the arguments advanced by hon. Members on this side of the House.
  Selection is always a difficult business. I was interested to hear interventions about the dangers of making selections on a geographical or party basis. That is a naive objection. At one point, we suggested that we could easily establish a Select Committee on the basis that it has no Conservative majority. The Conservatives seemed to think the matters in question were very important—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going wide of the motion on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Dewar: That was an aside, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There have been enough asides tonight. I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will refer to the motion before the House.
  Mr. Dewar: I was just finishing, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try hard not to get my second wind on the basis of interventions or advice.
  I accept the difficulties, but there is a genuine point of geographical substance that is not pork barrelling or a narrow point of the kind that the hon. Member for Shipley fears. We are making a genuine attempt to build into the system a safeguard and a scrutiny mechanism for Scotland—of which it has been deprived through a series of shabby and unfortunate circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the House will view with sympathy the suggested changes that the motion incorporates.
  Amendment negatived,
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Gerald Bowden be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Patrick Thompson be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Select Committees (Membership)

    ENERGY
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Malcom Moss be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. Cecil Franks be added to the Committee.—[ Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    ENVIRONMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Keith Mans and Mr. Robin Squire be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Hugo Summerson be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Amendment proposed to the Question, to leave out `Mr. Ralph Howell' and insert 'Mr. Archy Kirkwood'.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 123.

    Division No. 99]

    [11.20 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Alton, David

    McKelvey, William

    Barron, Kevin

    Maclennan, Robert

    Beith, A. J.

    McMaster, Gordon

    Bellotti, David

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Maxton, John

    Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

    Meale. Alan

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Carr, Michael

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Clelland, David

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Cryer, Bob

    Pike, Peter L.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Prescott, John

    Darling, Alistair

    Reid, Dr John

    Dewar, Donald

    Rowlands, Ted

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Fearn, Ronald

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

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Foulkes, George

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Fyfe, Maria

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Worthington, Tony

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Janner, Greville

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bright, Graham

    Atkins, Robert

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

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Baldry, Tony

    Burns, Simon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Carrington, Matthew

    135

    Chapman, Sydney

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Chope, Christopher

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Knapman, Roger

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Knowles, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon John.

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Curry, David

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Dixon, Don

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fallon, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forman, Nigel

    Mans, Keith

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Foster, Derek

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Franks, Cecil

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Freeman, Roger

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gregory, Conal

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hague, William

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Norris, Steve

    Harris, David

    Paice, James

    Haynes, Frank

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Raffan, Keith

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Redwood, John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Riddick, Graham

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Jackson, Robert

    Spicer, Sir James (Dorset W)

    Janman, Tim

    Squire, Robin

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Stevens, Lewis

    Key, Robert

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Kilfedder, James

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    136

    Sumberg, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wood, Timothy

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Yeo, Tim

    Thurnham, Peter

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Viggers, Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Waller, Gary

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhlll)

    Mr. Timothy Boswell.

    Warren, Kenneth

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put and agreed to.

    HOME AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Ivor Stanbrook be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. David Sumberg be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Charles Wardle be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Sir Richard Luce be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    DEFENCE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Jonathan Sayeed be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Michael Knowles be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. David Harris be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Homelessness (Leicester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the very serious and growing issue of homelessness in the city of Leicester. I refer not only to families and single people who have nowhere to live but to the effect that the homelessness of these people has on others who desperately need housing but who cannot get it because such diminishing housing as there is goes as a priority to the homeless.
  This is a growing problem. It is getting worse all the time, and it has grown seriously in the past few months. It is estimated that there are between 200 and 400 homeless people in Leicester, the majority of whom are single homeless, but there are homeless families. The number of young homeless people has grown from a small percentage to between 30 and 40 per cent. They are entitled to homes and the local authority is under an obligation to house them.
  At Christmas, I visited Knighton house, where marvellous volunteers were looking after people who otherwise would have been sleeping rough, probably in the parks, over Christmas. Yesterday, I again visited Knighton house and Border house in my constituency and a hostel for the homeless in Loughborough road. I pay tribute to the professionals from the homeless unit of the city council, people from Night Shelter and individuals such as my friend Lawrie Simpkin who devote their time as volunteers to serving homeless people.
  They are doing their best, but in all the homes and hostels for the homeless that I have visited I have found a deep sense of frustration. When I asked them, 'What would you like me to talk about in Parliament, where your voice can be heard only through me?", I received the same answer each time: "We need resources, money, places for people to play, sleep and work and help, but we are not getting it."
  The effect of that on families and on people who demand homes but cannot get them is devastating. It escalates like a waterfall of suffering; it is a spiral of homelessness. At the top of the housing pile is the city council whose job it is to provide houses. Unfortunately, since they took office, the Government have effectively prevented council house building, so there is no new stock. At the same time, they have instituted the right to buy, so that the number of available houses has shrunk. They have prevented councils that have sold their houses from using the money they obtained to maintain and improve houses or to build new houses. Only 20 per cent. of that money may be used for such purposes.
  There are fewer houses because none are being built and because people have the right to buy them, and homelessness is growing because of people's desperate need to rent houses as they cannot afford to buy. Such people were on the housing list before, but they are being joined by people whose homes have been repossessed because they cannot pay their mortgages as they are out of work. Some of those people were former council tenants who were encouraged to buy their homes but now cannot afford to pay for them.
  What is the council doing? It is providing bed- and-breakfast accommodation. It costs £33 a week to cover the
  138
  rent, water rates and poll tax on a council house, but it costs £40 a night to put someone in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is not only wasteful of human resources and causes misery to the people involved but is financially mad.
  When the council has placed people into temporary accommodation, it is its duty to provide them with homes. That means that, whenever homes become available, they are given to homeless people, while those on the housing list have to wait. As a result, the housing list is becoming longer. On 13 March, there were 10,656 applicants. That means that 30,000 to 35,000 people are waiting for a home, and some of them will be living in desperately overcrowded conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will know, as I do, that our mail bags and surgeries are full of complaints from those who are desperate for housing, which they badly need but cannot obtain.
  There are 10,656 applicants on the waiting list and there are 3,256 on the transfer list. If, two years ago, people wanted accommodation on the New Parks estate, for example, in my constituency, they would wait for nine to 12 months. The waiting list now could be three to four years. Young people who marry cannot afford homes. How are they meant to live? People are living with their in-laws or their parents. These people are living in desperately overcrowded conditions. There may be two rooms, but they have three or four children. I am speaking of husbands and wives living together, single-parent families and elderly people. The suffering stretches across the community.
  Homelessness is a problem for not only the homeless. It is a problem for those who have homes but need better or different ones. There is also a problem for those who are trying to help and to serve. As I have said, there is a problem for the entire community. If we as a "decent" society cannot provide homes for people who are without money—people who cannot get jobs, people who are disadvantaged—we are a rotten society. The trouble is that our society is becoming more rotten every day as disadvantage spreads and poor people become poorer. More people are dispossessed, with the result that there are more and more repossessions. Those who are looking after the homeless in Leicester told me yesterday that in the past eight months the problem has burgeoned. I do not understand why the Minister finds that funny, but he seems to do so. It is one of the tragedies of our time that there is such homelessness. It is the inevitable result of a rotten housing policy that is produced by a Government who do not understand the needs of ordinary people. Above all, they do not understand the needs of those who desperately require homes.
  I challenge the Minister—I am sure that he would help personally if he could do so—to visit Knighton house, Border house and shelters for the homeless generally in Leicester and to listen to those who are trying to serve. I challenge him to spare time on his rounds, wherever he goes, for a visit to Leicester. If he does so, he will understand why I am so pleased to have had a brief opportunity this evening to put before the House the needs of my constituents and others. I am speaking of the needs of the homeless in Leicester, and those needs are becoming more acute daily. We need resources, understanding and care from the Government and from those who are responsible for housing within the machinery of government. I call for action now.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising an issue of interest in Leicester, but one which is of national importance. I agree with him that the despair which he sees at his surgery, and which I see at mine, must be seen by Ministers and many other Tory Members. I pay tribute to the professionals and non-professionals who do so much in Leicester to try to ameliorate some of the worst effects of homelessness.
  I reinforce the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. The Government cannot escape their responsibility for the causes of homelessness or their refusal to act to remove them. It is clear that Leicester's responsibility to house the homeless must inevitably mean that other people will be on the waiting lists for longer. That problem has been exacerbated during the past 10 years by the Government's refusal to allow local authorities to build more homes. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Planning will be aware from his visits around London, before he rejoined the Government that local authorities statutory obligation to house the homeless inevitably causes resentment among people on waiting lists as they see their chances of obtaining a new home in a reasonable time recede.
  I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend agrees that, as an immediate step towards removing some of the problems arising from homelessness, the Government should restore to local authorities the freedom to build more houses. Local authorities would then be better able to fulfil their legal obligation to house the homeless. Such a step would also offer some hope in the short to medium term to people who want a home in the public sector, but are denied one as a direct consequence of Government policy towards the building of new council houses.
  11.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising on the Adjournment this important subject. It may be helpful if I describe the background of the Government's housing policy before I consider the specific points relating to Leicester.
  The Government are committed to making good housing available to everyone. During our term of office, home ownership has risen from 57 per cent. to 68 per cent. of the population. Over the same period, 2 million new houses have been built and the number of dwellings per thousand of the population has increased by 8 per cent. At the same time, quality has improved. The number of unfit dwellings fell between 1981 and 1986—the date of the last survey—from 1·14 million to 1·05 million. During the same period the number of dwellings lacking basic amenities almost halved.
  Funding is also being more carefully targeted. The rising programme of housing association new build, expanded considerably by the use of mixed funding arrangements, is aimed at the areas of greatest need. For the longer term, our policies will also revive the private rented sector, despite the efforts, I am sorry to say, of the Opposition over many years to undermine that important element in any workable housing market.
  Our enlarged estate action programme, raised from £190 million to £270 million in the coming year, ensures
  140
  that priority goes to improving the worst estates. It also ensures that those improvements give the best possible value for money. The new private sector improvement grant system is designed to ensure that resources are directed to the poorest people living in the worst conditions, while active home improvement agency services make sure that it reaches them.
  It is against that improving background that the problem of homelessness should be seen—a problem which affects countries abroad as well as Britain. The problem arises from many different causes, including the generation gap, the breakdown of relationships in families, and the demand of young people for greater freedom and independence. Housebuilding is only part of the answer. Personal economic independence is just as important, and here the whole range of Government policies are relevant.
  On the housing front, we have to begin with the worst aspects of the problem. Those sleeping rough, with no kind of shelter, are obviously a top priority. In London, we have a special £96 million programme now under way—the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of it—to provide additional hostel places and longer-term move-on accommodation. Six hundred hostel places and 900 places in move-on schemes will come on stream over the next few months, with substantially more expected over the next two years. I mention this because we are aware that a number of the people who are sleeping rough in London do not originate in the capital. We have targeted our present efforts on London, where the problem of rough sleeping is most acute, but we will be considering how the initiative can be extended to other parts of the country in the future, with the help of voluntary organisations.
  We are similarly concerned for those who present themselves to local authorities as being statutorily homeless. The most acute problems are in London and in the south-east. Here, we are spending £300 million over this year and next year to increase the amount of rented housing that is available. Our aim is to reduce the need for local authorities to make bed-and-breakfast accommodation available to homeless families by increasing the number of lettings available to the homeless. Priority is being given to getting empty local authority and housing association property back into use and to the release of tenanted property by using cash incentives to encourage better-off tenants to move into owner-occupation. Our aim is to provide 15,000 units over the two years.
  We are tackling the wider national problem on a range of fronts. Housing management is vital—a point to which I shall return in a moment—and we are introducing a number of performance indicators to encourage the best practice. High rent arrears represent funding opportunities forgone, and high void rates condemn people to homelessness quite unnecessarily.
  How local authorities administer the legislation on homelessness is also important. We are revising the code of guidance to provide clearer advice and fairer treatment for those who apply as being homeless. The consultation draft was warmly welcomed by both the local authority associations and voluntary groups working with the homeless. We hope to publish the revised code around the beginning of May. We also take careful account of homelessness in allocating spending resources under the housing investment programme, and both the general needs index and housing needs index used to allocate resources have been revised this year.

  141
  We recognise that short-term leasing can sometimes have a part to play. We have therefore made arrangements to permit local authorities that apply to us to operate short-term leasehold accommodation outside the housing revenue account and thereby avail themselves of a more favourable financial regime.
  I turn now to the specific problem of Leicester. Leicester's homelessness problem has, I know, increased recently. But, although it is serious, it is manageable. Neither in terms of total homelessness accepted nor in terms of lettings to the homeless as a percentage of all lettings does Leicester stand out as a particularly difficult city. Indeed, the proportion of homeless people in temporary accommodation has been exceptionally low until very recently. It is not true to say that the Government have failed to help Leicester with its homeless. The city's housing investment programme allocation of £18·3 million was the highest per capita in the east midlands. On the national scale, although the city is only 23rd in terms of population and 27th in terms of need, Leicester's estimated spend for the current year is the 14th highest of those of all the largest housing authorities. In 1989–90 it was ninth highest.
  We recognise the vital role of voluntary organisations in the prevention and relief of homelessness. That is why we have again more than doubled—to £4·5 million—the amounts available to those organisations in 1991–92 in grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985. Of this money, £1·6 million goes to the new national co-ordinated homelessness advice service, based on citizens' advice bureaux and involving Shelter and SHAC, to make timely and expert advice more widely available than ever before. The remainder of the money will go to a total of 78 voluntary bodies for specific projects of direct practical help to the single homeless.
  Leicester night shelter, for example, received £15,102 in 1990–91 towards the cost of establishing a junior night shelter providing overnight accommodation, meals, advice, therapy and other necessary facilities for homeless people between 16 and 19 in Leicester for whom the existing shelter is not suitable. Funding in the next financial year will be in the region of £25,000 subject to agreement on satisfactory monitoring and evaluation arrangements.
  Much play has been made during the debate of the housing that is alleged to have been lost through the right to buy. Of course, that housing is not actually lost at all. For the most part, it is still occupied by the Leicester people who rented it in the first place. When they die or move on, it goes either to their children or to other Leicester people who, in earlier years, would probably have been on the waiting list for rented housing.
  The money that is received from the sale of housing is similarly not lost. The Government are ensuring that that money is, as far as possible, used to meet the most urgent need in terms of new capital expenditure on housing, and, by requiring local authorities to repay debt, they are helping to reduce the burden on local authorities. At all events, despite the right-to-buy sales that have taken place, the falls in re-lets have not been as dramatic as some people believe. Between 1984 and 1990 the number of council houses re-let in Leicester has remained stable. It was almost 2,000 last year. With the additional housing association units coming on stream during that period, re-lets for social housing for rent may even have slightly increased.
  142
  Leicester city council has had large sums of capital finance to dispense over the past few years. It has had full freedom of choice on how that finance should be allocated. In 1989–90 the council spent more than £48 million. If even £5 million of that had been put into grant aid for housing association building to rent, up to 130 new dwellings could have been provided. Furthermore, the council is owed £4 million in rent arrears—10 per cent. of its total rent roll. That is by far the highest percentage in the whole of the east midlands. It is 21st in the national league. If £4 million could be retrieved, the funds for a further 100 houses might be released. It is most unfair that some of those who are decently housed should deprive the homeless by not paying their rent.
  Management of the council stock could also be improved. Void rates have been persistently high over the years. In April last year, the latest year for which figures are available, 2·78 per cent. of its total housing stock was unoccupied. That is almost 3,000 properties—a fact that has been conveniently overlooked in the debate. If that figure could be cut merely to the regional average voids figure, which is just under 2 per cent. of stock, it would make available more than 250 properties—enough to accommodate all the homeless to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. If Leicester could manage its stock as well as the average management performance in the east midlands, many more people could be housed.
  In its 1990 housing investment programme return, Leicester failed to estimate how many private sector dwellings were vacant. I expect that the figure must be around 4,000. Any council that was clear-headed about making the best use of available resources and was really determined to meet the needs of its homeless people would by now have been in touch with every owner. It would be encouraging all of them to make use of the new market rent regime that the Government have introduced and make accommodation, either furnished or unfurnished, available for the homeless.
  With the consent of the Secretary of State, grants can be paid to private landlords under sections 24 and 25 of the Local Government Act 1988. Those grants take the form of revenue or capital assistance. Where necessary, the council can consent to top up housing benefit payments with grants under section 24 of the Local Government Act 1988 to ensure that owners are fairly recognised. A determined effort could produce hundreds of additional rented properties from that source.
  The housing association movement has done a wonderful job in Leicester. Over the past three years it has added 744 dwellings to the stock of houses to let there. In 1990–91, 237 houses were added. Had it wished, Leicester city council could have considered ways of drawing private funding into the rehabilitation of its own rented stock by transferring some of it to the housing association movement. It could thereby have released funds for new build.
  Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that housing associations are not handling the demand from homeless people in almost any way and that, of a total accepted statutory homeless of 8,718, the total housed by local authorities in the area was 5,833, and the total housed by housing associations was only 96—that is, 1 per cent.? Those figures come from the east midlands housing corporation for 1989–90.
  Mr. Yeo: The figures that the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted are somewhat historic by now, and the housing associations are placing increasing emphasis on housing homeless people. The associations' total programme is building up substantially as the Government are roughly doubling the allocation to the housing association movement through the Housing Corporation—from just over £1 billion in the current year to just over £2 billion in three year's time. The housing associations will be making a rapidly growing contribution towards solving the problems of homelessness in Leicester.
  Leicester city council could also consider offering capital payments to some of its existing tenants to encourage them to move into the private rented sector, making way for homeless people with, currently, no alternative but to rent. Another possibility is to make better use of the stock by paying elderly tenants to vacate family housing and move into flats.
  Another aspect of overall housing management needs developing. Several authorities have set up property shops, which ensure that each person coming to the council for housing considers all the options open to him, instead of heading automatically into a council house. People are given information about the prices and types of housing available for sale. They are invited to look at shared ownership—something that they may never have considered. Housing associations provide information about their own stock and waiting lists. Most important of all for the longer term, registers of reliable private
  144
  landlords are built up, and contacts with them maintained, so that this most flexible source of accommodation can make a contribution. In that way, people who would be better suited in another form of tenure do not clog the waiting list unnecessarily, and I commend that course of action to Leicester.
  I admire many aspects of Leicester's housing policy. Its renewal strategy over 15 years has done much to consolidate its older private sector stock. More recently, it has begun to work with housing associations. In addition, we worked with it through the estate action programme. But Leicester city council must cease to see itself as a universal provider. Instead, it should consider dispassionately how it can most make use of private sector property and private sector finance, thus adding to the sum of housing to rent. I hope that it will improve those management aspects which have left it with runaway arrears and unnecessary voids. As the economy expands and as Leicester city council comes out of the 1920s, I can foresee much brighter housing prospects for its citizens.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to invite me to visit Leicester and to see some of the factors for myself. I am glad to be able to tell him that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will pay a visit to Leicester later this year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his Ministers has been given responsibility for energy use by his Department; and what is his or her brief regarding energy efficiency.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am responsible for energy matters in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My brief is to promote awareness of the Government's energy efficiency campaign and raise the profile of energy efficiency and energy-saving technology in the FCO estate both at home and overseas.

  There is a policy of saving 15 per cent. on energy consumption/costs over five years on the home estate. Overseas, the FCO is providing information material to posts to target local industry, commerce and Government decision makers in an attempt to stimulate commercial/ technological spin-offs for United Kingdom energy efficiency/saving measures. The FCO is also carrying out other initiatives under the overseas aid programme to help developing countries.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the recognition and diplomatic representation currently accorded to each of the Soviet republics.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not recognise the individual Soviet republics as states. The question of diplomatic relations, therefore, does not arise.

  Sudan
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts Her Majesty's Government are supporting to bring the warring parties in Sudan to the negotiating table; and if he will raise during the visit of John Garang, leader of the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, in April the case for initiating round-table talks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have urged on both sides in the civil war the need for a ceasefire and the early discussion and settlement of all outstanding problems, but neither the Government of Sudan nor their opponents appear ready to bring this long-running, tragic and wasteful conflict to an end.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet his counterparts in the coalition countries to discuss the 2
  establishment of a war crimes tribunal to try the activities of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Various mechanisms already exist under the Geneva conventions for prosecuting grave breaches of the conventions. It is too early to say what machinery might be applied in this case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Shops Act
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to provide additional support for local authorities to improve the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Local authorities have a wide range of functions and duties of which enforcement under the 1950 Act is but one. Local authorities receive a substantial contribution towards their total spending of some £40 billion through external grants. The amount provided in external support is being increased by nearly £3 billion this coming year. It is for local authorities to decide how they allocate their resources to provide services and meet their duties.

  Pensioners (Heating and Lighting)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Prime Minister what figures the Government have for the average weekly cost to pensioners for heating and lighting in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Peterborough, (c) north Wiltshire and (d) Richmond and Barnes.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is available only at regional levels. For data on the average weekly expenditure on heating and lighting by pensioners in Northern Ireland I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 13 March at columns 540–41.

  North-west London
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to make any official visit to constituencies in the north-west London area.

  The Prime Minister
  I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to include constituencies in London.

  Agricultural and Industrial Support
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish in the Official Report, an updated version of the table that was given in his answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 17 March 1988, Official Report, columns 636–37.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary on 18 February 1991 at column 13.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his oral answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 1116, if he is now in a position to make a statement about East Timor.
  3
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]Through our embassy in Jakarta, we keep a close watch on developments in East Timor and have made clear to the Indonesians our concern about infringements of human rights, such as those described in the Amnesty report. We will continue to do so.

  All countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations charter to secure the means of their own self-defence. Applications to export defence equipment are carefully scrutinised on a case-by-case basis. We do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used against civil populations. In the case of Indonesia this criterion extends to possible use against the civilian population of East Timor.

  Soviet Union
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister from which Government Departments United Kingdom contributions to the cost of EC technical assistance to the Soviet Union will be paid; and what proportion from each Department.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]The Commission is continuing its exploratory discussions with the Soviet Union and will soon table a proposal on technical assistance to the Soviet Union. The Government will react in due course to that proposal.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Famine
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment of the level of famine in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The World Food Programme estimates that 29 million people may be at risk of starvation in 25 sub-Saharan African countries. Populations within Ethiopia, Sudan, Mozambique, Angola and Liberia are the most seriously affected with more than 20 million people at risk. I have placed the World Food Programme's most recent table of estimates for Africa in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's latest estimate of the number of people facing famine in Africa; and what is the Government's total commitment to emergency relief during this financial year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The World Food Programme estimates that 29 million people may be at risk of starvation in 25 sub-Saharan African countries. The total provision this financial year for humanitarian assistance is £74 million.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by how much the budget to tackle famine in Africa has been increased for every year since 1987 at 1991 prices.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There is no separate allocation for famine relief in Africa within the overall humanitarian assistance provison. This provision is enhanced as required during each financial year in order to respond quickly and appropriately to developing countries' needs.

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the subject of tropical forests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I receive numerous letters from hon. Members and members of the public who are rightly concerned about tropical deforestation. Many are also interested in the emerging World bank forestry policy paper due for publication in July. My postbag also includes letters from environmental NGOs such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and representatives of the trade.

  In addition I have recently received over 25,000 postcards from Friends of the Earth members who are calling for limitations on tropical timber imports and greater attention to environmental and social safeguards in projects carried out by the International Tropical Timber Organisation—ITTO.

  The United Kingdom Government believe that import restrictions would be counterproductive and would almost certainly tempt some tropical forest countries to accelerate conversion of forest to agricultural or ranch land. Restrictions or outright bans may also encourage loggers to speed up their rate of timber extraction to recoup investments in machinery and infrastructure. The positive way forward is to encourage Governments to manage and use their forest resources sustainably and to help provide them with the capacity to do this.

  The ODA is already at the forefront of initiatives to ensure that ITTO works as an effective organisation. We supported work to produce ITTO guidelines on best management practice of natural tropical forests and will continue to encourage countries to adopt them. We pressed for the establishment of an expert panel to review ITTO project proposals which has now been set up. We are also financing two independent experts to help ITTO review how it handles projects generally including the appraisal of their environmental and social impacts.

  Burma
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of development aid to Burma in each of the financial years from 1986–87 to the present; and what is the planned level for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British aid to Burma since 1986–87 has comprised:

  £'000

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Technical Co-operation

  889

  1,157

  1,037

  131

  Aid and Trade Provision

  3,119

  3,005

  305

  17

  Disaster Relief

  10

  —

  91

  4

  Other

  51

  85

  23

  46

  Total

  4,069

  4,247

  1,456

  198

  Since the aid programme was suspended in late 1988 due to human rights concerns, expenditure has been limited to residual contract payments under the aid and trade provision—all now complete—completion of training awards for Burmese students already in the United Kingdom, pensions, and humanitarian assistance.
  5
  Figures for expenditure in 1990–91 are not yet available. No aid is planned in 1991–92 apart from possible limited humanitarian assistance to refugees.

  Sudan
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much food aid has been delivered to Sudan since March 1990; and how much of this food has reached rebel-controlled southern Sudan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The precise figures requested are not available from the World Food Programme. However, its statistics show that 282,000 tonnes of food aid was delivered to Sudan from January to December 1990. Of this, 33,300 tonnes was supplied to the south.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of officers in grades 1 to 7 in the Overseas Development Administration are women.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The number and percentage of women at G7 and above in the ODA is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Grades 1 to 3

  none

  Grade 5

  5–11·40

  Grade 6

  9–13·40

  Grade 7

  22–10·95

  These figures include eight women who are on secondment to other aid organisations.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources and facilities Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make available by way of medical and technical assistance to Iraq following the report of the United Nations investigative team; if a decision has been made in principle to provide such assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have already provided £2·5 million in humanitarian assistance through the International Committee of the Red Cross. When the UN mission's report on emergency needs is available, we shall respond to any UN appeal for humanitarian assistance.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he is making to the United Nations on the provision of development aid towards(a) mine removal and (b) provision of clean water supplies in Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain is currently supporting the humanitarian aid programmes of United Nations agencies

  ODA grants to NGOs 1989–90

  Agency

  JFS

  Emergencies (Disasters, Refugees Food Aid)

  Others

  Total

  Acord

  450,074

  610,000

  50,000

  1,110,074

  Action Aid

  499,801

  —

  735,449

  1,235,250

  Action on Disability and Development

  134,326

  —

  —

  134,326

  Action Water

  10,000

  —

  —

  10,000

  6
  in Cambodia, including UNICEF, which provides assistance for the improvement of water supplies and sanitation. Provision for mine clearance to be undertaken with the assistance of the UN transitional authority for Cambodia as part of a comprehensive political settlement, was included in the draft document agreed by the permanent five, including Britain, the co-chairman of the Paris conference and the UN permanent representative at their meeting in Paris from 23 to 26 November 1990.

  Education Projects
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of overseas aid is being spent on educational projects; in what main areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1989, the latest year for which final figures are available, £180·4 million was spent bilaterally on education projects out of a total bilateral expenditure of £1,113 million. Main areas of expenditure were:

  £ million

  Training Support Schemes

  110·5

  British Council

  43·2

  English Language Teachers

  13·0

  Capital projects

  6·9

  Books, seminars and research

  6·8

  180·4

  A number of technical co-operation staff working overseas are also in education, but they are not designated by sector.

  Much money made available from the aid programme to multilateral organisations such as the World bank, is committed to education. Our bilateral efforts complement this investment.

  Future expenditure plans will take into account the priority which overseas Governments give to the call made at the world conference on education for all in Thailand in 1990 for a greater emphasis on basic education and adult literacy.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-governmental organisations associated with overseas development which received financial support from his Department in 1989–90, the total sum received by each organisation in that year and the breakdown of the total sum received by each organisation to show separately the sums received(a) under the joint funding scheme, (b) for emergency relief and (c) other.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information requested is as follows:
  7

  Agency

  JFS

  Emergencies (Disasters, Refugees Food Aid)

  Others

  Total

  Afghan Aid

  —

  1,700,000

  —

  1,700,000

  Africa Now

  9,960

  —

  —

  9,960

  African Medical and Research Foundation

  201,179

  —

  —

  201,179

  Aga Khan Foundation

  312,957

  —

  1,205,808

  1,518,765

  AHRTAG

  129,133

  —

  12,730

  141,863

  Aid Armenia

  —

  12,261

  —

  12,261

  Aid for India

  35,960

  —

  —

  35,960

  Alternative for India Development

  51,857

  —

  —

  51,857

  Anti Slavery Society

  34,361

  —

  —

  34,361

  Association of Commonwealth Universities

  —

  —

  415,443

  415,443

  Boys Brigade

  13,219

  —

  —

  13,219

  British Executive Services Overseas

  —

  —

  360,000

  360,000

  British Red Cross Society

  75,000

  196,763

  —

  271,763

  Busoga Trust

  33,333

  —

  —

  33,333

  Care

  797,250

  4,859,455

  1,489,789

  7,146,494

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development

  1,000,000

  4,391,797

  188,905

  5,580,702

  Catholic Institute for International Relations

  92,195

  —

  1,160,000

  1,252,195

  Centre for International Briefing

  —

  —

  139,000

  139,000

  Centre for World Development Education

  —

  —

  129,200

  129,200

  Child To Child

  8,000

  —

  —

  8,000

  Christian Aid

  1,706,901

  3,891,704

  594,900

  6,193,505

  Christian Outreach

  —

  267,000

  —

  267,000

  Christians Abroad

  —

  —

  18,000

  18,000

  Commonwealth Human Ecology Council

  22,659

  —

  —

  22,659

  Commonwealth Trade Union Council

  118,612

  —

  —

  118,612

  Concern

  129,956

  801,738

  190,673

  1,122,367

  Conservation Foundation

  123,790

  —

  —

  123,790

  Cooperation for Development

  111,872

  —

  385,312

  497,184

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  —

  —

  4,000

  4,000

  Cusichaca Project

  37,000

  —

  —

  37,000

  DPCCN

  —

  —

  400,000

  400,000

  Duke of Edinburgh Award

  77,000

  —

  —

  77,000

  Equipment to Charity Hospitals Overseas

  24,850

  10,234

  —

  35,084

  Farm Africa

  —

  —

  55,000

  55,000

  Feed the Minds

  8,330

  —

  —

  8,330

  Goal

  —

  50,000

  —

  50,000

  Hand In Hand

  7,397

  —

  —

  7,397

  Harvest Help

  40,076

  —

  —

  40,076

  Health Unlimited

  175,893

  —

  —

  175,893

  Help The Aged

  75,104

  207,591

  —

  282,695

  Homeless International

  12,771

  —

  —

  12,771

  Impact Foundation

  7,096

  —

  —

  7,096

  India Development Group

  33,325

  —

  —

  33,325

  Institute of Development Studies

  —

  —

  2,145,000

  2,145,000

  Intercare

  30,487

  —

  —

  30,487

  Intermediate Technology Development Group

  184,050

  —

  93,713

  277,763

  International Agricultural Training Programme

  37,950

  —

  —

  37,950

  International Bee Research Association

  —

  —

  32,000

  32,000

  International Boys Town Trust

  33,180

  —

  —

  33,180

  International Committee for Red Cross

  —

  —

  100,000

  100,000

  International Council for Bird Preservation

  33,943

  —

  —

  33,943

  International Extension College

  —

  249,796

  —

  249,796

  International Institute for Environment and Development

  —

  —

  63,000

  63,000

  International Medical Relief

  —

  80,600

  —

  80,600

  International Rescue

  —

  23,816

  —

  23,816

  International Trust for Nature Conservation

  3,898

  —

  —

  3,898

  Jalchatra Project

  8,250

  —

  —

  8,250

  King Mahendra Trust

  14,750

  —

  —

  14,750

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  83,923

  —

  —

  83,923

  Living Earth

  61,400

  —

  —

  61,400

  Lutheran World Federation

  —

  7,559

  —

  7,559

  Marie Stopes International

  484,842

  —

  35,678

  520,520

  Medical Aid for Palestinians

  —

  —

  70,975

  70,975

  Money for Madagascar

  3,600

  —

  —

  3,600

  National Childrens Home

  —

  —

  15,406

  15,406

  New Age Access

  13,500

  —

  —

  13,500

  Ockenden Venture

  —

  248,536

  —

  248,536

  Opportunities for Women

  55,490

  —

  —

  55,490

  Order of St. John

  —

  —

  125,000

  125,000

  Overseas Development Institute

  —

  —

  570,000

  570,000

  OXFAM

  3,100,000

  1,763,473

  946,881

  5,810,354

  Passe Partout

  10,675

  —

  —

  10,675

  Plan

  209,608

  —

  —

  209,608

  Population Concern

  272,392

  —

  —

  272,392

  Ranfurly Library Service

  —

  —

  115,000

  115,000

  89

  Agency

  JFS

  Emergencies (Disasters, Refugees Food Aid)

  Others

  Total

  Reed Charities

  117,969

  —

  —

  117,969

  Regional Conference on International Voluntary Service

  —

  —

  5,000

  5,000

  Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind

  36,393

  —

  —

  36,393

  Ryder Cheshire Mission

  —

  30,000

  —

  30,000

  Sandy Galls Afghanistan Appeal

  —

  134,000

  —

  134,000

  Save the Children Fund

  2,400,000

  1,464,238

  2,337,720

  6,201,958

  Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund

  74,515

  —

  —

  74,515

  Scottish Education and Action for Development

  —

  7,000

  7,000

  Semi Arid Lands Training Livestock Improvement Centres

  25,272

  —

  —

  25,272

  Send A Cow

  10,120

  —

  —

  10,120

  Sheffield Health Authority

  53,020

  —

  —

  53,020

  Skillshare Africa

  68,666

  —

  980,000

  1,048,666

  SOS Sahel

  76,846

  —

  100,000

  176,846

  Special Projects in Christian Missionary Areas

  54,094

  61,123

  115,217

  Tear Fund

  46,943

  11,806

  —

  58,749

  Traidcraft Exchange

  22,341

  —

  —

  22,341

  Trax

  31,943

  —

  —

  31,943

  Trust for Education and Development

  —

  2,000

  2,000

  Uganda Society for Disabled Children

  212,743

  —

  —

  212,743

  UK Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific

  79,360

  —

  —

  79,360

  UNICEF Appeal

  —

  —

  200,000

  200,000

  UNIPAL

  —

  12,000

  2,322

  14,322

  United Nations Association International Service

  —

  —

  611,904

  611,904

  Urban Aid

  15,000

  —

  —

  15,000

  Vetaid

  5,053

  —

  70,000

  75,053

  Voluntary Services Overseas

  9,000

  —

  10,375,155

  10,384,155

  War on Want

  —

  —

  56,179

  56,179

  Water Aid

  628,873

  —

  230,608

  859,481

  Womens Corona Society

  —

  —

  4,320

  4,320

  World University Service

  14,861

  100,775

  420,000

  535,636

  World Vision

  198,399

  —

  100,000

  298,399

  World Wide Fund for Nature

  1,000,000

  —

  —

  1,000,000

  Y Care International

  64,729

  80,000

  —

  144,729

  You and Me

  —

  21,000

  —

  21,000

  Young Womens Christian Association

  —

  7,127

  —

  7,127

  Zimbabwe Trust

  31,350

  —

  —

  31,350

  TOTAL

  16,466,571

  21,287,363

  27,410,193

  65,164,127

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the amount of the office costs allowance per Member for each of the last 10 years; what percentage of the total allowance has been spent in each of the last 10 years; and, of the amount of the allowance which has been spent in each of the last 10 years, what proportions have been spent on(a) secretarial salaries, (b) research expenses and salaries, (c) miscellaneous office expenses and (d) other secretarial services.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The amount of the office costs allowance and the percentage of total estimates provision spent in each of the last 10 years is in the table. Information on the proportions spent on secretarial salaries, research expenses and salaries, miscellaneous expenses and other secretarial services is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Office Costs Allowance

  Financial Year

  OCA Maximum per Member

  Percentage of total Estimates provision spent1

  £

  1980–81

  7,859

  92

  1981–82

  8,384

  96

  1982–83

  8,752

  98

  10

  Financial Year

  OCA Maximum per Member

  Percentage of total Estimates provision spent1

  £

  1983–84

  11,364

  93

  1984–85

  12,437

  100

  1985–86

  13,211

  99

  1986–87

  20,140

  89

  1987–88

  20,302

  97

  1988–89

  22,588

  99

  1989–90

  24,903

  101

  1990–91

  27,166

  1 Including Supplementary Estimates where appropriate.

  War Crimes Bill
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 6 December to the hon. Member for Northampton, North, (Mr. Marlow)Official Report, column 463, what are his reasons for deciding not to bring forward or proceed with any Government amendments to the War Crimes Bill.

  Mr. MacGregor
  To preserve the possibility of the use of the Parliament Acts in the event of disagreement between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Bill should be returned to the House of Lords in precisely the same form as it went to it last year, apart from purely technical changes necessary to reflect the passage of time. It has been presented to the House of Commons in
  11
  that form. The Government have decided not to propose suggested amendments under the procedure provided in the Parliament Acts because the Bill as it stands meets the Government's objectives of implementing the recommendations of the war crimes inquiry, ensuring that any prosecutions are well founded and well prepared and that any defendants have proper and effective safeguards. If the House of Lords wishes to propose amendments in a spirit of seeking to secure the support of both Houses, the Commons will be able to consider these and decide on a free vote.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the Government last proposed a motion excluding the Committee stage or amendment of a Bill similar to the motion on the War Crimes Bill.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A motion to similar effect was last made by the Government on 1 December 1976, relating to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the differences between men and women in respect of invalidity benefit when they reach normal retirement age.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no differences in the way invalidity benefit entitlement is determined or paid between men and women when they reach normal retirement age.

  Payment of invalidity benefit can continue after normal retirement age 60—women—or 65—men—only if there is entitlement to retirement pension. Invalidity benefit is then payable until retirement pension is claimed or age 65—women or 70—men—is reached.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of his Ministers has been given responsibility for energy use by his Department; and what is his brief regarding energy efficiency.

  Mr. Curry
  I have given the Minister of State, Baroness Trumpington, special responsibility for energy use within my Department. I attach great importance to the efficient use of energy both within the Department and the industries with which my Department has contact. In line with the Government's objectives, our aim is to save 15 per cent. of departmental energy costs over the next five years. I have asked the Minister of State to encourage the practice of energy efficiency in our policies and pronouncements.

  Veterinary Services
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the numbers of veterinarians that have been lost from each location where they are employed since 1979; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 12 March, Official Report, column 442, if he will
  12
  list the veterinary investigation centres; and how many (a) veterinarian, (b) scientific, (c) administrative and (d) laboratory posts will be lost as a result of his decision to close these centres.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible or meaningful to list the number of veterinary posts that have been lost from each individual location where they are employed since 1979 because where individual locations have been closed, amalgamated or relocated, additional veterinary posts have been allocated to other locations to cope with the additional work load.

  The number of veterinary posts located at veterinary investigation centres was 87 in 1979, is 84 in 1991 and it is expected that there will be 72 such veterinary posts in 1995. The numbers of veterinary posts in those central laboratories which comprise the central veterinary laboratories was 97 in 1979, is 73 in 1991 and it is expected that there will be 73 veterinary posts in 1995.

  For the same reasons it is not possible or meaningful to list the (a) veterinarian, (b) scientific, (c) administrative and (d) laboratory posts that will be lost in relation to specific individual veterinary investigation centres. I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 12 March, Official Report, column 442, which gives this information in relation to these posts when the reorganisation of the VI service is completed in three or four years' time. One of the 13 veterinary post losses referred to in that reply is accounted for by a post in the national management team located at the state veterinary service headquarters at Tolworth.

  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member of 14 March 1991, at column 680, the changes in the structure of the veterinary investigation service are designed to produce significant improvements in the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the service and I consider it important that we have an efficient VI service which is well equipped to meet our national needs over the years ahead.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report the results of the test for the presence of BSE undertaken by Dr. Harash Narang, at the public health laboratory, Newcastle, on the bovine brains supplied by his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  Publication of the results of the research being undertaken by Dr. Narang is a matter for him. All the material and data requested by him as a part of this study have been supplied by my Department.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has issued guidelines to local authority environmental health departments on recommended levels of staffing for implementation of the Food Safety Act and the registration of food premises in particular.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Staffing levels are a matter for local authorities to determine locally.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the accounts for the Training Agency for 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Jackson
  It had been planned to lay the White Paper accounts for the Training Agency for 1989–90 before Parliament in December 1990, but their preparation has been delayed and they will now be published in May 1991. The Training Agency has now ceased to exist as a separate operation entirely and no further White Paper accounts will be prepared.

  Racehorse Breeding
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are estimated to work in the racehorse breeding industry.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is included in the estimates for agriculture and horticulture, which do not separately identify the racehorse breeding industry. In September 1990, the latest date for which information is available, there were 307,000 employees in employment in agriculture and horticulture in the United Kingdom.

  Rathbone Society
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Rathbone Society about the precautionary notices of redundancy it has issued to its staff in England and 'Wales and the imminent closure of the training and employment service it provides for people with learning difficulties; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]The chief executive of the Rathbone Society wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend on 1 March and the chairman wrote on 10 March. I shall be replying shortly.

  On 26 February my right hon. and learned Friend announced we were making available an additional £120 million for employment training in 1991–92 bringing our total expenditure on the programme to £877 million.

  Training and enterprise councils will be able to use this additional money to provide training in line with the priorities set out in their plans including training for those with learning difficulties and other special needs. It is for individual TECs to decide, in the light of local circumstances, with whom they will contract to provide the necessary training.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the unemployment figures for Hendon, North have been during each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will state what factors have affected any changes in them.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. The figures available are on the unadjusted basis and are therefore affected by seasonal influences.

  TECs (Advertising)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total budget for television, newspaper and other advertising for the launch of training and enterprise councils; what is the total budget for advertising for each TEC so far established; what is the cost of such advertising nationally and locally, expressed in terms of each person now undertaking training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]: The total budget for television, newspaper and other advertising for the launch of training and enterprise councils is £10 million.

  The overall budget for local publicity and marketing by TECs in 1990–91 is £4 million. The amount allocated to individual TECs is adjusted during each financial year according to changing requirements.

  The figures on the cost of TECs advertising nationally and locally, expressed in terms of training can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Ashworth Hospital
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the complaints procedure at Ashworth hospital is one that the patients can have complete confidence in.

  Mr. Dorrell
  One of the Special Hospitals Service Authority's tasks in its current action plan, agreed in last year's ministerial review of the authority's performance, is to design and implement a revised complaints procedure. The authority has informed me that a formal policy and statement of principles have now been agreed and that the detailed procedures are being finalised. It intends to implement the new procedures from 1 June 1991. Apart from these internal arrangements, the Mental Health Act Commission has statutory responsibilities under section 120 (1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 for investigating complaints made by, or in respect of, patients detained under the Act. Commissioners make regular visits, as the Act requires, to Ashworth and other hospitals where patients are detained.

  Patient Statistics
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will give the number of in-patients, out-patients and day-patients treated in the northern region in 1980, 1985 and 1990, together with the percentage change.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available is given in the table. It is not possible to make a direct comparison of in-patient treatments between 1989–90 and earlier years. Following implementation of the Korner reports on health service information, the basis of counting in-patient treatments was changed in 1988–89 to reflect the number of individual episodes of care under a consultant. The old and new methods of counting in-patients were both used during 1988–89 in order to provide continuity in time series comparisons.
  15

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Year

  In-patients

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  1980

  393,788

  2,338,383

  54,023

  1985

  433,131

  2,543,549

  75,473

  1989–90

  504,743

  2,522,192

  96,243

  Notes:

  The 1980 and 1985 in-patient figures are discharges and deaths.

  The 1989–90 figures are finished consultant episodes.

  For 1988–89 the information on in-patients was collected under both headings: there were

  461,033 discharges and deaths and

  496,617 finished consultant episodes.

  Source:

  SH3 for 1980 and 1985.

  KP70 for in-patients and day cases 1989–90.

  KHO9 for out-patients 1989–90.

  Percentage change

  In-patients

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  1980–85

  10

  9

  40

  1985–1989–90

  8

  -1

  28

  1980–1989–90

  19

  8

  78

  Note:

  The in-patient changes have been calculated to take account of the definitional change from discharges and deaths to finished consultant episodes.

  Insulin
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding insulin supplies to national health service patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations have been received on the safety of human insulin. While at present there is no evidence of a problem associated specifically with human insulins, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines will continue to liaise with the British Diabetic Association in closely monitoring the situation. Representation has also been received on the supply of free needles for insulin manufacturers proprietary syringes. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 11 March at column 353.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of his Ministers has been given responsibility for energy use by his Department; and what is his or her brief regarding energy efficiency.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have this responsibility. My brief is to contribute to the target saving in energy of 15 per cent. over the next five years for all Government Departments. In addition, we are aiming to achieve the same target saving for the national health service. This is against a background of savings in the order of 30 per cent. made since 1977–78.

  Cancer Screening
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has made any arrangements to monitor the effectiveness of the national screening programme for breast and cervical cancer, measured both in health terms and cost-effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 21 February at columns 241–42. We
  16
  are collecting information which will monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the computerised call and recall for breast and cervical screening programmes. As these are new programmes it will be a number of years before their effect in health terms or cost-effectiveness can be fully assessed.

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the hon. Member for Don Valley with a full copy of the financial data submitted by Doncaster royal infirmary during consultations on self-governing trust status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. The supporting financial statements through applications for national health service trust status are confidential documents submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Community Care
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the method by which his Department will calculate the amount to be transferred from his Department to local authorities when community care is implemented.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper "Caring for People"—Cm. 849—set out the factors which will be taken into account in calculating the sums to be transferred from the social security system to local authorities. The amount to be transferred will be determined in the 1992 public expenditure survey following discussions with the local authority associations.

  Intensive Therapy Units
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people die in intensive therapy units annually; whether he can break the number down according to age groups; and what percentage are likely to be considered as organ donors.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information provided by the national audit of potential donors, initiated by the Government in 1989, just over 1,000 patients per month died in intensive therapy units in England during 1989 and their average age was 57 years. Some 8·4 per cent. were considered to be potential cadaveric organ donors on the basis that they were confirmed brain stem dead and there were no general medical contraindications to organ donation.

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding is given to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service; what licences or other Government approvals are required for the activities of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service; and what official contacts he has had with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in the past year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The British Pregnancy Advisory Service—BPAS—does not receive central funding though some of its income will come from its contracts with health authorities. BPAS nursing homes, like all hospitals, homes and clinics within part II of the
  17
  Registered Homes Act 1984 must be registered by the relevant health authority and inspected at least twice a year by that authority. In addition, BPAS and other private sector clinics providing abortion treatment must be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the Abortion Act 1967. BPAS also operates a number of pregnancy advice bureaux which are registered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All approved places and pregnancy advice bureaux are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the Department's staff. BPAS premises have therefore received a number of official visits by departmental and NHS staff over the past year.

  From 1 August BPAS will be obliged to comply with licence conditions contained in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and any extra conditions which are imposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—HFEA—if it wishes to continue to provide assisted conception services which are subject to regulation by that Act. If it is licensed it will also be expected to follow the guidelines in the code of practice that the HFEA will produce.

  Virgin Births
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the use of artificial fertility techniques by women who are virgins; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of treatment to single women was debated in both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill last year. The results of these debates are

  Appeal Successful

  Appeal Unsuccessful

  Total

  Income Support

  123

  368

  491

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Adjourned

  Total

  Family Credit

  43

  93

  56

  192

  Social Fund (Funeral Benefit)

  2

  4

  —

  6

  Unemployment Benefit

  51

  140

  55

  246

  Sickness Benefit

  55

  50

  58

  163

  Invalidity Benefit

  677

  378

  645

  1,700

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  22

  14

  20

  56

  Maternity Benefit

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Statutory Sick Pay

  4

  10

  9

  23

  Guardian's Allowance

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Child Benefit

  23

  72

  46

  141

  Mobility Allowance

  1

  36

  10

  47

  Injury and Disablement Benefit

  31

  26

  56

  113

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  54

  32

  80

  166

  Pensions

  6

  31

  20

  57

  Attendance Allowance

  6

  6

  7

  19

  Invalid Care Allowance

  10

  17

  31

  58

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the main funding headings which are used in providing grants to voluntary organisations and the changes that have taken place over the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 4 April last year my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the publication of 18
  reflected in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The Act makes no reference to a woman's marital or other status as a condition for receiving treatment.

  In accordance with section 13(5) of the Act, a woman shall not be given treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment, including the need of that child for a father. Treatment services involving donated gametes or the creation of embryos in vitro may not be provided to a woman unless a suitable opportunity has been given to receive proper counselling about the implications of the proposed steps.

  As required by the Act, a code of practice will be produced by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which will include guidance to treatment centres on counselling and the welfare of the child. Such centres will need to comply with the provisions of the Act and will be expected to follow the code of practice guidelines. The final draft of the code of practice must be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.

  These and other provisions of the Act are expected to come into force on 1 August 1991.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Security
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of appeals heard and decided by tribunals concerning(a) income support, (b) family credit, (c) social fund funeral benefit and (d) non-income-related benefits during the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of appeals heard and decided during the 1989–90 year is as follows:

  the report of the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector. Annex D of that report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, contains a list of grant schemes through which voluntary organisations were funded in 1987–88 and 1988–89. Details of changes which have taken place over the last five years are not available centrally.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in a table under the
  19
  relevant headings all funding given to voluntary organisations in the most recent year for which figures are available and for the previous four years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the total grants made to voluntary organisations by Government Departments are announced each year by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Details for 1988–89 were announced on 11 May last year, at columns 254–55. Similar announcements covering total grants made in 1987–88, 1986–87 and 1985–86 were made respectively on 16 May 1989, Official Report, columns 120–21, 14 April 1988, Official Report columns 217–19, and 2 March 1987, Official Report columns 464–65. A further announcement in respect of total grants made in 1989–90 is expected to be made shortly.

  A list of all voluntary organisations funded by Government Departments was placed in the Library of the House when details of grants made in 1988–89 were announced last May.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Financial Services
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals to make companies providing financial services liable for losses resulting from poor or misleading advice given by independent intermediaries who market the products of a small range of companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Independent advisers are responsible for the advice they give, and their conduct of business is subject to rules made under the Financial Services Act.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions he has had with the regulatory bodies about the classing of the sale of home income schemes to elderly people as best practice under the terms of the Financial Services Act;

  (2) if he will issue advice directly to elderly persons to draw their attention to the risks associated with entering into home income schemes;

  (3) what consideration he has given to introducing controls on the sale of home income schemes to elderly people.

  Mr. Redwood
  These are matters for the regulatory bodies. I understand that the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Assocation and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation have issued guidance to their members.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take to ensure that sufficient information is available to the public to clearly explain the distinction between tied and independent agents.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations, such as LAUTRO 20
  and FIMBRA, are responsible for making and enforcing rules on these matters under the Financial Services Act. The distinction between tied agents and independent financial advisers is important and I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 7 December 1990, at columns 223–24.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals to require tied agents to disclose commission on products in the same way as independent agents.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations, such as LAUTRO and FIMBRA, are responsible for making and enforcing rules on such matters under the Financial Services Act. On the general issue of disclosure, I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley on 7 December 1990, at columns 223–24.

  Shipbuilding
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what expenditure is expected in 1990–91 on the residual obligations of British Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Leigh
  Arising out of settlement of an outstanding claim by Trafalgar House, British Shipbuilders now has a liability of £17 million not covered by the provision in the 1990–91 supply estimates. Parliamentary approval for the necessary payment to BS will be sought through a supplementary supply estimate on class IV vote 2 in 1991–92. Pending that approval, this expenditure, which is urgent, will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the figures of injuries caused by fireworks in 1990.

  Mr. Leigh
  According to reports from hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland, 805 people required treatment for injuries caused by fireworks during the three weeks leading up to 5 November 1990 and the few days after, an increase of less than 1 per cent. However, serious injuries fell by 7 per cent. There was an increase in injuries to young adults, but a fall of 12 per cent. in injuries to 13 to 15-year-olds, the group most at risk. There was an increase of 16 per cent. in injuries from bangers and of 10 per cent. for rockets, and sadly, of 12 per cent. from sparklers. Injuries from other fireworks went down. Injuries from incidents in the street were up 7 per cent., but injuries from family firework parties were down 4 per cent. and from small public displays down 17 per cent. There were 110 million fireworks let off in 1989 and we estimate that there were 12 to 15 per cent. more let off in 1990. The detailed breakdown for 1990 and the preceding four years is as follows:
  21

  Firework injuries in Great Britain

  (4-week period in October-November)

  Year

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  TOTAL

  805

  800

  877

  960

  846

  Place of accident

  1. Family or private party

  269

  280

  300

  260

  286

  2. Semi-public display (e.g. scouts, cricket club)

  59

  71

  69

  88

  72

  3. Large public display

  135

  135

  123

  155

  119

  4. Casual incident in street, etc.

  264

  247

  298

  364

  299

  5. Other place

  64

  46

  65

  73

  52

  6. Indoors

  14

  21

  22

  20

  18

  Type of firework

  1. Banger

  158

  136

  162

  163

  161

  2. Rocket

  144

  131

  164

  174

  159

  3. Roman candle, coloured fire, etc.

  66

  89

  83

  96

  88

  4. Home-made or extracted powder

  7

  18

  17

  24

  14

  5. Other proprietary fireworks

  73

  125

  86

  109

  118

  6. Sparklers

  93

  83

  102

  95

  80

  7. Unspecified type

  264

  218

  263

  299

  226

  Severity of injury

  1. Fatal injury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2. Detained more than one night

  38

  46

  69

  60

  48

  3. Sufficient to cause absence from work or equivalent

  138

  142

  167

  158

  160

  4. Minor injury

  590

  551

  587

  661

  582

  5. Unspecified injury

  39

  61

  54

  81

  56

  Eye injuries (included in 2–5)

  269

  275

  269

  312

  291

  Age group of injured persons

  1. Over 20

  269

  251

  280

  252

  235

  2. 16–20

  142

  135

  151

  168

  145

  3. 13–15

  134

  152

  166

  220

  207

  4. Under 13

  260

  262

  280

  320

  259

  Climate Change
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has made any contribution to the second preparatory meeting for the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today published a report entitled "Global Climate Change: The Role for Technology Transfer". The report was prepared for UNCED by Touche Ross and financed jointly by my Department and the Overseas Development Administration.

  The report has been distributed widely to those delegates attending the preparatory meeting for UNCED starting today in Geneva. I hope the report will offer a constructive contribution to their further discussions on technology transfer in the context of climate change and help future work move forward in a positive way. It establishes a working background on technology transfer which should assist both developing and developed countries to identify the scope for mutual partnership and assistance which will contribute to the international response to climate change.

  I have arranged for copies of the report to be made available to the Libraries in each House.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the amounts spent by his Department in support of new technologies, technology transfer and innovative research and development in the northern region since 1983.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department does not have reliable regional innovation spend figures because its innovation 22
  budget is not allocated on a regional basis. The amount spent in specific areas is dependent on the number of companies that come forward with good projects. Any figures would thus be a reflection of industry activity rather than Government policy. However, for the special reason that we are looking to attract European structural funds, there has been an allocation made for SPUR, which supports product development. The northern region (the north west, north east, and Yorkshire and Humberside) has so far been allocated nearly one third of the SPUR budget.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the major investment projects attracted from overseas to the northern region since 1983, together with the capital cost of each project and the amount of grant offered.

  Mr. Leigh
  The table lists details of major inward investments known to have located in the northern region since 1 January 1983. These are projects where known capital costs were over £5 million, and the table details the amount of regional selective assistance offered to each company.

  Major inward investments in the Northern region since 1983

  Company

  Project costs

  RSA grant

  £ million

  £'000

  Kodak Ltd.

  6·4

  2,000

  British Alcan Aluminium plc

  7·0

  2,000

  Transfer-All Purpose Foils Ltd.

  5·3

  819

  Forbo-Mayfair Ltd.

  6·5

  700

  Black and Decker

  9·9

  2,000

  THC Fabricators (UK) Ltd.

  6·2

  575

  Philips Components Ltd.

  9·9

  900

  Black and Decker

  22·0

  2,450

  Komatsu Ltd.

  16·4

  1,200

  23

  Company

  Project costs

  RSA grant

  £ million

  £'000

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd.

  32·0

  1,600

  TC Industries of Europe Ltd.

  6·0

  1,295

  Tolaram Polymers Ltd.

  14·4

  350

  Nissan UK Ltd.

  349·9

  35,000

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd.

  15·1

  450

  Black and Decker

  9·8

  1,000

  Sterling-Winthrop Group Ltd.

  15·1

  3,382

  Key-Tech (Europe) Ltd.

  11·3

  1,200

  Uponor ltd.

  16·0

  330

  Swaddlers Ltd.

  8·8

  950

  Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd.

  5·4

  700

  Fujitsu Microelectronics Ltd.

  400·0

  30,000

  Goldstar Electric Ltd.

  8·0

  Nil

  BASF Chemicals

  6·0

  Nil

  Swilynn (UK) Ltd.

  14·1

  2,950

  Nissan UK Manufacturing Ltd.

  216·0

  14,400

  Cookson Fukuda Ltd.

  24·3

  650

  Hashimoto Forming Industry Co. Ltd.

  9·9

  1,500

  3M UK Ltd.

  11·9

  1,700

  Notes:

  1. Major inward investment projects have been defined as those first time investments, or expansions of existing investments, by foreign owned companies which involve project costs of over £5 million.

  2. Details of grant are for offers of regional selective assistance (RSA) accepted by foreign-owned companies since 1 January 1983. Comparable information on other forms of assistance is not readily available. (Not all inward investments receive RSA).

  3. The Northern region is the North East region plus Cumbria.

  Aircraft Manufacturing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to secure the future of the commercial aircraft manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  It is for industry to safeguard its future by remaining competitive while Government create a climate in which enterprise can flourish. In the particular case of the commercial aircraft industry, Government have provided substantial launch aid and support pre-competitive research through the CARAD programme.

  Equipment Maintenance Contracts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received alleging unfair terms in maintenance contracts for office and industrial equipment.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 March 1991]: I have received a number of complaints about photocopier leasing agreements where the lessee felt that he had been misled as to the length of the agreement, the overall cost of the agreement, or in some cases, as to the nature of the agreement itself.

  The code of practice of the Equipment Leasing Association requires members to "behave with integrity" and not to
  "misinterpret facts to a lessee concerning any aspect of a leasing transaction".
  This is the standard the Government would expect of the industry and is the only way for the industry to retain the confidence of its customers.

  However, potential lessees also have responsibilities. Anyone in business who signs a leasing agreement should make sure that he has fully understood the terms and the
  24
  overall cost. An agreement for instance, which looks like a bargain for the first 18 months may be substantially more expensive when looked at over the full term.

  Companies should also make sure that such agreements can be signed only by someone of sufficient authority to ensure that the terms have been fully considered. This should be standard practice even where a document appears to be only an amendment to an earlier agreement.

  If misrepresentation has occurred then there are remedies in law. In certain circumstances fraudulent misrepresentation may amount to a criminal offence. Whether any particular company has been guilty of misrepresentation would be a matter for the courts.

  A licence under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is required by any person or company wishing to carry on a consumer hire business. A company may have its licence suspended or revoked by the Director General of Fair Trading if he believes that the company is not fit to engage in the activities covered by the licence.

  Anyone with information relevant to a person's suitability to hold such a licence should send it to the DGFT.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to prepare a report on the terms and conditions to be found in maintenance contracts for office and industrial equipment;

  (2) if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate the pricing and supply of parts and labour for the maintenance and repair of office and industrial machinery.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 March 1991]: I am aware of no justification for doing so.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Care
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer in a full tax year of introducing a child care tax allowance on the first(a) £1,000, (b) £2,000 and (c) £5,000 of taxable income for (i) working single parents and (ii) couples where both spouses are working.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates are given in the table. They are based on projections from the 1988 and 1989 family expenditure surveys and are therefore provisional.

  Cost (£ billion)

  Allowance per year of

  (a) £1,000

  (b) £2,000

  (c) £5,000

  (i) Lone parents

  0·1

  0·1

  0·3

  (ii) Married couples

  0·5

  1·0

  2·0

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the outcome of consultation on the Green Paper, "Friendly Societies: A New Framework"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on 19 December 1990 at column 177.

  Customs Service, Lowestoft
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the Customs service at Lowestoft with effect from 1 January 1992.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Customs office at Lowestoft is a sub-office of Great Yarmouth Customs office. It is staffed by three officers whose main duties involve anti-smuggling controls.

  Following a departmental strategic review by Customs on its approach to anti-smuggling work the emphasis is now on deploying resources in a more versatile way with the creation of flexible anti-smuggling teams. It is the intention, therefore, to close the Lowestoft office at about the end of 1992 and cover the work from Great Yarmouth which is 10 miles away.

  Before the transfer of the small amount of work which is not anti-smuggling takes place, Customs will consult the Lowestoft port users to discuss alternative arrangements required after the office closes.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to modify the present arrangements for customs clearance at Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth after 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my replies to his questions on the future of the Customs service at Lowestoft and studies by Customs with particular reference to Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on studies his Department has carried out on the Customs service between Grimsby and Felixstowe, with particular reference to Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No studies have been carried out which are solely concerned with the Customs service between Grimsby and Felixstowe.

  A nationwide study, which includes East Anglia, is being undertaken as part of a current review of the Customs control of non-EC freight traffic after 1993. This study is not yet concluded.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his question on the proposed closure of the Lowestoft Customs office following a strategic review by Customs of its approach to anti-smuggling work.

  Bloodstock
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates for value added tax on bloodstock in, respectively, Ireland, France and the United Kingdom; and if he has any plans for harmonisation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The VAT rates for bloodstock in Ireland, France and the United Kingdom are respectively 2·3 per cent., 5·5 per cent. and 15 per cent. The Government do not consider that centrally determined tax rate harmonisation is either necessary or appropriate for the completion of the single market.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what capital allowance subsidies the London Docklands development corporation will have received as a result of enjoying enterprise zone status.

  Mr. Maude
  Because of the rules of confidentiality, I am unable to give information about the tax affairs of any particular business or corporation.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which of his Ministers has been given responsibility for energy use by his Department; and what is his brief regarding energy efficiency.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am the Minister responsible for energy efficiency policy in the Department. The Department has a strategy to achieve energy savings totalling 15 per cent. in its offices which form part of the public estate, over a five-year period up to 1995. Savings will be achieved through various initiatives such as the installation of automatic sensors to reduce the amount of energy used, more effective monitoring of consumption, regular maintenance of plant, good housekeeping techniques, and poster, sticker and publicity campaigns. A building management system is being installed at the Department's new premises in Westminster.

  Active encouragement has also been provided to conserve energy in educational buildings. Savings have been achieved by supporting development projects, dissemination of guidance on good practice, and commissioned research. LEAs are currently spending £43 million a year less in real terms on energy than they did in 1978–79.

  Current initiatives include support for work being undertaken by the building research energy conservation support unit in connection with its four-year £1 million programme to save energy in schools. DES publications offering advice on how to make energy savings are also currently being prepared.

  Nursery Schools, Kent
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds have been allocated by Kent county council for the provision of nursery school places in Kent for the last 10 years that figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The readily available information on school-based recurrent spending on nursery schools by Kent county council, taken from the authority's spending returns to Government, is as follows:

  Year

  Net institutional expenditure

  £000

  1978–79

  11

  1979–80

  11

  1980–81

  20

  1981–82

  41

  1982–83

  38

  27

  Year

  Net institutional expenditure

  £000

  1983–84

  46

  1984–85

  59

  1985–86

  60

  1986–87

  63

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grant has been made available to Kent education authority for the provision of nursery school places in Kent for the last 10 years that figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  Support for nursery provision is given primarily through unhypothecated block grant by central Government in support of all local authority services. Until 31 March 1990, the distribution of block grant was dependent on the grant-related expenditure assessment (GREA) which had a nursery component. From 1 April 1990 the distribution of block grant has been made by reference to the standard spending assessment (SSA) which has a component for pupils under the age of five.

  From 1981–82 to 1989–90 the figures for the nursery component of Kent's GREA were as follows:

  £ million

  1981–82

  4·16

  1982–83

  3·42

  1983–84

  3·82

  1984–85

  4·28

  1985–86

  4·16

  1986–87

  4·30

  1987–88

  4·76

  1988–89

  5·88

  1989–90

  6·97

  For 1990–91, the under-five block of the education element of Kent's SSA, which allows for the education of its pupils under the age of five (including nursery pupils), was £16·83 million.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many nursery school places have been made available in Kent by Kent education authority for the last 10 years that figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the number of nursery school places is not available centrally.

  The numbers of pupils in maintained nursery schools in Kent for the last 10 years are as follows:

  January each year

  Pupils on roll

  1981

  82

  1982

  85

  1983

  88

  1984

  79

  1985

  90

  1986

  84

  1987

  78

  1988

  81

  1989

  82

  1990

  80

  Primary Schools (Library Service)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on the state of school libraries and school library services in primary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The HMI report on 42 primary school libraries in 20 LEAs is not yet completed. When it is, the senior chief inspector will send it to the Secretary of State and it will be published in the usual way.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on the state of school libraries in primary schools and school library services for primary schools has been completed.

  Mr. Fallon
  HMI is conducting an inspection of 42 primary school libraries in 20 LEAs. HMI has no remit to inspect school library services. The report on school libraries is not yet completed and has not therefore been sent to the Secretary of State by the senior chief inspector.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost, in staff and resources, of the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on school libraries in primary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  As the HMI exercise inspecting 42 primary school libraries in 20 LEAs is not yet completed, it is not possible to provide the information asked for. Such information can be provided when the exercise and the resulting report are completed.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his plans for the operation of the assisted places scheme operating for parents of pupils in independent schools in the next academic year.

  Mr. Fallon
  The assisted places scheme, which has operated every year since 1981, will operate again in the academic year 1991–92 when a total of 33,450 places will be available. A statement about the annual adjustment of the parental contribution scales for the scheme will be made shortly.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines he has issued to local education authorities in England with regard to the provision of speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department issued circular 22/89 on "Assessments and Statements of Special Educational Needs: Procedures within the Education, Health and Social Services" in September 1989. This contains guidance on the need for authorities to work closely with district health authorities and social services departments on the provision of non-educational services.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will ensure that all statements of educational needs undertaken in England under the
  29
  provisions of the Education Act 1981 specify the need for therapies such as speech therapy, where such provision is relevant to the educational needs of the child.

  Mr. Fallon
  The form of statements of special educational needs is set out in the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983, as amended. These provide that statements shall specify the special educational provision which the education authority considers appropriate to meet a child's special educational needs. The preparation and maintenance of such statements is the responsibility of local education authorities.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to publish its second annual report.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority published its second annual report on 15 March. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on direct access from Manchester to the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  There will be road access via the M6, M1 or M40, M25 and M20. British Rail plans to operate direct daytime rail passenger services from 1994 and is looking into the possibility of running some services from north of London to connect with the inter-capital trains at Waterloo from the opening of the tunnel. It hopes to announce the location of the international freight terminal in the Manchester area later this year.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the statutory limit laid down on the amount British Rail may borrow under the terms of the Transport (Finance) Act 1982; by how much this has increased since then; what the original limit is, uprated for inflation ; and if he will now bring forward proposals to amend the Act both in line with inflation and the special circumstances of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's borrowing limit remains as set out in the Transport (Finance) Act 1982, at £1,100 million, extendable by order to £1,300 million. These figures have not been increased to take account of inflation. At 31 March 1990 BR's capital liabilities to the Secretary of State were £202·8 million. The need for increased borrowing limits for BR is kept under regular review.

  Ferries
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the International Maritime Organisation to consider the recommendation of its specialist sub-committee that a higher standard of residual stability should be applied to all existing roll-on roll-off passenger ships.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  During the fortnight commencing 12 May 1991.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Isle of Man
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help has been requested of the United Kingdom Government by the Isle of Man legislature or judiciary within the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government regularly receive, and respond to, a wide range of requests from the Isle of Man legislature and judiciary for information, advice and services, in some instances under reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. A central, chronological record of the number and exact nature of such requests is not kept.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the machinery for reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice.

  Mr. John Patten
  This will be among the matters to be considered by the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 14 March.

  Escaped Prisoners
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer on 25 February,Official Report, column 398, on recaptures of escaped prisoners, what sentence the escapers had been given; and how much had been served in each case.

  Mrs Rumbold
  Iketa Margarita Jackson was serving a sentence of four years' imprisonment and had served one year three months and 15 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Salamat Oluwag-Bemigun was serving a sentence of four years six months' imprisonment and had served two years three months and three days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Florence Amawuage Asore was serving a sentence of five years' imprisonment and had served two years and five months and one day, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Molly Donalds was serving a sentence of five years' imprisonment and had served one year and two days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Karen Rhoden was serving a sentence of eight years' imprisonment and had served one year and 13 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Patricia Weir was serving a sentence of six years' imprisonment and had served one year two months and 22 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 6 March,Official Report, column 158, on recaptures of escaped prisoners, what sentence the escapers had been given; and how much had been served in each case.
  31
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Mavis Mary Sasu was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and had served nine months and 14 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Mojisola-Ishodi Soetan was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and had served one year six months and 19 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Regina Morays Aina was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and had served two years and 15 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Aderinsola Abosede Agbabiaka was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and had served 10 months and 25 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Bernadette Ambrose was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and had served one year eight months and 27 days, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Kudi Balogun was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment and had served one year and eight months, including time spent on remand, when she absconded.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the differences in the methods before November 1990 and thereafter of recording recaptured or surrendered prisoners who absconded from open prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]The essential difference is that information is now collected centrally direct from prisons and stored on a computer. Previously it was collected and processed manually by each of the now defunct regional offices.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of his Ministers has been given responsibility for energy use by his Department; and what is his or her brief regarding energy efficiency.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) represents the Department on the ministerial group on energy efficiency, and is responsible for encouraging energy efficiency in the Department.

WALES

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about local government reorganisation in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about this, and we are considering them as part of the review of local government structure, functions and finance.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.
  32
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1988–89 current expenditure per pupil in secondary schools in Wales was £1,656. The equivalent constant price figure for 1978–79 was £1,168.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the distribution of transitional community charge rebates.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To date, my right hon. Friend has received 81 letters about the community charge reduction scheme for 1991–92.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of Welsh district councils to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 7 January.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average level of poll tax set, to date, by councils in(a) Mid Glamorgan and (b) Wales in respect of the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local authorities are required to submit details of their proposed budgets and community charge for the year to my Department but only some of this information has been received to date. Authorities have until close of play today to submit details of their budgets. They are required to submit details of their community charge by 31 March. I am aware of estimates suggesting that the average community charge for 1991–92 will be around £263. Such an outcome would be a disappointing response by local authorities in Wales to the excellent revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92 that I announced to the House on 17 January. If local authorities had budgeted to spend in line with my plans the average community charge level in Wales should not exceed £228; around £190 for counties and around £38 for districts.

  Charge payers will know that the responsibility for decisions leading to an average community charge of more than £228 falls squarely on those authorities that have failed to spend in line with the realistic and achievable plans I have announced for the coming financial year.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unemployment figures(a) in numbers and (b) in percentage terms, for men and women in Wales; and what were the figures in February 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The seasonally adjusted numbers of male and female unemployed claimants in Wales are 78,200 and 21,900. The rates are 10·3 per cent. and 4·1 per cent. respectively. Comparable figures in February 1990 for men were 63,000 and 8·3 per cent. and for women 21,000 and 3·9 per cent.

  Housing
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the rural housing situation in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  On 20 February my right hon. Friend announced that £3 million would be available in
  33
  1991–92 to assist in meeting the special needs of rural housing authorities. Additionally, Housing for Wales expects to spend almost £32 million providing 900 new units in rural areas. All this is in addition to the substantial amounts available for repair and maintenance of stock in the public and private sectors.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy initiatives he proposes to alleviate the Welsh housing crisis.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Housing in Wales will continue to benefit from the vigorous measures that we have applied consistently and successfully to increase home ownership in the Principality; to improve stock condition; to enhance partnership between the public and private sectors; to upgrade local authority management in the interests of tenants; and to increase the provision of social housing by housing associations. With these initiatives in place I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question.

  Universities Funding Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chair of the Universities Funding Council to discuss the allocation of funds to institutions in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The statutory responsibility for deciding allocations to the constituent colleges of the university of Wales rests with the Universities Funding Council, taking into account advice from its Welsh committee. It would not therefore be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to seek to interfere in the Universities Funding Council's deliberations on this matter.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken to encourage inward investment into Wales over the last 12 months.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Welsh Development International has continued to strengthen its activities. This has been reflected in record results for last year when 142 projects were secured promising some 16,000 jobs and capital investment of almost £640 million. I led an inward investment mission to Japan in November during which three new projects were announced.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for how long and for what reason the operating theatre of Machynlleth hospital has been closed.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for Powys health authority which advises that the theatre has been closed since September 1988. Theatre sessions were cancelled to meet the request of medical staff of neighbouring East Dyfed health authority, who had been undertaking the operations at Machynlleth for a number of years, for theatre equipment to be upgraded. This work has been carried out and following the appointment of a consultant anaesthetist the two authorities are in discussion about recommencing theatre sessions.

  Under the waiting times initiative, Powys health authority was allocated funds in 1990–91 to enable patients who would otherwise have been seen at Machynlleth to receive treatment at Bronglais hospital, Aberystwyth.

  Loft Insulation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of how many homes in Wales have loft insulation of 150 mm thickness.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will introduce for Wales a scheme similar to the greenhouse scheme in England to provide specific funds for local authorities for energy conservation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 25 January.

  Secretary of State (Flat)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the expenditure on the Secretary of State's flat at the Crown buildings, Cathays park, in the current financial year and, on the same accounting basis, for each of the previous four financial years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Annual recurring costs of rent, rates, utilities, cleaning and laundry, are subsumed in the Department's overall accommodation charges for the Cathays park building. The only separately identifiable expenditure since 1985–86 occurred in the current financial year and amounts to £1,531·16.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the principal items of consumer durables and kitchen equipment acquired for the Secretary of State's flat at Crown buildings, Cathays park, in the present financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Bed linen, a microwave oven, a television receiver and a video recorder.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased out of the Welsh Office hospitality fund in the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the main categories of expenditure covered by the Welsh Office's hospitality fund; and how much has been spent under each heading(a) in 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91 so far.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office's hospitality fund is not divided into separate categories of expenditure. The total amounts spent have been:

  (a) £38,397·87 in 1989–90; and

  (b) £40,998·96 in 1990–91 (to 11 March 1991).

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the total amounts paid by central Government as rate rebates, community charge
  35
  rebates and transitional relief for every year since 1975, including an estimate for 1990–91, in cash and real terms and as a proportion of total local government spending.

  Mr. Key
  The information available is as follows:

  Domestic rate rebates paid by central government

  Cash (£ million)

  In 1989–90 prices (£ million)

  Per cent, of local authority gross revenue expenditure

  England and Wales

  1975–76

  106

  355

  1

  1976–77

  114

  336

  1

  1977–78

  125

  324

  1

  1978–79

  134

  314

  1

  1979–80

  158

  317

  1

  1980–81

  219

  371

  1

  England

  1981–82

  304

  470

  2

  1982–83

  433

  625

  2

  1983–84

  1,009

  1,392

  4

  1984–85

  1,126

  1,478

  5

  1985–86

  1,219

  1,517

  5

  1986–87

  1,349

  1,624

  5

  1987–88

  1,391

  1,588

  5

  1988–89

  1,129

  1,201

  4

  1989–90

  1,210

  1,210

  4

  Initial claims from local authorities for community charge rebate subsidy and transitional relief grant in 1990–91 total £1,828 million and £260 million (£1,693 million and £241 million in 1989–90 prices) respectively. These figures represent 4 per cent. and 1 per cent. of the estimated local authority gross revenue expenditure in the year though due to changes in the system of local government finance these percentages are not comparable to the earlier years.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in cash per head of population for each local authority, the amounts allocated by central Government in(a) grants, (b) community charge rebates and (c) transitional relief for 1990–91, with an estimate for 1991–92, ranked in order of the community charge levied by each authority.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the available information for 1990–91 to be placed in the Library of the House. Information on community charge rebates and transitional relief grant for local authorities in 1991–92 is not

  Illustrative impact of capital value based domestic rates and local income tax

  Local income tax

  Capital value based domestic rates bill per property valued

  Rate in the pound

  Bill with taxable income of

  £50,000

  £80,000

  £120,000

  Pence

  £8,000

  £12,800

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  483

  773

  1,160

  6·7

  536

  858

  Carrick

  500

  800

  1,200

  6·9

  552

  883

  Kerrier

  488

  781

  1,172

  6·7

  536

  858

  North Cornwall

  474

  758

  1,137

  6·5

  520

  832

  Penwith

  454

  727

  1,090

  6·2

  496

  794

  Restormel

  469

  750

  1,125

  6·4

  512

  819

  Devon

  East Devon

  485

  776

  1,164

  6·7

  536

  858

  Exeter

  497

  795

  1,193

  6·9

  552

  883

  Mid Devon

  512

  820

  1,230

  7·1

  568

  909

  North Devon

  493

  789

  1,184

  6·8

  544

  870

  Plymouth

  481

  769

  1,154

  6·6

  528

  845

  South Hams

  481

  769

  1,153

  6·6

  528

  845

  36
  available while authorities are now in the process of informing the Department of their average community charge.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take against councils that fail to pursue individuals who have not paid the community charge.

  Mr. Key
  Charging authorities are required by regulations made under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to bill all chargeable persons in their area. They have extensive powers to enforce payment. If an authority decides not to enforce an outstanding charge and writes off the amount it will have to justify its decision to the auditor. Any amount properly deemed uncollectable must be taken into account when setting charges for future years. Failure to take effective enforcement action will only add to the amount that charge payers are required to pay in subsequent years.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by St. Helens metropolitan borough council.

  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, per head of relevant population in 1990–91 are £448 in St. Helens metropolitan borough council.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, for 1990–91 and 1991–92, he will list for each local authority in Cornwall and Devon the estimated capital domestic rates for properties with a property value of £50,000, £80,000 and £120,000 and rates of local income tax required, together with the resultant tax bill for a person with a taxable income of £8,000 and £12,800 implied by levels of local authority income requirements.

  Mr. Key
  The level of bills in a particular local authority area with a capital value-based property tax, or a local income tax, would depend on the precise way in which such a system was introduced.

  Illustrative figures showing possible bills in 1990–91 were placed in the Library on 4 April 1990. The table provides the information requested based on these figures. Comparable information for 1991–92 is not available.
  37

  Local income tax

  Capital value based domestic rates bill per property valued

  Rate in the pound

  Bill with taxable income of

  £50,000

  £80,000

  £120,000

  Pence

  £8,000

  £12,800

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Teignbridge

  527

  843

  1,265

  7·4

  592

  947

  Torbay

  594

  950

  1,425

  8·5

  680

  1,088

  Torridge

  497

  796

  1,194

  6·9

  552

  883

  West Devon

  484

  774

  1,161

  6·7

  536

  858

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for costs incurred in connection with the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  The community charge reduction scheme which replaces transitional relief will reduce personal community charges for about 18 million people in 1991–92. Local authorities will be reimbursed in full for the income forgone as a result of the scheme. In addition they will receive grant in respect of all reasonable preparation and administration costs.

  The proposals which I am announcing today are based on the framework of the current grant arrangements for the transitional relief scheme. This approach has been discussed and agreed with the local authority associations.

  Preparation costs will be reimbursed in full on the basis of the actual expenditure incurred, as confirmed by the authority's auditor. This will largely cover the modification of existing transitional relief computer software and related expenditure.

  General administrative costs, in particular dealing with inquiries, will be reimbursed at a flat rate of 15p per charge payer, with an allowance for higher costs in London.

  In addition to the flat rate per charge payer, local authorities will be reimbursed for the costs of administering the reduction scheme for residents of sheltered accommodation on the basis of a flat rate of 50p per resident of sheltered accommodation, with an allowance for higher costs in London.

  Applications for extra reductions will be reimbursed at the same rate as under the transitional relief scheme of £3 per charge payer, plus an allowance for London, for each application made, including the cost of dealing with unsuccessful applications.

  Where authorities send out bills without taking reductions into account and second bills have to be issued, the cost of printing and postage will be reimbursed at the rate of 50p each. This will not apply where the second bill relates to a substitute charge.

  Initial claims from local authorities indicate that preparation and administration costs for the transitional relief scheme will be close to provision of £21 million. On the basis of the proposals which I have announced today, the additional preparation and administrative costs grant for the implementation of the new reductions scheme would be about £10 million in total.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for(a) rate support grant per head, (b) business rate income per head, (c) total aggregate external finance and (d) spending per head for each county council in England.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 14 March 1991]: Community charges, revenue support grant and receipts from the non-domestic rate pool are not paid directly to individual authorities but rather into a collection fund operated by,
  38
  but separate from, the charging authority in each area. Shire counties precept upon this collection fund for their income. It is not possible to determine how much of their income is from each particular source.

  Budgeted expenditure in 1990–91 per head of relevant population for each of the shire counties

  £

  Avon

  787

  Bedfordshire

  851

  Berkshire

  797

  Buckinghamshire

  812

  Cambridgeshire

  768

  Cheshire

  802

  Cleveland

  987

  Cornwall

  778

  Cumbria

  802

  Derbyshire

  812

  Devon

  748

  Dorset

  673

  Durham

  783

  East Sussex

  686

  Essex

  742

  Gloucestershire

  756

  Hampshire

  713

  Hereford and Worcester

  697

  Hertfordshire

  748

  Humberside

  867

  Isle of Wight

  754

  Kent

  725

  Lancashire

  853

  Leicestershire

  830

  Lincolnshire

  730

  Norfolk

  704

  Northamptonshire

  814

  Northumberland

  743

  North Yorkshire

  725

  Nottinghamshire

  841

  Oxfordshire

  784

  Shropshire

  789

  Somerset

  780

  Staffordshire

  730

  Suffolk

  740

  Surrey

  668

  Warwickshire

  763

  West Sussex

  642

  Wiltshire

  744

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage of community charge payers who have so far paid their bills for each district in Kent.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]: The available information, returned by the local authorities is as follows:

  Percentage of personal community charge payers making a payment by 31 December 1990

  Per cent.

  Ashford

  95·8

  Canterbury

  97·0

  Dartford

  95·2

  Gillingham

  95·0

  39

  Per cent.

  Gravesham

  95·1

  Maidstone

  95·0

  Rochester upon Medway

  86·6

  Sevenoaks

  89·9

  Swale

  88·2

  Thanet

  83·2

  Tonbridge and Malling

  93·8

  Tunbridge Wells

  90·2

  In Dover and Shepway 87 per cent. and 85 per cent. of personal community charge payers had made a payment by 30 September 1990, respectively.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of the receipt of unemployability supplement in the calculation of entitlement to transitional relief and community charge benefit.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]: Broadly, the calculation of transitional relief is based on the difference between the domestic rates in 1989–90 and the community charge, although disabled people who are not former ratepayers and whose partner is not a former ratepayer may be entitled to extra transitional relief if on 1 April 1990 they met one or more of the conditions conferring the right to a community charge benefit disability premium. These conditions do not include unemployability supplement but a person in receipt of the supplement may meet the conditions, for example through receipt of attendance allowance. Community charge benefit takes into account unemployability supplement in the calculation of a claimant's net earnings.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the community charge figures declared by each district in England for the forthcoming year in ascending values.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]: I am arranging for the information for those local authorities that have, to date, made returns to the Department to be placed in the Library of the House. Until results are reported by all authorities it is inappropriate to place them in rank order.

  Chemical Incinerators
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives local authorities about when it would be appropriate for planning committees to grant planning permission to build chemical incinerators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Planning applications to build chemical incinerators will, like all development proposals, need to be considered on their individual planning merits taking account of relevant material considerations. The Government have not issued planning guidance relating specifically to chemical incinerators. However, work is in hand on the preparation of a planning policy guidance note on pollution and waste management which we plan to issue in draft for public consultation later this year. One of the issues on which we shall be consulting is the need for planning guidance on the location and siting of incinerators.

  St. Edmundsbury Council
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the figures available to his Manpower Watch Office for the staff of all grades employed by the St. Edmundsbury council in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is as follows:

  Staff employed by St. Edmundsbury district council (at June of each year)

  Year

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Total staff

  1985

  558

  157

  715

  1986

  567

  173

  740

  1987

  580

  188

  768

  1988

  616

  185

  801

  1989

  656

  196

  852

  1990

  678

  200

  878

  Leybucht Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the European Court of Justice judgment on the Leybucht bay case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 12 March. I am unable to give the judgment formal consideration until I have received the official English translation.

  Bloodstock Breeding
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land are used in the business of bloodstock breeding.

  Mr. Yeo
  No official statistics are available, but the industry itself has estimated that approximately 151,000 acres are in use for this purpose.

  World Wide Fund for Nature
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the 30th anniversary of the World Wide Fund for Nature to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 15 April to 19 April.

  Planning Circulars
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list, by date and title, all planning circulars published by his Department since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department of the Environment/Welsh Office index of current planning guidance (May 1990) includes a chronological list of planning circulars extant at 30 April 1990. The following Department of the Environment planning circulars have since been issued:

  9/90 (W.O. 28/90), Crime Prevention: The Success of the Partnership Approach;

  41

  14/90 (W.O. 20/90), Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines;

  15/90 (W.O. 36/90), Consolidation of the Town and Country Planning Legislation;

  22/90 (W.O. 55/90), Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Resolution, HMS Revenge and HMS Repulse have undergone full detailed inspection of their nuclear reactors and primary cooling circuits.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In common with all Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines, the nuclear propulsion systems of the Polaris submarine fleet are subject to continuous monitoring procedures and rigorous safety checks, and are inspected regularly in the course of the fleet's routine maintenance programme.

  Cadet Forces, Scotland
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what organisational or financial links his Department has with cadet forces in private schools in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD administers the combined cadet force (CCF) as a voluntary part-time force organised in schools and colleges and part of the national youth movement in the United Kingdom.

  Control of the CCF is exercised by the Defence Council through the three service departments which are responsible for the organisation, training and administration of the Royal Navy, Army and RAF sections of the CCF respectively. The MOD consults with representatives from the headmasters' associations and the CCF via the Defence Schools and Universities Policy Committee, the Inter-Services Cadet Committee and the Combined Cadet Force Association.

  The MOD provides grants to CCF contingents to cover general administration, training and travel costs.

  There are 14 CCF contingents in independent schools in Scotland, with a total strength of 2,600 cadets.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Ministers has been given responsibility for energy use by his Department; and what is his brief regarding energy efficiency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces has responsibility for energy efficiency within the Ministry of Defence.

  He chairs the steering group for defence energy efficiency, which determines overall energy efficiency policies and sets and monitors energy savings targets. He represents the Department on the ministerial group on energy efficiency, which oversees the Government-wide 15 per cent. saving campaign. The Ministry of Defence has a long-standing record of energy saving achievement and we are determined that this should continue.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to allocate a rateable value to Ministry of Defence houses in order to provide a base level upon which community charge reduction scheme rebates can be calculated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Eligibility for the community charge reduction scheme depends on the entry in the property valuation list for 1989–90.

  Tanks
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now proposes to announce the placing of an order to replace the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 7 March at columns 290–91.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his evaluation of the Challenger 2 tank is complete.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 4 December 1990 at column 158.

SCOTLAND

  Housing
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation making it unlawful for a person who buys a council house to subsequently sell that house, retain the profit, then take a new tenancy of a local authority house.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We do not believe that the type of case referred to arises on a significant scale and we have no plans to amend the legislation governing either the right to buy or the allocation of council houses.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households were registered on the local authority housing waiting lists in(a) Inverclyde district council, (b) Renfrew district council, (c) Strathclyde and (d) Scotland as a whole at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Reliable information is not held centrally.

  Foxes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the procedure for registration of a fox destruction society with his Department; and through which agency moneys allocated to such societies are disbursed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To qualify for registration a fox destruction society must satisfy the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department that there is a need for systematic control of foxes within a clearly defined area and that the society will undertake this control in a responsible manner. Payment of 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure of the society is made by the Department following scrutiny of audited accounts.

  Government Assistance
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all central Government assistance to Govan Initiative Ltd. since its inception, showing where possible specific allocations to specific purposes.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Central Government support for the Govan initiative is set out in the tables:

  Scottish Development Agency support

  Core funding

  £

  1 October 1987 to 31 March 1988

  16,250

  1988–89

  80,000

  1989–90

  80,000

  1990–91

  95,000

  Urban programme support for projects:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £

  £

  £

  Govan initiative training shop

  148,834

  143,627

  143,627

  Central Govan safe neighbourhood Project

  99,484

  182,109

  209,989

  Business and the arts Govan

  32,149

  36,710

  97,363

  Enterprise theatre—Govan

  —

  67,900

  785

  Training outreach bus for the unemployed

  —

  23,000

  —

  New technology training for the unemployed

  —

  19,850

  —

  Industrial development—Helen street

  —

  234,000

  —

  Business support unit

  —

  —

  45,894

  Security assistance for small businesses

  —

  —

  165,467

  Total

  280,467

  707,196

  663,125

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions his Department has reached following evaluation of reports submitted by Govan Age Concern; and what his policy is towards continuing support to this and similar organisations.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In 1986 the urban renewal unit considered a report by Strathclyde regional council on the work of Govan Age Concern as part of the regional council's application for extension of urban programme funding for the project. The report was sufficiently favourable to warrant approval of the extension application. The maximum period of urban programme support for Govan Age Concern ended in 1989. Since then the question of continued public sector support for the project has been primarily a matter for Strathclyde regional council. The question of public support for similar organisations is in the first instance a matter for social work authorities.

  EC Assistance
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what economic assistance Dumbarton constituency has received from the European Economic Community since 1985.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibilities Government have to ensure that schools in the private sector meet standards of education at least equivalent to those in state schools.
  44
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Independent schools are required by law to register with my right hon. Friend who must be satisfied that efficient and suitable instruction is being provided. For this purpose, independent schools are subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools before receiving final registration. Thereafter, they are subject to inspection on a continuing basis in the same way as schools managed by an education authority.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds in hospitals there were in the Argyll and Clyde health board in(a) 1979, (b) 1986 and (c)

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The average number of available staffed beds in Argyll and Clyde for the years ending 31 March is set out in the table:

  Number

  1979

  4,623

  1986

  4,386

  1990

  4,103

  ScotRail Land
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what land he has purchased from ScotRail within the past three years in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information as to the sellers of land purchased by the Secretary of State for Scotland is not always included in records maintained of land purchase transactions. Accordingly, to discover which land purchased by the Secretary of State within the past three years was so purchased from ScotRail, it would be necessary to examine individual case transaction files. As there are many hundreds of transactions involving the Secretary of State as purchaser, the relevant information in answer to the question could be obtained and provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Land Regeneration
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what programmes have been prepared by his Department to assist local authorities that have schemes to regenerate decaying areas of land and properties in their areas commencing in the year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Local authorities in Scotland receive support for their land and property renewal activities through Scottish Office general services allocations.

  In addition, there is a wide range of other bodies able to undertake or assist environmental renewal projects.

  The Government's main instrument for land and property renewal in Scotland is the Scottish Development Agency, which is able to allocate its own priorities and resources to undertake or assist environmental improvement and land reclamation projects. The work of the agency in this area will be continued, from 1 April this year, under Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, mainly through the local enterprise companies.

  The Countryside Commission for Scotland also undertakes projects for environmental renewal of decaying

  45
  areas of land, most notably through its countryside around towns programme, which is undertaken in conjunction with local authorities, the SDA, local voluntary bodies and UK 2000 Scotland. Detailed plans for the implementation of the central Scotland woodlands initiative, which aims to bring about substantial improvements to degraded landscapes in central Scotland, are currently under consideration by the Government.

  Historic Buildings and Monuments assists with work to repair buildings in outstanding conservation areas, both directly and with local authorities through its town scheme programme. Assistance for environmental improvement works is also available in certain circumstances from Scottish Homes, the urban programme and the European regional development fund to assist land and property renewal projects.

  There therefore exists a comprehensive package of support for environmental renewal in Scotland.

  Dentists
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dentists have left the national health service since the introduction of the new contract.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Between 1 October 1990, when the new contract was introduced in Scotland, and 28 February 1991, 75 general dental practitioners have resigned from the NHS; 13 have retired and 106 have been admitted to health board dental lists. The net effect is an increase of 18 general dental practitioners providing NHS general dental services in Scotland.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be publishing the Firn, Crichton, Roberts report on the woodland grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate

  Grade

  Scale minimum

  Scale maximum

  Salary maximum including performance pay

  £

  £

  £

  Unified grade 5 (Chief IPI)

  32,551

  36,997

  43,307

  Unified grade 6 (Senior IPI)

  24,997

  32,551

  38,610

  Unified grade 7 (IPI)

  21,905

  26,121

  31,150

  Higher executive officer

  12,367

  15,786

  17,835

  Executive officer

  7,286

  12,621

  14,259

  Administrative officer

  4,561

  9,278

  9,928

  Administrative assistant

  4,121

  7,574

  8,104

  Personal secretary

  7,834

  9,598

  10,270

  Part of the remit of a current staffing review of the inspectorate is to establish whether or not staff numbers
  46
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report is now available and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Water Grants
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what applications have been received from local water authorities in Scotland for water grants to enable them to meet EC water and sewerage requirements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]: Central Government grants are not specifically directed at EC water and sewerage requirements. From 1 April 1990, however, 90 applications have been received from Scottish water authorities for grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts 1944–70 which can include items for meeting EC standards. In addition, an application for sewerage improvement grant under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has been received from each regional and islands council in respect of its 1991–92 capital expenditure programme for sewerage, including EC-related works.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the staff complement that is considered necessary to discharge the duties of the Scottish pollution inspectorate; and how many vacancies currently exist;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report the grades and salary scales of officers in the Scottish pollution inspectorate.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 March 1991]: There are currently 13 professional and eight administrative staff in post in Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate in Scotland. There is one vacancy at unified grade 7 (industrial pollution inspector) level which we would anticipate filling shortly. The table shows grades and salary scales.

  are adequate to carry out its necessary work including that associated with new legislation. The salary scales of the inspectorate professional officers are also under review.

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

British Coal: Competition
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What explanation has been given to them by British Coal of its inability to compete in price with the products of coal industries located at great distances from this country.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, coal can he transported over long distances at very low cost. The cost of shipping coal from Australia, for instance, to European deep-water ports is currently £10 per tonne as compared with about £5 per tonne for shipping coal from the North East of England to the Thames. In addition, coal can be mined in countries with favourable geology, such as Australia, often at less than half the average pithead cost of British deep-mined coal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that interesting reply, is he really satisfied that it is appropriate to charge half as much for shipping coal from the North East to the South of England as from Australia to the South of England? Is that really an indication that the system is working properly?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not know whether it is a matter of appropriateness. It is a matter of the costs incurred by modern vessels transporting this kind of material over long distances.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the moment 12 million tonnes of cheap imported coal are entering this country, and that we have lost 12,000 miners' jobs as a result? The coal that comes in from abroad is quarried and not mined. Other factors influencing the price of imported coal are cheap labour and the fact that some foreign countries, especially those in Eastern Europe, subsidise their coal exports to this country. A permutation of these factors and the Government's connivance as regards the importing of cheap coal is killing off the British industry. Perhaps the Minister might inform his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter of some of those factors.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I agree with some but not all of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason. However, it is not the Government's policy to prevent coal users from purchasing from a source of their choice. Moreover, I do not believe that lack of competition would be in the best long-term interests of the security of the British coal industry. The best protection is to produce reliable supplies which are competitive in world markets. We estimate
388
that the amount of subsidised coal entering this country may be in the region of 3 per cent., although it is very difficult to obtain an accurate figure.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that there are many uncertainties attached to the importing of coal on a large scale; that, for example, at the moment US coal is only competitive on the British market because of the low value of the dollar? Polish and Russian coal have totally disappeared from the market because of the troubles in those countries. The Minister referred to Australian coal. Is he not aware that Australia mainly sends its coal to Japan and not to the UK? Other suppliers from time to time also have their problems. Is it not therefore desirable in the interests of security of supply that we have an adequate balance of UK sources as opposed to uncertain foreign sources?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, much of what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, says is true. We expect the electricity generators to appreciate the value of having a secure indigenous source of coal which is priced in sterling and is therefore not subject to the uncertainties of currency fluctuations.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are now importing coal from no fewer than 19 countries? In some of those countries, for example Colombia, child labour is employed. In other countries non-union labour is employed and, almost by definition, that means that production is low cost. Does the Minister agree that a number of countries are dumping coal in this country, despite the anti-dumping regulations? How can British Coal hope to compete in those circumstances?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is often difficult to establish the source of coal, particularly as much of it comes into Rotterdam and becomes European coal. It is for the European Commission to decide whether to investigate British Coal's complaint about dumping. The imports that are complained of currently amount to between 2 and 4 million tonnes per year out of total imports of 15 million tonnes. That compares with sales of about 90 million tonnes per year by British Coal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend break the news to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that Australian coal is not the product of cheap labour but rather of very expensive labour? It is also the product of efficient organisation.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. Moreover, far from being subsidised, I believe there is a tax on Australian coal.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it was the Government's view that we need a reliable supply which is competitive on world markets. It has been at least strongly argued that British deep-mined coal is,
"hopelessly uncompetitive at present world prices. Only two pits in this country would survive if their coal had to be sold at world prices".
Is it the Government's policy that only two pits of deep-mined coal should survive in this country?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, production from British Coal's opencast mines and its best performance deep mines is competitive with imported coal at inland power stations. British Coal is making remarkable progress in raising productivity and cutting production costs in its efforts to retain a significant share of the UK market. This move towards increased productivity will improve and it will help British Coal retain its share of the market, even as regards deep-mined coal.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that there are different qualities and grades of coal and that the coal mined here is among the best in the world, while the coal from Australia is of poor quality and can be used only for specific purposes? Is it not true that we are not comparing like with like in many cases?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood all of the question. It is true that there are variations in quality. One of the reasons for importing is that much of the imported coal is of low sulphur content.

Arms Exports: Safeguards
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consult other industrialised countries with the object of preventing the export from them of components of advanced weapons of war unless their ultimate destination is assured and acceptable.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we regularly discuss ways of combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction with our partners in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Australia Group, which aims to strengthen export controls on chemical and biological weapons. All applications for licences to export arms from the UK are considered on a case-by-case basis and are subject to rigorous scrutiny.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is it possible to devise a system to prevent re-export of such dangerous items to other countries with irresponsible regimes possibly led by megalomaniacs or fanatics?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that licences for the export of defence equipment are not issued unless the Government are satisfied that the customer is acceptable and that the end use will be as stated. In addition, a no-transfer clause may be inserted in contracts, especially government-to-government contracts, to prevent diversion of equipment to third countries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that in a recent NATO committee the United States, supported by Germany, proposed severe restrictions on the sale of arms, specifically to
390
third world countries, and that Her Majesty's Government and France opposed that proposal? Can he say whether that is true and if so why there was such an objection? Secondly, can he say whether the sale of arms was discussed in the Bermuda talks between the Prime Minister and President Bush and whether the British Government made any proposals, especially in view of the fact that it was the sale of arms to Saddam Hussein which was responsible for the Gulf war?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I regret that I do not know the answer to his first question. However, I can assure him that we are discussing the whole question of conventional arms exports with our partners in the Community and in other international fora such as the UN. The priority must be to place a choke on the equipment and technology relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Regarding the export of arms to Iraq, the noble Lord will know that we were asked to supply Hawk aircraft but did not supply them for the reasons I have explained.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I assist the noble Earl by telling him that the answer to the first question asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench is, yes? What my noble friend suggested might have taken place took place. In those circumstances will the noble Earl not accept that unless Her Majesty's Government take a more enlightened view on restricting the arms trade, particularly the trade in very dangerous weapons and nuclear components, the threat of nuclear war cannot be lifted but will become worse? Will the Government have another look at the issue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, we take the sale of weapons very seriously. That is why we were one of the founder members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. We were also closely involved with the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Australia Group.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, to set the record straight, while what the noble Earl said about the sale of aircraft to Iraq is quite true, is it not the case that we trained Iraqi pilots?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm the press stories of yesterday and today that the Prime Minister and President Bush are agreed that the Iraqi Government should be directed to get rid of their chemical weapons? Can he explain in full to the House how that squares with the evident intention of the United States to keep its chemical weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister commented on 8th February that through the United Nations we shall seek a commitment from Iraq to destroy under international

391
supervision all its ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction and not to acquire further such weapons.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while it is certainly right that there should be controls on the sale of weapons and that there may be new controls following the recent conflict, is it not the case that every country is entitled to the right of self defence and that that is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and ought to be preserved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I agree with him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that this very serious matter should be examined in detail in collaboration with our NATO partners and in the Security Council of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, discussions are taking place in international fora, for example, the UN, but there is further work to be done by all countries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, whatever decision is arrived at by Her Majesty's Government on this very important question, will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that that decision will be communicated to the Department of Trade and Industry together with the precise terms under which licences to export may he granted?
The Earl of Caithness; My Lords, the Department of Trade and industry is, and will continue to be, fully aware of its responsibilities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will special vigilance be exercised to control substances which may be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords. That is one of the objectives that we seek to pursue through the Australia Group, particularly with regard to the precursors.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, when the noble Earl says —as he did twice —that he does not know the answer to the question, do I take it that he will find out the answer and write to the questioner?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

Airline Failures: Passenger Protection
2.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce a levy to protect airline passengers in the event of the failure of any airline based in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the Civil Aviation Authority for advice on
392
an arrangement to protect scheduled airline passengers. No doubt a levy will be among the possibilities which the authority will consider. Airlines' charter passengers are already protected by the Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Scheme operated by the CAA.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while the present Secretary of State may be exculpated from all responsibility because of his short tenure in office, in the light of authoritative concerns can the Minister say why, when certainly one, and more likely a number of airlines faced failure long before the recent incidents occurred in connection with Air Europe, the Government have only just asked the Civil Aviation Authority to look into the possibility of a system comparable with that which applies to charter passengers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, until now the main risk was seen to be for charter passengers and the bonding scheme was designed to cover that. My right honourable friend has concluded that it is right now to review the position.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, that does not answer the question at all. Is it not a fact that there was very considerable reliable conjecture about the possibility of failure long before this event took place? Why was it only on the 11th of this month that the Government announced that they were asking the Civil Aviation Authority to investigate that possibility? Can he say whether the Government are considering introducing a provision similar to that which applies in the United States? An American airline in difficulties can seek protection relating to Section 11 administration and that enables its operations to continue while an administrator seeks to get the airline into a financially viable position. Does the noble Lord agree that that would be a very much better situation than the one that applies in this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, the number of scheduled airlines going bankrupt and leaving passengers in the position to which the noble Lord refers has fortunately been few. The US provision for protection under Chapter 11 is a different matter. We have our own insolvency procedures in the country which were introduced only a few years ago.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether a fail-safe insurance scheme, as I understand to be proposed by this Question, is in operation in any other country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of any other country which operates a system precisely as proposed by the noble Lord in his Question. There is some kind of scheme in operation in Australia. No doubt that is something at which the CAA will wish to look concerning the making of comparisons.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is no case at all to introduce a levy to protect airline passengers unless at the same time a

393
levy is introduced to protect shoppers who may have paid several hundred pounds in advance for, say, a three-piece suite or carpets, only to find that the firm in question goes bust a week later? The sums involved are much the same in either case. How can one justify protecting one set of consumers and not the rest?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. At one time or another we all run the risk of a supplier of goods going bankrupt. That is something with which we all have to live. However, it is worth while looking into this situation, as my right honourable friend announced.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there were at least as many failures of scheduled airlines during the time that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was the junior Minister responsible for these matters? No scheme came forward then and the Minister is therefore right to take care now.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware of that. My research did not go so far back. I must admit that I am more concerned with what can be done in the future rather than with what was done in the past.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is that in the case of goods from a shop one pays for them after one has received them whereas in the case of an airline one pays in advance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that that is necessarily so. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that people pay in advance for certain things and occasionally the firm goes bankrupt before they have taken delivery of the goods.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, seems to have taken too much milk of amnesia? The collapse of scheduled airlines took place on a substantial scale very much later than in my term of office? He is confused with Court Line, in respect of which action was taken. Does he further agree, as evidently he does, that there is a logical consistency in applying similar rules to charter passengers as those applied to scheduled airline passengers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord talks about the failure of scheduled airlines "on a substantial scale". I am not aware that there has been —in the noble Lord's own phrase —the failure of scheduled airlines "on a substantial scale".

The Gulf: Future of Coalition
2.55 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the coalition which fought the Gulf war will remain in being until the outstanding problems of the region are solved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are sure that members of the coalition which took such effective action to reverse the Iraqi aggression towards Kuwait will now turn their energies toward the other outstanding problems of the Middle East. These will require different, though perhaps no less difficult, remedies.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the severe problems which now afflict the people of that area, is the noble Earl aware that his reply is most encouraging and indeed very sensible? Does he agree that even if a cease fire is arranged this week the United Nations ought still to support the coalition, not only morally and politically but with other United Nations organisations, to try to help the afflicted people of that area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly we all wish to see a resolution of the problems in the area which are complex and diverse. We stand ready to play our part along with other members of the coalition.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House under what conditions the coalition forces would resume military operations? Is there any truth in the reports that Saddam Hussein is currently using chemical weapons? If that proves to be the case, would that be one of the conditions that would justify re-starting operations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have seen the reports but have not received any confirmation that chemical weapons have been used against the insurgents in Iraq. We have consistently made plain to the Iraqis that any use of chemical weapons would be viewed very seriously indeed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, at what point do the Government anticipate the removal of sanctions from Iraq? Can we expect sanctions to continue at least until Saddam Hussein has stopped bombing his own people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the sanctions were imposed by the United Nations. It is up to the United Nations to determine whether they should be lifted.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if the restructuring work of the coalition, which is urgently necessary, can be carried out, will it continue to have financial support from the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand the noble Lord's question about restructuring. There will certainly be a lot of finance needed to put some of the countries which have suffered back on their feet.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, one of the outstanding problems is the severe pollution in the Gulf, both at sea and along the coast. Can the noble Earl say whether this Government still support action to reduce that pollution? In other words, what are we doing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, we are certainly supporting the action that has been taken. So far as I am aware, we have made a contribution. This matter is being examined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that one of the great outstanding problems is the future of the present regime in Iraq? Does the coalition as such have any view on what is happening in Iraq at the moment? Do her Majesty's Government have any view on it? Do they have any information that the noble Earl would like to convey to the House about what is happening in Iraq? When American troops are moved up into forward positions does that mean that it is a movement of coalition forces or of US troops by themselves? Are other coalition forces involved, including British troops?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the situation in Iraq is somewhat confused and changes by the minute. Any coalition forces in that theatre of operations at the moment are there under the auspices of the United Nations.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in his reply to me on the subject of sanctions the noble Earl stated that they were a United Nations responsibility. What view are Her Majesty's Government putting to the United Nations as to what should happen; or have the Government no view?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are putting forward the view that we very much abhor what is happening at the moment in Iraq. We seek the earliest possible peace for all the countries in that area.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the bellicose actions and rantings of Saddam Hussein over the past few days, would not a withdrawal of allied forces from that area be the worst possible signal to send to that man at this time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are talking about a situation in an Arab country. It is very much for the Arabs themselves to sort it out. If they want any help from Britain and the coalition forces, I am sure that we shall be willing to play our part.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend's Question refers to the coalition. To what extent is the coalition as it now exists likely to be reinforced by other members of the European Community which do not seem so far to be very much involved in the coalition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Lord thinks that other members of the European Community have not been involved. They certainly have.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl clarify a response that he gave to me earlier? He stated that the coalition troops at the moment in the Gulf are under United Nations authority. I believe that that was the expression he used. As I understand it, the United Nations Security Council passed a series of resolutions in order to liberate Kuwait. Is it not the
396
case that Kuwait has been liberated but coalition troops are now in southern Iraq? In order to do anything in Iraq would there not have to be further resolutions from the Security Council?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are a number of coalition troops in that area. They are gradually being withdrawn, as the noble Lord will know, and matters are being discussed in the United Nations.

Business of the House
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (no two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages tomorrow. —(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Personal community charges: substituted amounts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page line 19, leave out from ("above") to ("the") in line 20 and insert ("shall not exceed the amount which results from the application of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 2.
When the Bill was considered in Committee, a number of noble Lords, notably and most eloquently the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, pointed out how impenetrable the wording of the Bill is. It is impenetrable not only because the subject matter itself is intrinsically difficult hut also because the Bill is framed as a series of amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Rather than reading the intention of legislation on the face of the Bill, reference has to be made continually to the text of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
In the course of a number of debates on the Bill, and notably in her opening speech on Second Reading, the Minister described the Bill as a measure to protect charge payers from the possibility that local authorities might not pass on, as she put it, the benefits of the poll tax capping procedures. When I challenged

397
her, I stated that of the authorities which had been poll tax capped last year, six had sought to reduce their poll tax by less than the amount required by Government, but eight had sought to reduce their poll tax by more than the amount required.
I have been reconsidering the question. I owe the Minister an apology. I believe that she stated to me on a number of occasions that it was possible for a local authority to reduce its poll tax by more than the amount set despite the rigidity of the formula set out in the Bill. Having apologised to her, perhaps I may say that she did not explain why. It is only by going back in detail since that time to the Local Government Finance Act that I have been able to read in Section 95(4) of that Act that there is indeed provision that the budget can be set lower and therefore that the poll tax can be set lower. I do not retract my apology in any sense in saying that the Minister could have made that clearer when she explained the matter to the House. I could have decided not to move the amendment. I believe however that the Minister should he given the opportunity to say why it is correct that the tax can be reduced by a greater amount when the budget is reduced by a greater amount.
When legislation is as complex and indirect as this measure, it is only right that in explanatory material the implications should be spelt out as clearly as possible. I am not the only person to have been confused by the wording of the Bill. It is clear from the debates in another place that the same mistake was made there. It could be that I am wrong and that my original arguments were correct. In that case I shall have to regurgitate the words that I have spoken and eat them again. It will be helpful if the Minister now sets out as simply and clearly as possible the position as she believes it to be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I find it very unusual that the noble Lord is not one up on me in the matter of information relating to the Bill. However, I am more than pleased to have the opportunity to elaborate on my answer to him in Committee when there were lively exchanges about whether the Bill would prevent an authority setting lower substitute charges than those implied by the budget reduction required by the cap.
This Bill would not prevent an authority resetting its charges, after capping, at a lower level than that implied by the budget reduction required by capping. There are two points here. First, there is, as I indicated in Committee, nothing to stop a capped authority reducing its budget by more than the cap requires. This is just what Hillingdon did last year. So too did Brent. The formula in the Bill ensures that the whole of that larger reduction is passed on to charge payers. Thus, as I said on 5th March, under the Bill, reductions in budget, whether the minimum to meet the cap or where the authority decides to go further, are fed through to charge payers.
Secondly, it remains entirely open to an authority—any authority —to set a substitute charge under Section 34 of the 1988 Act at a lower level if, for
398
example, it found that its original estimate of non-collection was unduly pessimistic and it wanted to pass on the benefit mid-year to its charge payers. That is the position now and the Bill does not change it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, again referred to the fact that last year a number of authorities cut their charges by more than the amount which he described as that "required". I assume that the noble Lord does indeed have in mind the exemplifications which we published. There seemed to be some doubt about that during Committee. As I then said to the noble Lord, it is wrong to suggest that these exemplifications represented the precise charge which capped authorities should have reset. Some authorities set higher charges than those exemplified, some set them lower and some set them at exactly the same level. The charges actually set could be lower if they reduced their budgets by more than the amount required to comply with the cap. That is the Hillingdon-Brent situation to which I have referred. They could also be lower than those exemplifications, depending on the precise population figures used by the authorities.
But the amendments proposed are not merely unnecessary: they are undesirable. The noble Lord has indicated that they are to be withdrawn. The formula would mean that there would be nothing to ensure that the authority does not put its collection fund in deficit. By prescribing exactly how much charges should be reduced after capping, the Bill not only provides certainty to charge payers; it also guards against the situation whereby an authority could by cutting charges unduly fail to get insufficient income to the collection fund and incur a deficit.
The Government could not countenance a situation in which all ground rules were abandoned. The formula provides both a ceiling and a floor on charges after capping. These amendments would put a hole in the floor while leaving the ceiling intact. We need to retain the safeguard so that an authority's basic duty of sufficiency is not put at risk. As I have indicated, the Bill as drafted does not prevent an authority from using Section 34 if it so wishes and where it is proper to do so to reduce its charges further. But that section expressly provides that an authority using it is subject to the duty to raise sufficient income.
Section 34 gives a local authority the power to reduce the charge by more if necessary. Section 35 puts the duty on local authorities to reduce the charge if the budget is reduced; in other words, if there is a reduction in the budget there must be a resultant reduction in the community charge. Under Section 95(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 local authorities are free to lower the budget. The cap refers to the budget level and not to the community charge level. Therefore, factor C which will be fed into the equation will be the degree to which a local authority has lowered its budget.
In conclusion, this Bill provides charge payers with certainty. The formula approach means that reductions in charges after capping can be predicted with pinpoint accuracy. This in turn means that charge payers in capped authorities will know exactly where they stand. It also means that there is a safeguard against tipping the collection fund into

399
deficit by overzealous charge cuts. But all this in no way cuts across authorities' existing powers to reduce their charges where, for example, they consider that they have been unduly pessimistic about their estimates of non-collection. These amendments are both unnecessary and undesirable. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to explain to the House why they should not be pressed. If they were pressed I should ask the House to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. It is a relief that I do not have to regurgitate my words. Having acknowledged that the Minister is right and that I was wrong about the wording of the Bill. I am bound to say that the political argument against it is as strong as ever.
The Minister is now making clear the fact that at any time a local authority can reconsider its budget if it finds, for example, that its collection rate is more favourable than it had thought or for any other reason under Section 34; it can adjust its poll tax accordingly. However, it cannot take into account factors which would force it to reconsider in the opposite direction. In other words, all the arguments that we put forward which sought to convince the Committee that it was had business practice for a business plan to be produced on out-of-date, inadequate or inaccurate information as is provided for in the Bill are not weakened by the Minister's further explanation of the Bill.
It is now said that if new information is forthcoming from one direction account can be taken of it, but if new information is forthcoming from another direction no account can be taken of it. I cannot believe that the control of local authority expenditure should be engineered by the Government in that way. Nor can I believe that the Government can seriously expect this to be a long-term solution. It denies all the principles of accountability on which the poll tax was originally posited. Indeed, I have no doubt that within the next few days we shall hear that the so-called principles of accountability are to be withdrawn. Let us hope that we are to have a more sensible solution to the problems of local government finance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. A number of noble Lords have contributed to the debate on this Bill and to the proposals made for its amendment. I thank them for that. I recall in particular the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone who suggested, with customary humility and good humour, that we all do the Lambeth Walk.
The Bill came to us from another place unamended and we have made no amendments to it here. It is an important measure to protect local people by guaranteeing that they derive the full benefit of the Government's intervention on their behalf to curb authorities' excessive budgets. I commend it to your Lordships.
400
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

Road Traffic Bill
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill marks a major step, along with the New Roads and Street Works Bill which has been before this House, in our determination to promote safety and efficiency in transport. It contains radical reforms to road traffic law. It also provides the basis for a key element in our policies for traffic in London; a network of priority routes to improve the movement of all types of traffic.
Road accidents are a major cause of death and injury in the United Kingdom. Every day 15 people are killed and 170 are seriously injured on our roads. That is an appalling toll. It is true that the number of casualties has come down by 14 per cent. since the peak in the mid-1960s while traffic has more than doubled. It is true that United Kingdom casualty figures compare favourably with those of our Community partners. But the waste of human life represented by those figures, much of it young life, the misery and suffering involved and the burden on the country's emergency and medical services should not and must not be tolerated in a civilised society. That is why we have set ourselves the target of reducing road casualties by one-third by the year 2000.
As was said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading in another place, the proposals in Part I of the Bill have the potential to make a valuable contribution to achieving that target. They implement the recommendations of the White Paper, The Road User and the Law, published in February 1989. This was the Government's response to the recommendations of the review of road traffic law carried out under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter North. My right honourable friend has already paid tribute to his work but I too wish to do so today.
The House will appreciate the law's vital role in promoting road safety. I have in mind the safety of all road users; that is, pedestrians and cyclists quite as much as drivers and their passengers. Without an effective code of road traffic law and thorough enforcement the toll on our roads would be very much higher. We must improve that law and make its enforcement even more effective if we are to ensure that the casualty rate is reduced. That is what the first part of the Bill is intended to do.
There are three approaches to improving road traffic law. The first is to ensure that the law contains a proper set of offences to deal appropriately across the range of bad driving and riding behaviour. We have addressed this. At the top of' the range we are reformulating the most serious driving offences. The existing offences are reckless driving and causing death by reckless driving. Application of these

401
offences in England and Wales has not always proved satisfactory. Convictions have depended on juries being satisfied as to the driver's state of mind at the time the act of bad driving took place; and that has proved difficult to establish. Therefore, we are creating new offences of dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving. These will be based on an objective standard of driving. It will have to be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
The Bill also contains important measures to deal with drink-driving. I know that there is concern about the need for an increase in police powers to breath test. I sympathise with the objectives. But I have to say straightaway that existing police powers are wide. At present any police officer in the exercise of his duty can require a vehicle to stop. If the police officer then has any reason to believe that that vehicle, which might have been stopped randomly, is being driven by someone under the influence of alcohol, the police officer can require a test to be taken. Therefore, there is an enormously wide discretion at present. Moreover the existing powers have brought about a reduction in the percentage of drivers and riders killed who were known to be above the legal limit from 33 per cent. in 1982 to 19 per cent. in 1989. Moreover there has been a tripling in the number of breath tests in the past decade; and the percentage of positive tests continues to go down. My honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic explained at Report stage in another place that in the Government's view the existing powers strike the right balance between the need for effective enforcement of the law and the freedom of the individual. It is clear that they are sufficient to do the job. I do not believe any change is needed.
This does not, however, mean that we are doing nothing on drink-driving. The new offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs will deal with the menace of the drink-driver who drives badly and kills. People who behave in this way must expect the most severe penalty.
This leads me to penalties. The new causing death when under the influence of drink or drugs offence will carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. This will also he the penalty for the new causing death by dangerous driving offence. The offence of dangerous driving will carry a penalty of two years' imprisonment, as does the existing reckless driving offence.
The Bill also contains two new types of penalty. Those convicted of the most serious offences will have to take a new, longer driving test as a discipline to see whether they should be allowed back on the road at the end of a period of disqualification. There will also be an experiment in rehabilitation courses for drink-driver offenders. There will be powers for this to be extended to a national scheme if the experiment shows that the courses have a significant effect on rates of re-offending.
Finally, the Bill contains measures to improve enforcement of the law through the more effective use
402
of camera technology to detect speeding and traffic-light offences. Cameras will be used where road safety benefits can be maximised. Their presence should have a major deterrent effect. This was widely welcomed in another place. The potential is enormous. It could lead to a reduction of as much as 5 per cent. in road accidents overall.
Before turning to Part II of the Bill I should perhaps spell out the main elements of Part I. Clauses 1 and 2 replace the existing reckless driving offences, as I have earlier explained, with new dangerous driving offences. These will be based more closely on the actual standard of driving. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the menace of drink-driving, in particular by the creation of the new offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. Clause 6 contains a new offence of causing danger to road users by placing or throwing of objects onto roads. This will deal, for example, with vandals throwing concrete blocks from bridge parapets.
Clauses 8 to 16 deal with construction and use. They provide new offences and extend the existing powers to test vehicles on roads and to prohibit the driving of dangerous vehicles. Henceforth, vehicles will be able to be tested on roads for conformity with all construction and use requirements including emissions. The powers of prohibition will apply to private cars as well as goods vehicles and public service vehicles and will, where there is a danger of injury to any person, he exercisable by authorised police officers as well as the department's vehicle examiners. Clause 16 deals with the sale of unroadworthy vehicles which has been of interest to this House previously, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It closes a loophole which has been exploited by unscrupulous dealers to escape conviction.
Clause 20, together with Clauses 22, 33 and 38, provide for the more effective use of camera technology. They make provisions as to the admissibility of camera evidence, provide safeguards by provision for approval of the equipment, simplify follow-up procedures through the fixed penalty system and clarify highway authorities' powers to erect structures to house the equipment. Proper enforcement, with proper safeguards, will bring valuable road safety benefits.
Clauses 26 to 28 make changes to the operation of disqualification and the penalty points system. In future people disqualified for a specific offence such as drink-driving will no longer have the penalty points from previous unrelated offences wiped from their licences. This will act as a reminder to them that they must act responsibly once their licence is returned. It will also encourage courts to make more use of their existing powers to order short periods of disqualification, for which provision is made in Clause 32.
Clauses 29 and 30 set out the arrangements for the rehabilitation courses for drink-drivers. The courses will be designed to influence offenders' attitudes to drinking and driving and to encourage self-examination. Offenders who complete courses successfully will be entitled to a reduction in the period of disqualification. The scheme will initially take the

403
form of an experiment in selected areas. We shall monitor the experiment carefully before deciding whether to embark on a full-scale national scheme.
Clause 31 places courts under a duty to order offenders convicted of the new dangerous driving offences to take a further, extended, test before being allowed back on the road. The test will probably be twice the length of the normal driving test and consequently more demanding. Courts will also have a wide discretion to order a re-test for people convicted of any other offences which carry obligatory endorsement.
Clause 39 simplifies the procedures for local authorities to vary parking charges at designated parking places; and Clause 40 deals with the power of local authorities in London to appoint parking attendants. Clause 41 provides an enabling power for variable speed limits to be imposed by order to be used; for example, during certain periods in the day.
Part II of the Bill contains a major package of traffic management measures to improve traffic conditions in London by making the best possible use of existing roads. The measures are highly relevant to the debate we had a little under two weeks ago on transport in London and the South East. They form part of the Government's broad strategic approach for developing transport in London so the capital becomes a better place in which to live and work and continues to make an important contribution to the national economy and the UK's international standing.
Under this strategic approach we are ensuring that central London commuters can travel efficiently, safely and in reasonable comfort by rail. We are backing a massive investment programme in public transport. Over the next three years London Transport plans to invest approaching £3 billion, 90 per cent. more in real terms than in the past three years. During this financial year alone British Rail's Network SouthEast is investing £350 million and has plans for substantial investment in the future. We are widening the M.25 so that road traffic which does not need to go through London does not have to. The main priority in our £1.9 billion trunk road programme in London is to up-grade the North Circular Road and provide better access to east London so traffic can avoid the central area and reach one of London's main areas of development. We are also supporting a further £1 billion of investment planned by the local authorities and the London Docklands Development Corporation to improve the quality of the road system and take traffic out of residential roads and local shopping centres.
Projects involving major changes to transport infrastructure inevitably take several years to complete. But the traffic management measures provided for in Part II of the Bill can be delivered in the interim. They will help the reliable and safe movement of people and goods, and both public and private transport. They will provide particular help to buses. In the short to medium term, greater use of buses is the only way of achieving a significant increase in the total capacity of London's public transport system, and the London Regional
404
Passengers Committee confirms that reliability of bus services ranks ahead of considerations such as cost, frequency and speed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport recognised buses' potential in helping to meet the ever-growing demand for these services when he launched the Government's consultation paper, A Bus Strategy for London, last week. The paper sets out our plans for the deregulation of the London bus market together with a range of proposals aimed at making bus services in London more attractive to passengers. These proposals include action to review the circumstances in which bus lanes are appropriate and support for London Transport's full review of existing bus priority measures.
The traffic management provisions of the Bill consist of two main elements. First, we are introducing a coherent network of priority routes. These routes will be subject to special controls on stopping, loading and unloading, which will be strictly enforced, with appropriate penalties for noncompliance. They will be managed by the traffic director, who will have responsibility for the efficient operation of the network. There will be special provision for buses, where congestion causes particular problems at present. And it will be possible to make room for better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
The network will be based on existing main roads providing the best routes for longer distance travel in London. These roads are covered for most of their length by blanket yellow line and waiting restrictions. Because of the way these restrictions have grown-up, life would be intolerable for everyone if they were enforced uniformly. But they are not. Drivers treat selective enforcement action as an occupational hazard, and the result is congestion. The new priority routes will overcome these difficulties. The controls will be carefully planned; priorities will be balanced; as much provision as possible will be made for the legitimate needs of residents and traders, and enforcement will be consistent. Action on these routes will provide the essential starting point for improvements across London. It will provide the opportunity to introduce measures to keep traffic out of residential areas. This will have safety benefits.
This part of the Bill will also provide for a radical change in the arrangements for enforcing parking controls in London. The Bill already provides for a new system of "permitted" parking, mainly at meter bays and residents' bays, under which offences are decriminalised and enforced by the local authorities. The local authorities will be able to use the revenue from these charges to finance enforcement and better parking facilities. To help this enforcement, their parking attendants will have powers to wheelclamp vehicles parked in breach of the orders.
In addition, at Report stage in the other place, my honourable friend the Minister for Road and Traffic indicated his sympathy with proposals from honourable Members to allow London local authorities an even wider measure of responsibility for enforcing parking controls. He explained that the Government had developed the outline of a scheme under which

405
there would be a further rationalisation of the distinction between illegal and "permitted" parking controls. This would acknowledge the strategic importance of traffic flows on the main roads and the responsibilities of the local authorities to their residents. The idea is that illegal parking on the main arteries, and certain roads serving them, should continue to attract criminal penalties and be enforced by the police and their traffic wardens. Off these roads, where traffic and parking raises particular environmental and residential issues, it would then be for the local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to establish "designated" parking areas. Inside these areas most non-endorsable illegal parking offences could be decriminalised and enforced by the local authorities.
I can report that good progress has been made with developing the scheme and I hope to be able to table suitable amendments for the Committee stage in this House as soon as possible. The two elements of this part of the Bill are complementary. Decriminalising a number of parking controls in London and transferring responsibility for enforcement to the local authorities will enable the police and their traffic wardens to concentrate on enforcing illegal parking controls on the priority routes and certain roads of strategic importance which support them. Good enforcement of these routes will be crucial to the routes meeting their aims. Better enforcement overall will help to improve environmental and safety standards and will contribute to an all round improvement in traffic conditions in London.
On the detail of Part II, Clause 44 gives the Secretary of State the power to designate a network of priority routes to ease the flow of traffic on London's main roads. Clause 45 gives the Secretary of State power to issue new traffic management guidance to London's local authorities and the traffic director for London. The guidance will focus on the Secretary of State's aims for the network and explain how the routes fit into the Government's approach to the development of transport in London. Clause 46 gives the Secretary of State power to appoint an independent traffic director for London to co-ordinate the establishment of the routes and monitor their operation. It also gives the Secretary of State power to set the director's objectives.
Clause 47 requires the director to issue a network plan to the London local authorities setting out the overall framework for the routes, the way in which the priority route measures are to be introduced and the timetable for their introduction.
Clauses 48 to 56 cover the preparation and implementation of local plans, which will set out in detail the priority route measures to be introduced. There will be a duty on relevant London local authorities to prepare and implement plans for priority routes for which they are the highway authority. The plans will need to be approved by the traffic director. The director will have a similar duty to prepare and implement local plans for trunk roads designated as priority routes where he is directed to do so by the Secretary of State. The traffic director and
406
the Secretary of State will have fall-back powers where the local authorities fail to meet their duties. However, the implementation of the network will be very much for the benefit of all London's residents, so we are looking forward to the local authorities' co-operation and envisage the fall-back powers being used only as a last resort.
Provision is made for extensive consultation on the designation of the priority routes, the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance and the series of priority route plans; and the plans will be implemented through the exercise of existing highways and road traffic regulation powers in accordance with established procedures.
Clause 57 requires the Secretary of State to issue parking guidance to local authorities in London to assist them in co-ordinating their action with respect to parking in London. The aim will be to help them avoid distortions between one area of London and another, to maximise the benefits of the priority routes and to improve the movement of traffic throughout London. Part of the guidance will cover the introduction and operation of the new system of "permitted" on-street parking in London and the arrangements for "designated" parking areas, which in future we shall be referring to as "special parking areas".
Clauses 58 to 68 make provision for the new system of "permitted" parking in London. They provide for a joint committee of London authorities to set standard penalty charges and charges associated with wheelclamping and removal, and to appoint parking adjudicators to whom aggrieved drivers may appeal. Further clauses will be tabled to provide for the introduction of "special" parking areas in London.
Clause 70 provides for the Secretary of State to make grants to the traffic director to cover the reasonable expenditure he incurs in relation to the priority routes. As the local authority roads in the network will comprise only about 30 per cent. of the total, and the work on these roads will be for the benefit of the network as a whole, it is proposed that the director will make appropriate payments to the local authorities from the grant.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said at Second Reading in the other place that the Bill would make an important contribution to the efficiency and safety of transport, both in London, through the major programme of the easing of congestion, and nationally, through the reform of road traffic law. That has been widely accepted. I should mention here the welcome given to the Bill by important commentators such as the AA and the RAC, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. There is no doubt that the Bill is a major step forward in transport. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
3.40 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the Bill and join with him in expressing appreciation to all those engaged in the North Report on which, in most material particulars, the Bill has been based. We certainly support the Government in their concern about road safety as expressed in Part I of the Bill; but we believe that, so far at least, opportunities for a much more radical approach have been missed. Accordingly, our purpose will be to improve this part of the Bill.
We are unhappy about many aspects of Part II which deals with traffic conditions in London. We dislike the centralisation of extra power for local highway authorities into the hands of the Secretary of State. We believe that, quite apart from a number of serious omissions, the thrust of the Bill in a number of material ways is wrong. We shall address these matters in detail in Committee. There is a clear need to take action at least to mitigate the huge toll of death and injury occurring on our roads day in and day out, as the Minister has eloquently stated. Although, as he said, our record is better than that of many other countries, 5,000 deaths every year represent individual human tragedies and family catastrophes. Clearly, there is absolutely no room for complacency.
Over the past 10 years 62,000 deaths have occurred on the road, most of these attracting little or no attention from the media, except in the kind of circumstances we experienced last week. During the same period there have been 1,000—it is true that it is 1,000 too many—deaths on the railways to which a great deal more media attention has been directed. The appalling accident on the M.4 which took place only last week accounted for the deaths of 10 people, and 25 people were injured, many of them seriously. In the context of this Bill it is not inappropriate to raise a number of questions concerning that accident.
Does it really make any sense for the police to argue that there was no need to operate fog warnings on the ground that the fog was evident to all drivers approaching the scene of the accident? If that is the situation, why on earth have fog warnings at all? In such weather conditions why is it that there were not more police available to warn drivers of the dangerous conditions? What was the position in relation to warnings of speed limitation? Is it not a fact that the Government have received a number of warnings from the British Safety Council on the risks attaching to liquid gas carriers on the motorway, particularly as to their speeds? What has been done by the Government about these warnings, bearing in mind that even more horrendous consequences might have occurred if one of these liquid gas carriers had caught fire in the M.4 tragedy? Why do the Government draw such a distinction between rail and road accidents of this character by failing or refusing to establish a full committee of inquiry into what has occurred? There are many lessons to be learned and an independent inquiry, given suitable terms of reference, could be invaluable. These are matters that we can test as we consider the details of the Bill.
408
Having said that, may I say that in principle we welcome the new offences to be imported into the criminal law by this Bill. From our point of view the crucial tests for their efficacy will be, first, will more severe penalties have a real effect in reducing road accidents and, secondly, can we be satisfied that the existing laws are being properly enforced, let alone new ones? There are many other elements in the Bill that we support, and in particular the concept of corporate liability. I ask the Minister: why confine it to cases where the company is compelled to reveal the identity of its driver involved in an accident? Is there not a very strong case to extend corporate liability to other offences involving heavy goods vehicles? We contend that criminal liability should not always rest alone with the driver.
The facts speak for themselves. The incidence of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled is 1.7 in the case of cars and twice as many (3.4) in the case of lorries. In 1989, of 88,000 heavy goods vehicles tested at the roadside no fewer than 15,000 were prohibited from continuing journeys because of defects involving criminal offences. There were many others that were not discovered. In October 1989, of 5,500 lorries stopped in London, one in 10 was found to be unlicensed: of 100 lorries mechanically tested no fewer than 50 per cent. were found to be defective. Fines in relation to offences of the character I have been outlining were generally hopelessly inadequate, the average being about £150.
The activities of far too many cowboy operators are bad for responsible operators, bad for fair competition and bad for the environment. That has been fully recognised by the Road Haulage Association in representations which it has made to Members of this House. It wants tougher action. It wants vehicle confiscation to try to stop activities that have given rise to such things as fly tipping, the abuse of regulations relating to drivers' hours, the avoidance of vehicle excise duty and serious environmental nuisance. There are no provisions in the Bill affecting these matters despite the fact that they were strongly recommended in the North Report. Why?
I turn to the issue which the Minister naturally anticipated and which will figure prominently in our debates on the Bill. I refer to the question of random breath testing. That idea is supported by the overwhelming majority of professional organisations. It is true that the RAC and, perhaps not altogether surprisingly, the National Licensed Victuallers Association—one of the most consistent opponents of change—side with the Government in their opposition. Even the Home Office consultation paper on changes to the breath testing legislation reveals that out of 3,400 replies 3,000 favoured additional powers to be given to the police in the form of random breath tests. We support those views. Unlike the Government in another place, we shall propose a free vote on this issue which will apply to our own side. Therefore, we hope that the Government will do likewise.
Although we shall he canvassing the arguments in greater detail at Committee stage, perhaps I may refer to the prime points on which we rely. First, no less than one in six road deaths in 1989 arose from

409
accidents which were drink related and in which 840 people were killed and 22,000 injured. That is a truly terrible toll. As the Minister has indicated, each fatal accident costs a great deal of money; namely, about £600,000. The total bill for drink-related driving is estimated to represent more than £1 million a day. Those are not the most essential arguments; they relate to the toll as far as families and individuals are concerned.
A Gallup Poll carried out by the General Accident Insurance Group in 1990 revealed that 30 per cent. of all drivers and 41 per cent. of business drivers admitted to drinking and driving. Of course it is right to say that there is a balance to be struck between civil liberties and extending police powers, as indeed there was when Parliament debated the compulsory wearing of seat belts. The liberty of citizens to be protected from the irresponsible behaviour of the driver whose judgment may be impaired by drink or drugs is quite as important as that of the driver himself. All such drivers have an option. They can choose between drinking and driving, but they should not choose to do both.
The second point is that the Government's target is to effect a one-third reduction in road deaths and a reduction of 2,000 in the number of injuries. I would contend that the Bill is not adequate in seeking to accomplish those aims. No reduction is proposed in the legal limit; that is to say, retaining 80 mgs. of alcohol in 100 mls. of blood. I believe that 50 mgs. would be more consistent with achieving the Government's aims. The main factor in diminishing drinking and driving is the risk of being caught, and that is not aided unless the target is accompanied by the application of more resources to attack the problems of drinking and driving. Sir Peter Joslin, the Chief Constable of Warwickshire, said:
"The best way to prevent motorists drinking and driving is to increase the perception of the risk of being caught".
I think he is right. What we want therefore is a real attempt, which will help to change attitudes, rather than to rely on criminalising motorists. But the trouble is that at present the chances of being caught for drinking and driving are very low indeed—about 250 to 1 against.
The Government's approach seems to represent something of a logical dilemma for them. They oppose random breath testing on the grounds that it is unnecessary—that the police already have sufficient powers. On the other hand, they seem to be opposing it in principle. They cannot have it both ways. What is abundantly plain is that they have not convinced the public; they have not convinced all police authorities that the powers are sufficient, because different powers are used in different places; they have not convinced the large number of organisations to which I have made reference; and they have failed to convince 10 Members of another place on their side who voted against the Government on an amendment at Report stage to introduce random breath testing.
Moreover, the idea has been tried—and not found wanting —in Finland, Australia, Sweden and in many states of the United States of America. It is a pity that
410
in so many cases Britain has lagged behind others in introducing vital road safety reforms—the wearing of seat belts, the wearing of helmets by motorcyclists, breath testing, child restraints. Why does it have to be the same as concerns random breath tests? I suspect that we shall follow. Whether we do it in the course of this Bill or at another time remains to be seen, but we shall follow.
I am also disappointed that, notwithstanding the recommendations made in the North Report and the Government's own White Paper, the Government have failed to introduce in the Bill a provision to cover "temporary incapacity due to fatigue, somnolence, or temporary disability". Fatigue, like drink, is a killer.
During the passage of the Bill through another place the Government claimed that it would be impossible to police this provision effectively. The fact is that lorry and coach drivers particularly are exposed to working unsociable hours, often 10 to 12 hours on end, quite illegally. Self-employed drivers have something of an economic incentive to do this, but we should not underestimate the danger that this represents not only to themselves but to other road users. Employed drivers come under pressure from irresponsible employers. Perhaps at a later stage I shall be able to reflect in some detail about some of the experiences I had as Transport Commissioner in dealing with this issue and when the Commission was irresponsibly defeated in its proposals by 12 member states thinking that they could get away with loose regulations in this regard. However, I shall not weary the House with that now.
Of course, the provision of sufficient resources to police the law goes without saying. Those resources have not been made sufficiently available. We shall press the Government vigorously on this point. But action also needs to be taken to ensure that facilities are made available to lorry and coach drivers to enable them to rest properly at service stations on motorways where, all too often and quite disgracefully, they are even denied access. That is not good enough in terms of safety.
I turn next to an issue which has been raised in this House on several occasions. I refer to dispatch riders. We all know that the incidence of irresponsible drivers weaving in and out of static and moving traffic is much more than a daily occurrence, and that by and large it goes unpunished. Again, I recognise that this situation is quite difficult to police and so I would recommend most strongly that the House considers whether insurance should continue to be available to motorcyclists and others engaged in dispatch riding while they hold only provisional licences. That is a matter we can come back to.
I refer next to seat belts. We welcome the news that the Government are proposing to extend the scope of the relevant subordinate legislation requiring adults to use rear seat belts. But why are the Government not a little more bold? In 1988 more than 500 school children, mostly seated at the time, were killed or injured in road accidents involving coaches and mini-buses. Why not, therefore, extend the requirement for children under the age of 14 to wear seat belts

411
where these are fitted in cars? Why not apply a similar requirement for school mini-buses at the very least, new mini-buses?
Hand-held car telephones can represent a danger if they are used while the car is moving, particularly on motorways. While it is true that the present law catches some offenders whose attention can be diverted from the road when these instruments are in use, we believe that a specific offence of using such telephones in conditions where it may be dangerous so to do should be imported into the Bill.
I turn, very briefly, to speed limits. I ask the Minister why it is that coaches in the United Kingdom should be permitted to travel at 70 mph on motorways, whereas they are confined to 60 mph in virtually all other European Community countries. Why should coaches, like heavy goods vehicles, not be banned from using the third fast lane on motorways?
As concerns the driving test, certainly some progressive moves have been made in the Bill and the question of refresher tests or probationary driving is something that we shall pursue in Committee. It might be of value if we were to consider the French example in this regard, where somebody who passes the test is subjected to a probationary period of around six months before obtaining a full licence. In that period the driver can gain experience of driving on motorways and dual carriageways. That can be invaluable. I believe that there is a strong case for the mandatory retesting of offenders. It is disappointing that the Government have failed to implement all the North recommendations in this regard. We support the ideas advanced by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, known as PACTS, which I commend to the House, but I shall not go into the detail now. I repeat, however, that many of the objectives that have been set by the Government are those that we support. We shall do our best to improve those provisions where, in our judgment, improvement is required.
I turn briefly to Part II of the Bill. The Minister claims that this mirrors what he called a "broad strategic approach" on the part of the Government. Rather it is an approach based on palliatives. We would contend that far too much centralisation and too little accountability to local electorates is a continuing theme of this Government's policy in this part of the Bill. This has been applied most particularly to the so-called red routes. We want to see parking regulations enforced more effectively. We want to see better provision of bus services and facilities for cyclists and for pedestrians. Above all, we want to see London provided with a proper, accountable, strategic, planning authority, dealing with all modes of transport in London; an authority that is capable of introducing a comprehensive and integrated approach to provide for commercial transport needs and deliveries, for good quality and affordable public transport and for a cleaner, safer environment. These are all arguments that we deployed in the debate on 6th March on London and the South East.
London is the only capital city in the European Community where so much power lies in the hands of
412
central government and where there is so little accountability to the local electorate. Why has London been singled out for treatment of this kind? These powers are now to be substantially extended by giving the Secretary of State and the traffic director far more draconian reserve powers than ever before and with direct powers of intervention. What is not provided is a policy that will deal with the increase in road traffic anticipated by the Government themselves —80 to 142 per cent. by the year 2025— with all the burdens that that will impose on government expenditure, and the problem of additional congestion and its attendant economic and environmental costs, to say nothing of safety.
Roads are not able to cope with those problems. Red routes cannot cope. Therefore one has to ask: what are the Government proposing to do to limit the use of cars? If the Government are really serious about parking enforcement, then they should do something effective to promote rationalisation of the present unsatisfactory system. However, they have chosen not to do so. My colleague and noble friend Lord Underhill will deal with our proposals to improve the traffic warden service and its training.
What is clear above all is that red routes do not represent a strategy for London, as claimed by the Minister. They were designed to speed up traffic and to invite reluctant motorists to use roads rather than the Underground or the rail services, which are of course in an appalling state. Red routes will do nothing to reduce the volume of traffic coming into central London. We tend to agree with the original view taken by the Department of Transport when, in October 1989, it informed local authorities that it saw,
"few benefits and many difficulties"
with the red routes concept. However, six weeks later —and not uncharacteristic of this Government—the department went on to adopt this policy in its document, Traffic in London.
Our four main areas of concern are as follows. First, the Government's overriding priority is not balanced; it decisively favours the speeding up of traffic, inadequately balancing that need with those of residents and businesses. There has already been a serious decline in turnover revealed in the pilot route in Islington. Therefore, one has to ask: what other steps will the Government be taking in the near future to promote similar pilot studies? Will traders continue to suffer?
Secondly, we believe that the draconian powers of the traffic director are unaccompanied by any proper accountability. Thirdly, it is clear that there has been inadequate consultation. A provision is to be made for the boroughs, the police and London Transport to be consulted—but not those who are most directly affected until, of course, the final traffic orders are made. That is simply not right. Fourthly, we are concerned about the extent of the reserve powers held by the Secretary of State and the Traffic Director over local authorities. That is an issue which needs to be reconsidered.
I turn now, albeit briefly, to deal with one or two further points. I shall begin with parking meters. There is a need to harmonise the parking meter

413
systems and tariffs in the 33 different London boroughs. At present, one cannot tell, from one borough to the next, what coins are needed, the periods in which coins can he used or the type of meter used. Incidentally, would it not be worthwhile taking up the suggestion made in another place, that placing parking meters all around the M.25 would enable substantial income to be derived because of the traffic jams which occur in the area?
We believe that the needs of cyclists and pedestrians must properly be taken into account, especially as regards the priority network. Finally, there are the disabled. In our judgment inadequate safeguards have been imported into the Bill to protect the interests of disabled people, particularly their special needs for parking while shopping or undertaking other business in red route areas. We are not satisfied that the present law suffices in this respect. We argue that the orange badge parking scheme should be recognised in all boroughs in central London by permitting disabled people to park without charge or time limit at meter bays. In no way would that provision pre-empt discussions concerning claims that the badge should be recognised in full. We say that the Bill provides the opportunity to penalise those able-bodied people who seek to abuse the orange badge scheme.
We also say that there should be an offence of parking on the pavement. That is something which specifically affects blind people. Moreover, although the Bill provides that orange badge holders cannot have their vehicles wheel-clamped—a policy we fully support—we also believe that that matter needs to be made especially clear to the wheel-clamping enforcement agencies.
I conclude on this note. Part I of the Bill is good, but it could be much better. We shall seek to achieve that objective. We hope that the Government will strive with us in that regard.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, noble Lords on all sides of the House will be grateful to the Minister for the detailed way in which he introduced this great compendium Bill. I believe the fact that so many people have put their names down to speak in the debate is a tribute to the noble Lord's achievement in having brought the Bill forward. Normally, when we come to deal with transport matters in this House, the Chamber is almost empty, the television cameras have been switched off and the lights are in the process of being dimmed. However, that is usually before I rise to speak. I have no doubt that on this occasion the prospect of hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord 13raybrooke, is the reason for the cameras still being in place. We all look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Any measure which helps to reduce accidents on our roads will be welcomed by Members from all sides of the House. To the extent that the Bill succeeds in so doing, it is welcomed by my noble friends and myself. Therefore, in general, Part I of the Bill will be supported.
414
Before dealing with specific clauses, I should like to make two broad comments. The first is on the subject of breath tests, which will no doubt take up a fair amount of our time. The second is of a more general nature. There is obviously great pressure from all sides to include provision for random breath testing in the Bill. Large numbers of organisations across the whole spectrum of associations interested in road traffic have said that they would like that provision to be included. The purely libertarian argument will be put forward against the introduction of such tests. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has returned to the Chamber; no doubt he will draw our attention to that argument in due course. However, I believe that the libertarian argument has already gone out of the window in the sense that the police can carry out almost any test they wish at almost any time. Therefore, the powers already exist de facto.
Nevertheless, sections of the police want provision for random tests included in the Bill. I wonder whether that will improve or worsen relations between the police and drivers. It would be most unfortunate if the imposition of random tests was to worsen relations. Of course, the ultimate question is whether it will reduce the number of road casualties.
We should also ask whether the resources will be available to do more than is being done at present. I believe that we have a right to consider that question if we are to press for random breath tests in the Bill. Perhaps, therefore, noble Lords will understand from what I have said why I remain somewhat agnostic, although on balance slightly on the side of including such breath tests. My noble friend Lord Falkland who will be speaking at the end of the debate also takes an agnostic position but is, I think, marginally against their inclusion. We wait to be persuaded by the debates which will take place. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, this is not a matter upon which there are party divisions. The noble Lord said that there will be a free vote on his Benches. I point out to him that there are always free votes on our Benches. However, on some issues there is no party line; this is one such case.
The general issue to which I should like to refer is the question of resources in relation to the whole Bill. It serves no purpose for us to put laws on the statute book if they will not he adequately policed. Since the traffic division of the Metropolitan Police was decentralised in 1985, about 800 of its members have left the force. So there are not enough officers now, let alone enough to cover the additional duties likely to be imposed as a result of the provisions of the Bill.
The presence of police on the motorways is another point at issue. I drove down from Nottingham yesterday having attended a certain conference about which some noble Lords may have heard. I was most conscious of the fact that many drivers were exceeding the speed limit. I believe that I saw one police car during the journey. It is people's perception of the fact that they are not likely to be caught breaking the law which affects their attitude. We can put as many laws as we like on the statute book, but they will he abused if they are not adequately policed.

415
The same thought occurs to me in relation to vehicle examiners. Clause 15 replaces Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On page 12, at line 13, Section 72A of the 1988 Act is replaced. It provides:
"The Secretary of State may provide and maintain stations … where inspections of goods vehicles for the purposes of section 72 may he carried out".
First, I should have thought that the Secretary of State "shall" provide would he a better wording, but we shall doubtless deal with that point later. Again, will the Secretary of State provide the resources to ensure that vehicle examiners are in place to carry out the Bill's provisions?
I deal now with specific clauses. Clauses 1 to 4 are greatly to be welcomed. They clear up a number of ambiguities in the light of experience. I have no doubt that magistrates will be glad to have the ambiguities removed. We greatly welcome Clause 6, which is what might he described as the sabotage clause, in that we hope that it will prevent or catch up with offenders who go in for the extremely dangerous practices of dropping objects onto the roads from bridges and of leaving items on the roads, causing obstruction and serious accidents. I wonder whether the provisions should include Scotland and why Scotland is excluded from that part of the Bill. It may well be that there is already legislation in Scotland. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that point.
Clause 6 provides for a new Section 22A of the 1988 Act. I wonder whether it covers cycle tracks, because the cycling associations are worried about whether the provision covers the cycle tracks as well as roads.
Clause 20(5) deals with the duty to give information. The CBI was worried at one stage that it might involve company directors and partners facing the imposition of penalty points on their private driving licences. I gather that that matter has now been cleared up in the schedule, which allows them to be fined but not to have penalty points imposed. It is right that tines should be appropriate in certain cases.
Clauses 29 and 30 relating to rehabilitation courses are welcome. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Falkland will mention that point later. New Section 34C of the 1988 Act will provide:
"The Secretary of State may issue guidance to course organisers, or to any category of course organiser as to the conduct of courses".
The Bill says nothing about the content of courses. The Minister made a slight reference to the point, but we need to know more about the substance of the courses. We heard only the other day that the noble Lord the Chief Whip had been on a course, but that was not the sort of course upon which we would wish to send traffic offenders.
It is good to see Clause 41, which deals with variable speed limits. There is obviously scope for them. Variable speed limits are used much more widely on the Continent than they are here and, I think, used successfully. However we return again to the question of who will ensure that there is adequate policing of the variable speed limits since existing fixed speed limits are poorly policed. If we are to increase the number of police, who will pay for them? I live in a county which is about to be rate-capped because apparently the citizens of Avon require far more
416
policing that the citizens of Somerset; but nevertheless the citizens of Somerset will have to pay for that additional policing. The county council is catching a cold as a result.
It is all right for Acts to place the onus on police forces and local authorities to carry out certain tasks, but someone has to will the means. With the Government keeping such a draconian hold on local government spending, it seems unfair that we should be loading local authorities with more duties without giving them the weapons to do the job.
I turn to Part 11 of the Bill. I was astonished to hear the Minister suggest that it related to a strategic method for dealing with transport in London. It is a gimmick, and no more than that. What we need, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, is a proper transport strategy for Greater London. Red routes do not provide the answer. Noble Lords have heard me say before that the problem in London is that there are too many cars. We must find a way to reduce the number of cars coming into London. That does not necessarily mean speeding up their progress into London. As we all know, the more we speed up the traffic, the more we shift the road block from one place to another. The traffic director is a poor substitute for a London-wide traffic authority. Without a proper authority, the boroughs may face the knock-on effect of red routes, which will he damaging to the roads under their jurisdiction.
Cyclists and the disabled are still worried about their position in relation to red routes. The Bill does not seem to provide much scope for consultation with cycling organisations and I hope that we can put that right before the Bill passes from your Lordships' House. I accept that orange badge holders should park sensibly, but many of the red routes are lined with shops and homes. People who find it difficult to obtain access to such places will find it more difficult if orange badges are not observed on red routes. It is right that there should be no wheel clamping of vehicles with orange badges, but it is also right that where someone with an orange badge has parked in a dangerous position the vehicle should be moved. I hope that provision can he made to ensure that that is done in the minimum number of cases and that the vehicles are moved the minimum distance.
I have no doubt that that is an issue to which we shall return. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is not here, but I dare say that before the Bill leaves this place he will be leading the charge to ensure that orange badge holders receive their fair dues.
We are pleased that the Bill enables London boroughs to enforce designated parking places, but again there is the problem of paying for the staff needed to ensure that they work. What about the other great conurbations outside London? When will they receive the same permissions as the London boroughs?
At the end of the summary of the Bill there is the usual item entitled:
"Effects of the Bill on public service manpower".
It strikes me as being interesting in relation to what I was saying about having enough people to service the Bill. It estimates that the number of people involved

417
will amount to a maximum of some 800 staff over a five-year period, including 250 civilian police staff—there is no reference to extra police on the roads—400 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency staff and 150 in the courts. Will any of those people be vehicle examiners? On Part II of the Bill, it says:
"The local authorities will need to employ additional staff for their additional parking powers. Precise numbers cannot be estimated at this stage".
What provision are the Government making to ensure that those additional staff can be paid for by local authorities? I think that Part I of the Bill is very acceptable except for the question of resources; Part II is a poor substitute for a proper transport policy for our capital city.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, the invention of the internal combustion engine and the subsequent development of the motor vehicle undoubtedly brought with them many advantages and improvements to the country's way of life. But they also brought distinct disadvantages, two of which in particular this Bill seeks to address. Another disadvantage was to create more opportunities, if I may say so, for the police to be criticised. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, felt it necessary today to raise the subject of police actions in connection with the accident on the M.4 last week.
It should be realised that the police, or for that matter the Department of Transport, do not have fog signs on the motorways, apart from one or two experimental sites. What they have are matrix signs which enable them to put up speed limits—advisory only, and most frequently ignored—or to warn if there are obstructions ahead. If the signs had been used to indicate that there was fog ahead, it would have been quite impossible to indicate the obstruction that was ahead in the form of an accident. I do not think that there is anything wrong in the policy of the police and indeed the Department of Transport in expecting people to realise that they are driving in fog without having to be told that by a police officer.
From the inception of the motor car, all users of our roads have been put at considerably higher risk of death and injury, and it was not long before it became necessary to consider the ability of the road network to handle the increasing number of vehicles. It is a measure of our ability to deal with those problems that we find it necessary yet again to add another Bill to the long series that has built up over the years.
I was brought up on the Road Traffic Act 1930, which itself replaced several earlier measures, only to be followed by a number of others during the latter half of this century, and which this Bill now seeks to improve, at least so far as Part I is concerned. Clearly those provisions that deal with the offences of reckless and careless driving have been generally welcomed. In the past it was often difficult to discriminate between reckless (formerly dangerous, and now again dangerous) and careless driving. This resulted in the lesser charge being preferred when the more serious one was really more appropriate. The new definition
418
of "dangerous" should assist in convictions for the more serious offence being obtained when the circumstances warrant it.
I am not so happy about the new offence of causing death by careless driving while unfit to drive through drink or drugs. In the past the generally held view was that the law should concern itself with the nature of the driving, the circumstances of the offence, rather than the consequences of that driving. But I can well understand the feelings of those who consider that, where a person dies as a result of the defective driving of a person whose judgment or skills are impaired by drink or drugs, a more serious charge than simple careless driving should be available.
However, the effect of these new provisions will be that, while driving under the influence of drink or drugs carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment (careless driving alone is not imprison-able), where death results in such circumstances the penalty will rise to a maximum of five years' imprisonment—the same as for causing death by dangerous driving. The actual driving in such cases may amount to conduct that is no more than what was once referred to as someone doing his incompetent best. Bearing in mind that death in these circumstances is often quite fortuitous, I can foresee difficulty on some occasions in deciding on a penalty that accurately reflects the accused's actual culpability and at the same time appears appropriate to the public at large.
I turn now to the offence of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, which it is not proposed to change, although the White Paper promised that it would be extended to cover driving while unfit to drive by reason of temporary incapacity due to fatigue, somnolence or temporary disability. I take no exception to the fact that that promise has not been carried into effect, as presumably it will still be possible to deal with appropriate cases as driving without due care and attention, as has been the case in the past.
The proposed introduction of courses for drink-drive offenders is an interesting venture. The results of the intended experiment will be awaited with keen anticipation, although I would not see it as having a great impact on the problem. Changing attitudes is much more difficult than improving skills. The big question here is the powers of the police to test drivers for the level of alcohol in their blood, a matter which was pressed strongly when the Bill was in the other place and which will be pressed strongly again in your Lordships' House.
The existing powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 enable the police to conduct high profile enforcement as a deterrent to drink-driving. It is publicised every Christmas and at holiday times and resulted in 1989 in 541.000 people being required to take a test as compared with 250,000 in 1985. What is at issue is whether the police should have the power to set up roadside checks, applying tests to everyone who comes through without exception, which is the Australian method and about which we hear so much.
Such stop checks, as they were known, to examine vehicles, to check records and licences and to check for

419
stolen vehicles used to be a common feature of police activity without, as I recall, causing too many problems with public relations, which it is feared such checks would attract in future. But Parliament in 1984, by way of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, provided that static checks of this kind should be conducted only for the purpose of searching for persons suspected of committing, or who had possibly witnessed, a serious criminal offence, or intended to commit such an offence, or was unlawfully at large.
A serious arrestable offence is limited to a very short list, including offences such as murder, rape, serious assaults and causing death by dangerous driving. I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers is pressing for such increased powers, but it seems to me to be a matter for argument whether drink-driving is sufficiently dangerous and widespread to justify it being put into the category of serious arrestable offences, certainly while the present system of enforcement, backed up as it is by education and publicity, appears to he reasonably successful.
It was said in another place, for example, on 10th December last at col. 785 of the Official Report, that
"the number of people driving after drinking has almost halved in the past 10 years".
It is certainly now regarded as much more socially unacceptable for drivers to take alcohol. Although I know the arguments that are advanced to the contrary, I believe that this approach is to be preferred to the introduction of roadside checks, even if the police have the resources to check considerably more drivers than they do at the moment.
I now turn to the use of technology to check speeds and offences at traffic lights. This is much more acceptable. The provisions relating to evidence in these cases, and the issue of conditional fixed penalties, should make it much simpler to deal with those whom the cameras have shown to be offenders. At the moment this provision involves either a great deal of correspondence or a chase to catch the individual concerned.
I do not propose to comment on Part II of the Bill, which deals mainly with the problem of traffic circulation in London, save to say that I believe the day is not far off when steps will have to be taken in the metropolitan counties to provide for a countywide approach to the problems of traffic movement and management. Further, I cannot see the logic of decriminalising parking offences in London and not doing so for the rest of the country. Local authorities in the provinces have already removed many of their parking meters and replaced them with pay-and-display machines enforced by parking attendants. Where payment is not made, they still have to use the criminal law for enforcement. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House in due course why it is not considered appropriate to decriminalise those offences in the provinces also.
I conclude by saying that changes in the law alone are not sufficient to handle the problems of danger and obstruction on our roads. Ultimately it depends on two factors. The first is improving personal standards and skills, which at present all too often come only from experience. Those skills and standards should be
420
inculcated much sooner in a driver's life. There is insufficient formal or informal traffic education. As a result young adults at the start of their driving careers —that means almost every teenager today—have few restraints on their driving behaviour. I hesitate to put more demands on schools but I believe there is a place there for much more traffic education.
Secondly, the law must be enforced, as the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff, have said. I am afraid I do not agree with those who at other times have advocated a separate traffic police force, if only because the motor car is too integral to our way of life to be isolated from it. After all, one-third of all reported crime is theft either of or from motor vehicles. There are many other good reasons—such as the resources that would be required —for not going down that road. Given the resources available, I believe the way forward is by a much greater use of the traffic warden service. Here I welcome the suggestions to increase their powers. I hope the Minister will confirm that today. That step would result in an increased interest and feeling of responsibility in what, originally at least, was a somewhat thankless job.
The police, too, must ensure that officers who are posted to traffic duties are used for that purpose and are not diverted to deal with other police tasks. Too often officers who have been posted to maintain traffic flows at peak periods find themselves diverted to respond to a burglar alarm which more often than not turns out to be a false alarm. Once again the matter comes back to resources. Given the adequate provision of resources, the Bill should go a long way towards helping the Government to meet their objective of reducing the deaths and injuries on our roads by one-third by the year 2000. I am sure the House will wish to support the Bill.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Braybrooke: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his kind words of welcome and to say how honoured I am to be speaking in your Lordships' House. I wish to offer a few thoughts on the comparative effects on the environment of differing forms of transport, in particular air, road and rail. To a greater or lesser extent all transport causes some damage to the environment, be it noise, toxic emissions or inconvenience. All three can be reduced further by intelligent interplay.
Aviation can be referred to briefly. Considerable progress has of late been made both in terms of engine noise and fuel efficiency which is cutting down the discharge of exhaust gases and noxious substances which may damage crops below flight paths in the vicinity of airfields.
Airfields and their ancillaries need a lot of space and much land has to be sacrificed to enable large numbers of people to fly. I live not far from Stansted. The latest expansion of the airport has used thousands of acres and is changing the character of the whole district. As a pilot I am aware that the growth of air traffic has led to very real problems of control in the

421
South East. Fast electrified trains like the French TGV can help to reduce these effects and now represent a serious alternative to short haul aviation.
Before we examine the use of rail transport I should like to comment on road transport and, in particular, the use of the motor car in relation to the environment. The motor car is, of course, much more than a means of transport. Often it is a highly prized possession and the major purchase for many families. Rightly it is much cherished. Most of us drive petrol-engined cars. There has been a certain amount of cosmetic tinkering with lead free petrol. I suggest to your Lordships that if we are serious about the environment we could drive diesel-engined cars, which are not only much more efficient but also much less offensive in their exhaust emissions.
I have been provided with some information by British Gas taken from research carried out by Ricardo Engineering in relation to the Volkswagen Golf motor car fitted both with diesel and petrol engines. The petrol Golf releases to the atmosphere 21 times as much carbon monoxide, four times as many oxides of nitrogen and 18 times as many unburnt hydrocarbons as its diesel-engined equivalent.
The motor car enables its owner to travel from A to B precisely. However, we pay dearly for these privileges. Sadly, as we have heard this afternoon, a large number of people are killed each year on the roads and the cost of clearing up accidents, police involvement and hospitalisation is considerable. I have expressed an opinion with regard to the diesel engine.I must also be honest and admit to a love of certain English motor cars of quality powered by petrol engines. As today is a special occasion for me, I came to the House in such a motor car. The make is well known and is now owned by Ford. People use such cars on special occasions. However, we must remember that approximately 35,000 petrol-engined motor cars catch fire each year. Diesel cars are at least 25 per cent. more efficient. They are longer lasting and at least twice as reliable as petrol-engined cars due to their lack of an electric ignition system. That in itself is a most worthwhile bonus for either sex when driving alone at night on any road, let alone on motorways.
Consideration could be given to the payment for fuel used by company car drivers. That would be a clear incentive to switch to Derv. And such a move, because of the effect on the motorist's pocket, would determine driver behaviour far more effectively than new regulations, speed restrictions and similar measures.
Noble Lords may have heard Anita Roddick, the founder and chairman of The Body Shop, a very large company, say on the Radio 4 "Today" programme last week that she encouraged her executives and employees to use a bicycle to travel to the station. She provided one model of company car to the entire range of her employees, which was a diesel. If they did not like it, they did not get a company car. She also said that we all ought to eat a lot of garlic, but I have not tried that yet!
Have we become too carried away by our love affair with the motor car, which is forever making more and
422
more demands on us? Are we so infatuated that we dare not look elsewhere? I suggest that we should look at alternatives, and in particular at the railway. Here I have to confess to some self interest. I was evacuated to South Wales in 1939 and drove my first steam locomotive—Great Western, of course— at the age of seven. I am still driving them 52 years later. Without wishing to seem immodest, my track record so far has been rather good.
Our railways were worn out by the end of the last war and have suffered ever since from continually changing guidelines. That is another story which we cannot go into today. However, I suggest that increased investment in electrified train services into major cities, combined with sensible fares and policies, would eliminate much urban car travel with major benefits to urban air quality and traffic flow.
Perhaps I may make two observations. British Rail tells me that a double-track railway line requires approximately 44½ feet of land whereas a six-lane motorway, which is probably unable to carry anything like the same weight of traffic, needs approximately 122 feet. Secondly, in terms of haulage, the heaviest train presently running on British railways is a privately-owned train carrying granite on a daily journey from Foster Yeoman's Somerset quarries. The gross weight of the train is 4,692 tonnes, hauled by one 4,500 h.p. diesel locomotive.
To move that quantity of granite by road would involve 144 38-tonne lorries. I checked with my local Ford dealer in Saffron Walden, who assured me that Ford's 38-tonne lorries utilise turbo-charged diesel engines of 360 h.p. each, which, if my calculations are correct, means that the horsepower involved by road is 51,840 as opposed to 4,500 by rail—eleven-and-a-half times as much. I know that that is the ultimate answer for the railway and that it is an exaggerated case. But there is no getting away from the fact that the rolling resistance of steel wheel on steel rail is always far less than that of rubber tyre on concrete. It is a fact of life.
I believe that not only do we want to protect the environment; we also want to protect the people. If we are to achieve that aim we must not only continue with the undoubted advantages of the motor car, which we could barely do without now, but we must also make use of and, more importantly, expand our railway system in order to prevent ourselves being fumigated and totally oppressed by excessive road transport in the 21st century.
Finally, in support of my theme perhaps I may quote from a letter written to The Times recently by Father Donald Bird of Lincolnshire. I have his permission to quote it. He wrote:
"Sir, in the Saturday Essay on January I 2th Peter Barnard presents a case for those who feel that if God had meant us to use trains he would not have given us Henry Ford and Enzo Ferrari. Messrs Ford and Ferrari were not given to us by God but by the Devil. He did so knowing full well that the ultimate results of these gentlemen's efforts is an exquisite form of Hell known as the M25, especially on a wet Friday evening in Winter.
No, Sir, The Lord God gave us the Railway. We know this from the evidence of Holy Writ. In Isaiah, Chapter 6, Verse I, we read that his (God's) train filled the temple. Surely it

423
must have been gauge "O" live steam, because in Verse 4, in the same Chapter, we read that the house was filled with smoke. On that evidence, Sir, I rest my case".
And so do I, my Lords.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it is a great privilege and pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, on his most effective maiden speech. I feel that he has probably sold at least 50 diesel-engined cars this afternoon. His expertise in land, local government and transport, and particularly in aviation, will be of great benefit to your Lordships. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him many times in the future.
Any measures to improve traffic conditions on our roads are welcome. I regret that we are not discussing an integrated transport Bill, but I was nevertheless very relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, give a place to the future of buses in the transport system, particularly in London.
Part I of the Bill is particularly welcome since it is concerned with safety. The revised penalties for major offences and the new sentencing options will be helpful to magistrates in what I well remember as the most frustrating and unpopular area of duty, the traffic court. Part II is aimed at improving traffic conditions in London, but if the measures are successful—there seems to be some doubt about that, but we must assume that it is at least a possibility—it is possible that in the future they could be extended to other cities. We should bear that in mind when we examine their possible side effects.
Traffic management is a very skilful balancing exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, drew attention to the possible spin-off from making it too easy to drive in cities. The aim is to keep the traffic moving, but not to make it move so freely that more road users are attracted from other routes and more travellers are encouraged to use their cars rather than other means of getting to and from their destinations.
In addition, if car travel to and in the city becomes too easy more commuters are encouraged to live further out, thereby increasing pressure on other areas, particularly rural areas. The environmental impact of building yet more motor roads to get travellers to and from jobs in cities has been discussed many times in your Lordships' House and we need not repeat the arguments today. It is important that the balancing act to which I referred earlier should be undertaken with an understanding of all the consequences of seemingly local action.
The cycle campaign network is concerned about the possible effect on cycle routes of the priority route network. In particular it is concerned that the provisions of Clause 54(1) (b), which relates to any other road whose use directly affects priority routes, may have an adverse effect on cycling provision. Such roads may even now be important for the cycling network and many will have potential for cycle tracks. It is essential that cycling organisations should be able to offer their advice in advance of any proposed change of status for such roads. Can the Minister tell me what consultation has taken place so far with cycling organisations and what arrangements can be
424
made for future consultation? I hope that the Minister can give a satisfactory answer on that issue, because if he cannot I may feel obliged to return to it by way of an amendment at a later stage.
Facilitating the safety of cyclists is an obvious way of easing traffic congestion. Cycling is healthy exercise and it does not pollute the environment. It is in the interests of us all that every facility should be given to encourage that means of transport. Cycling even improves the lot of the motorist. I believe that only last week the Department of the Environment issued a pamphlet entitled Wake up to what you can do for the environment. The pamphlet invites us to
"WALK, or cycle where it is safe to do so—walking is free, cycling can help to keep you fit. USE public transport whenever you can—using public transport reduces congestion".
Is the Minister able to say how much consultation went on with the Department of the Environment before the pamphlet was produced? The section from which I have just quoted is headed "On the road" and gives guidance on how to reduce the environmental impact of travel by car.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, take a positive attitude in relation to the environmental impact of the car. In the past we have tended to ignore that impact, but I believe that in future we will have to pay much more attention to it. Interestingly enough, that pamphlet makes no mention of the best way to reduce pollution caused by cars, which is to introduce lower speed limits. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the production of the leaflet was discussed at the Department of Transport.
We are told by the Department of the Environment that one of the 19 green Ministers in its list is the right honourable Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Transport. Was he aware of the production of that pamphlet by the Department of the Environment? Was there any attempt to reconcile the aims of the department with the aims of the Bill? We have had many reassuring statements by the Government about the new environmental awareness of every department, and I am anxious to discover how it works in practice. The Bill should give some evidence of a new approach, if it exists. If the new approach is a real one and not just a public relations exercise, should we not expect the Bill to be more alive to the needs of cyclists and public transport, not to mention lower speed limits?
To put it mildly, I am disturbed to see that traffic management in London is to be taken out of the hands of elected local authorities. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis spoke most eloquently on this point, and I wish to support everything he said. Under the Bill responsibility is to be given to an appointed director answerable only to the Secretary of State. So far as I can see, local authorities will become a race of parking attendants. Clearly, London needs an overall plan, but the proposal is an offence in what is supposed to be a democratic society.
London's coherent and successful authority—the GLC—was destroyed for vindictive political reasons. The ill-effects of that destruction rumble on, and the latest manifestation of them is an affront to democracy. I am astonished that this has aroused so

425
little public reaction; I can only assume that the information has not yet penetrated public consciousness. I am sorry that the media have not chosen to pick up this aspect of the Bill. Where is the principle of accountability which the party opposite claims is the linchpin of their approach to local affairs? Perhaps the Minister can explain how a dissatisfied local resident who is not happy about the arrangements inflicted upon him is to isolate them from the hurly-burly of a general election, because that will be the only opportunity he will have to express an opinion on the management of London traffic?
Local traffic is a matter for local people, and the management of it should stay in local hands. I fear we may not be able to do anything about my last criticism of the Bill, but as it progresses I hope we will be able to do something about the other aspects which have yet to be brought up to the standard we expect.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Brabazon for his admirable presentation of the Bill, and indeed for the substance of the two parts, both of which I believe have a valuable contribution to make. I was a little surprised at the weight of criticism visited by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the head of my noble friend for what he thought were faults and deficiencies in the Bill. No doubt we shall he discussing those points at greater length at Committee stage.
I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Braybrooke on his maiden flight and successful three-point landing. We were all very much entertained by it.
It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I am afraid I am not in complete agreement with her on her views about the management of London traffic because, as I believe my speech will demonstrate, I do not believe it will be possible for the 33 local highway authorities to come together in a consortium to manage something as complex as that.
I shall not speak about Part I, fascinating though many aspects of it are. Again, I look forward to the Committee stage when we shall be able to discuss it at length.
Part II gives the Secretary of State authority to establish in London a system of some 300 miles of arterial/priority routes for traffic, on the lines of his 1989 White Paper, from the periphery to the centre. The major interest for me is that this is the first time the science of traffic engineering has been comprehensively applied in Britain to assist the movement of traffic in a great city. On that I agree with the noble Baroness that other great cities in the country may well follow suit. I hope they will do so when they see the success of this scheme.
Such traffic systems have been applied in cities in the United States for many years. Although the Americans have eight or 10 times as much traffic as we have, on the whole they keep it moving a great deal better. When I was Parliamentary Secretary for Transport (a third of a century ago) I visited the
426
United States and learnt the rudiments of traffic engineering. I invited the chief engineer of the Ministry of Transport to accompany me to have a look at it, but he declined. I felt that was somewhat symptomatic of the British attitude. What I learnt was that in United States cities, traffic engineering was a supplement to conventional engineering science applied to the study of vehicles moving on the highway with a view to getting maximum traffic capacity and safety. I saw that their traffic movement was significantly better than ours. I returned to England anxious to bestow those benefits on our traffic, but I learnt that in the whole of Britain there was no university which taught traffic engineering. I discovered that a one-year postgraduate course was needed in some existing universities. Birmingham was anxious to have one if I could finance the start-up, which would cost £—150,000 quite a lot of money in those days. I raised that sum of money privately by some generous gifts from a number of interests: the motorcar, oil and insurance industries, road contractors, the AA and the RAC. The first principal was a brilliant Pole—a splendid character called Professor Kolbuszewski. The course was soon turning out some well-trained traffic engineers. County highway authorities were never more than lukewarm, with the exception of that admirable character Sir Herbert Manzoni of Birmingham who was always a strong supporter. About three years ago the university decided to close down the postgraduate course as an economy measure. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and I protested but to no avail.
I make that point to emphasise the measure of achievement of my noble friend the Minister against the discouraging historical background. It is clear that my noble friend and the Secretary of State have prevailed mightily to get the Bill before Parliament, and great credit and warm congratulations are due to them and their civil servant advisers. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the authority to establish a system of arterial routes from the periphery to the centre of the metropolis on which absolute priority will be given to moving traffic for six hours a day, covering three hours in the morning and three hours in the evening in the commuter flow.
I pick up a point that has been made by noble Lords opposite and by the noble Baroness. In the Commons amendments were moved which proposed that the local authorities should design and operate the red route system. They were to form a consortium to do so. As I mentioned earlier, there were 33 authorities. The noble Baroness is perfectly right and it is an attractive idea. However, all experience confirms the difficulty in achieving unanimity among 33 different local highway authorities. Indeed, there was a specific instance of that situation on this Bill. Some local authorities were in favour and others were against the red route system.
A similar situation occurred with the traffic light system. The Secretary of State offered the traffic light system to the local authorities but they rejected it. So it is not possible to expect them to be able to form a consortium to do something so difficult.

427
However, the fact is that London's traffic movement must be considered as a unity. Implicit in the strategy to improve traffic movement is the need for each local authority to surrender a measure of its autonomy as a highway authority in order to make the strategy effective for London as a whole. It is interesting to record that in Committee in another place, the report of which noble Lords will have read, powerful arguments were put forward and amendments moved about the damage to local interests and generally promoting that thought. Nevertheless, in the other House the Bill was agreed in principle. I imagine that in this House also the principle will be agreed, although we shall no doubt argue the details in Committee.
At present motor cars and vans park along the kerb of major routes throughout the day, mostly illegally on single yellow lines, thus denying two lanes of the highway to moving traffic. Worse still, when another delivery van arrives it double parks and usually blocks the whole traffic flow in one direction. The consequence of such haphazard practices is that at peak times the average speed of traffic has fallen to about 11 miles per hour and about half that speed for buses, at huge cost to the commercial life of London. With the introduction of the red routes, no vehicles except buses will he allowed to stop at the kerb from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Strict enforcement of the parking regulations is essential.
Buses will benefit from these measures. They will have better movement and, wherever possible, bus lanes as well. In addition—my noble friend may confirm this—I expect that the director of traffic will co-ordinate traffic lights on these routes and restrain the crossing traffic by phasing the traffic light cycle during the two three-hour periods to give at least a five to one, if not a ten to one, priority to the red route traffic. The phasing would return to normal when the priority ended. That is normal practice in any such system.
Despite those aids to traffic flow there will still be some major intersections where bottlenecks and hold-ups will occur. The right solution then is to construct an underpass. Traffic engineers know where they should be sited. However, I understand that the Treasury has already turned them down. I urge my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State to return to the Treasury with renewed strength. I am certain that the expenditure on an underpass at a major intersection will be justified many times over on economic grounds. It is worth mentioning—I recall my personal experience a third of a century ago—that the Hyde Park Corner east-west underpass was built and that has saved its cost many times over.
To conclude, I believe that the red route concept is a bold and imaginative move. It is enormously difficult for the Minister to carry with him such a huge body of local authorities but he has evidently gone a long way to doing so. I am certain that it will bring substantial benefits to the traffic flow of London. It will prove to be for the prosperity of London as a whole. I warmly support the Bill.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, on his thoughtful, wide-ranging and witty contribution to the debate. I have an additional reason to mention his name. For many generations his family has been connected with a college in Cambridge with which I have certain links. I am very glad that there is every prospect that he will continue to play an active part in our affairs.
In declaring my interest as President of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, I should make clear that I have a particular interest in those aspects of road traffic law which, in addition to ensuring that vehicles are safe to use on the road, also provide protection for the car buying public, especially those who buy used cars. I was struck by the comment of the Secretary of State for Transport at Second Reading in another place. He said:
"The purpose of the Bill is to save lives—it is as simple as that. Many of its provisions will make an important contribution towards continuing the significant improvements in road safety that we have seen in recent years. Although there has been considerable progress, I am conscious that much remains to be done".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/90; col. 687.]
In introducing this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, spoke very much to the same effect.
During the last Session, with the assistance of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the Automobile Association, I introduced a Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill. That was a measure which, in seeking to provide greater protection for road users and car buyers, considered some of those things which, as the Secretary of State said, remained to be done. While the Bill which I introduced successfully completed all its stages in this House, it ran into difficulties when it reached the other place. The Bill was concerned with three areas of the motor trade: unroadworthy cars, "clocked" cars and insurance write-offs. I wanted to tighten the defence under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to prevent dealers too easily evading conviction for selling unroadworthy cars, and to give trading standards officers the power to take action in such cases. I was concerned that too many motorists had been defrauded and misled for too long by the crime of "clocking" or winding back car milometers. I also drew attention to the way in which insurance total write-off vehicles currently can be inadequately repaired and resold to unsuspecting customers without going through any official safety check.
I am pleased to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated in his opening remarks, that the Road Traffic Bill goes some way to answer a part of these issues and that in Clause 16 there is an amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988 which will require dealers charged with offering to sell an unroadworthy vehicle to prove that they took all reasonable steps to ensure that any prospective purchaser would be aware that its use on the road in that condition would he unlawful. My proposal would have required that that be done by a prominent notice on the car windscreen. I am not sure why that

429
approach was favoured since it would have left dealers and the courts in no doubt about the condition of the car. I also went further and suggested that if a dealer sold an unroadworthy car, a defence would be available only if all sales documents prominently indicated that the car's use on a road would be illegal.
It is an important issue because random checks by trading standards officers have shown that over a wide area in April 1987 more than 75 per cent. of vehicles inspected on garage forecourts were unroadworthy —some dangerously so. In an earlier check of 50 used cars offered for sale in a London borough all were found to be unroadworthy. However strong the offence, it will he to no avail unless it is effectively enforced. My noble friend Lord Tordoff referred specifically to resources. Currently in the case of unroadworthy cars it is solely down to the police and the Department of Transport vehicle examiners, neither of whom are able to devote any significant resources to inspecting cars on dealers' forecourts. It appears to be the case that no prosecution for this offence has ever been taken by the vehicle examiners.
I suggested that trading standards officers, who have already have wide responsibility for the safety of many products and materials, and who spend much of their time dealing with the problems of used cars, should also have the necessary enforcement powers in order to give a greater chance for this important provision to be effectively enforced. However, when the matter was raised in another place during the Committee stage of the Bill on 7th February the Minister indicated that it was not necessary to extend the power to trading standards officers and that he would consider the lack of prosecutions brought by the vehicle inspectorate.
The Minister believed that the lack of prosecutions did not necessarily mean that the inspectorate was not active as it might carry out inspections and issue warnings and prohibition notices instead. I shall be interested to know the result of the Minister's considerations. My own belief is that any activity on garage forecourts by the vehicle inspectorate will have been almost solely in conjunction with trading standards officers and on the understanding that the burden of taking any legal proceedings would fall on the trading standards officers and not on the vehicle inspectorate.
Perhaps it is timely to question whether the Department of Transport now has a policy of reducing, for reasons of economy, the number of prosecutions which it is prepared to undertake. I ask that question because I have been shown a very recent discussion paper from the Department of Transport concerning another area of work where trading standards officers and Department of Transport examiners already have dual enforcement responsibility.
The work is concerned with stopping lorries on the highway to determine whether they are overloaded. In its discussion paper, the department is proposing to relax significantly the amount of overload which would presently result in prosecution. In paragraph 18
430
of the proposal it puts forward as one of the arguments the costs of attending court, preparing cases, and employing legal representation.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which through its members employs a significant number of trading standards officers engaged on that duty, has already expressed grave concern about the proposed relaxation in prosecution criteria and will be looking at the matter further. However, taken with my anxieties about ineffective enforcement of the provision relating to unroadworthy vehicles, I wonder whether the proposed relaxation is part of a broader plan to reduce costs.
When it comes to adding mileage information to the DVLA vehicle database in order to deter the clocking of cars, I was told during the passage of my Bill that such a scheme would be too large an investment for the Government; and that the trading standards organisations should consider working with private companies already in the business of tracing and recording vehicle histories.
When the Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill failed, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration did just that and spent many months of detailed work with a company known as HP Information plc. The scheme should have been finalised last month. However, HPI was acquired suddenly by another information-providing company. The future of this commercially backed mileage recording scheme is therefore in the melting pot. In view of the importance of the issue, there should be another look at providing statutory backing for such a scheme.
Finally, in the case of cars which have suffered significant accident damage and are categorised by insurance companies as a "total loss" or "write off', it is surprising that there has still been no attempt to ensure that they cannot be put back on the road without passing a stringent safety check. Somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 cars a year are written off by insurance companies, and half of those are repaired and re-registered. Random tests carried out over a period of years suggest that from 12 to 16 per cent. of those latter vehicles, when repaired and offered for sale, are unsafe. I know that the Department of Transport has instigated its own survey into the standard of repairs on 500 total loss cars. Insurance companies now voluntarily pass information about total losses on to Swansea. It is surely a small step to requiring that those cars cannot be registered until they have passed a suitable test.
The Bill before us would be much strengthened in its objective of making the roads safer if it were amended to take account of the points that I have raised. I trust that appropriate amendments will be brought forward at Committee stage.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I welcome the Bill. My interest relates to measures that make our roads safer and more efficient. Growing road traffic increases the pressure on road space and we need constantly to update the law governing the use of roads. I am also

431
delighted that more emphasis is being given to bus priorities in London through the proposed red routes as a result of the private scheme now taking place.
I now take a turn that is neither specifically to the left nor to the right. I wish to deal with a part of the Bill which has not yet been addressed and with one issue thereafter. The first issue relates to what will be for many areas of the country totally new classes of road traffic. I refer to light rail vehicles and trolley buses. Your Lordships may well be aware that, although there is a street-running tramway in Blackpool along the promenade, it does not share the general roadway with other traffic except on short sections of road. The situation will begin to change by the end of the year when the Manchester Metrolink opens. It will run on-street through the heart of one of our busiest cities. In the next two years an even more extensive network of street-running light railway will open in Sheffield. In Bradford, the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive has parliamentary powers to build and operate trolley buses. Many other light railway schemes hope to follow in the footsteps of Manchester, Sheffield and Blackpool, and indeed the West Midlands. The Minister for Public Transport expressed the hope in another place that a dozen might be running by the end of the century.
Despite what it may seem, this is not a digression from the Bill now before us. I have researched the application of the current road traffic laws relating to light rail vehicles and trolley buses and have found some alarming gaps. For example, at present a constable does not have the power to stop a light rail vehicle when it is running on the road. In addition, certain laws relating to road speed limits do not apply to such vehicles. Those are only two of many examples.
The reason for the gap is that it is almost 30 years since the last major street tramway was in operation in the United Kingdom—with the honourable exception of Blackpool, whose authority knows about the comments that I am making this afternoon and the amendments that I intend to table. The last street tramway to close was in Glasgow. Trolley buses had disappeared from the streets by the early 1970s. Since then a great deal of legislation relating to road traffic has been introduced, but little applies to light rail vehicles and trolley buses. They are controlled only through legislation of varying degrees of antiquity and through local bylaws. That is not a satisfactory situation as has been recognised by the Department of Transport. The department has consulted extensively on certain issues but for whatever reason has been unable to bring forward legislation specifically intended to deal with street-running light rail vehicles and trolley buses.
One of the ways in which Members of this House can improve the Bill is to seek to amend it by bringing light rail vehicles and trolley buses within the scope of road traffic regulations where appropriate and where it is clearly in the interests of public safety. If the House were to do so, innovative modes of public transport would be able to develop within a clearly-defined single framework governing their operation on the roads.
432
I turn now to Clauses 11 and 12. In respect of Clause 11 and the inspection of vehicles I shall table an amendment to provide that when coaches are taken off the road for testing it should be for only two miles instead of five. The testing period should he limited to half an hour instead of having an unlimited period. My reasons for suggesting that are, first, that many coaches come from the Continent and their passengers must make connections at various points. Secondly, many stations have no comfort facilities. That is particularly important for middle-aged and elderly passengers who normally travel on such coaches. However, a football team could experience such problems. Thirdly, if the coach is delayed the driver might be taken out of time in respect of regulations relating to driving hours. The vehicle could be delayed for six hours before a replacement driver was found. I shall also table an amendment providing for a qualified constable to prohibit vehicles from being driven by unqualified drivers.
I look forward to developing those points at later stages of the Bill. This is a necessary Bill with great potential.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am an owner and driver of two cars, one in the North of England and one in London. The reason is that it is immensely difficult for a severely disabled person to move around without a car. Being unable to walk, the lack of suitable public transport and the taxi drivers' lack of knowledge of disabled people, even though many cabs have been made suitable for wheelchair users, add up to a difficult situation. That is one example of the extra costs that are incurred by disabled people.
The problems on our roads, with so many coned-off areas making long delays and traffic jams inevitable, have made many motorists so frustrated that their stress levels must sometimes reach breaking point. I have sat for long hours on the A.1, M.1 and M.6, and even last Friday on the A.40 to Oxford I experienced long delays.
I cannot speak in the debate without commenting on the horrifying pile-ups in fog which have killed so many people on our roads and motorways. Surely with modern technology providing stronger lights, with far stricter enforcement of speed limits which if not adhered to would result in guilty drivers losing their licences and with more police vehicles visible on motorways and other roads such madness and tragedies might be avoided. Can we not make some provision in the Bill to try to avoid the worsening carnage which occurs on our roads in fog?
Between 5,000 and 6,000 people are killed on our roads each year. If noble Lords saw a pile of 6,000 dead bodies in Parliament Square I am sure that we should be horrified. We must not be complacent in saying that our figures are no worse than in some other European countries. Some countries have an even worse record than ours. Other countries should also try to do better. In addition to the Bill, can we not have a concerted publicity campaign directed towards the prevention of all kinds of road accidents? When

433
lorries and other vehicles pound past drivers on the motorways, the spray, slush and water mixed with exhaust are hazardous and disturbing. Various Ministers in this House have often said that improvements are to be made, but still the problem persists. Can the Minister give us hope of forthcoming improvements?
I receive letters from people with varying problems but the most tragic and desperate have been those that I have received from people who have had a family members killed by a drunken driver. Even worse are cases concerning drunken drivers who have killed on two separate occasions or perhaps more. Many people will welcome Clauses 3 and 4, which deal with causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. But people who have been seriously injured by such a driver or whose friend or relation have been killed will feel that the Bill does not go far enough. I should be grateful if the Minister would expand on the testing of people who have taken or are suspected of taking drugs. Drugs are complex and their measurement in the body may not be as easy as that of alcohol.
I welcome Clause 29 providing for courses for drink-drive offenders because rehabilitation is a step in the right direction. Such courses should be available in every prison and more should be available in the community. Who will run the courses? Will they come under the probation service, some other organisation or even the Department of Transport? Alcohol and drug abuse and illness and addiction are not simple matters. A one-off drinking binge is one thing but the habit of drinking and taking drugs cannot be cured by attending just a few sessions. Many abusers undergo intensive programmes of treatment, but, with every good intention, they often lapse back into their old habits. Who will monitor the courses? I am glad to hear that they are to be monitored. Which department will hold the information? The Department of Transport, the Home Office and the Department of Health all deal with the problem. Perhaps we need a new department—the department on addiction—with a Minister to co-ordinate all the problems.
I have been lobbied, as I am sure other noble Lords will have been, by many organisations representing a wide selection of the public on the need for random breath tests. There is great anxiety throughout the country that we need safer roads.
I move on to another aspect which is equally important and equally complicated but not so dramatic; that is, matters concerning disabled people. Anyone at any time may become seriously disabled as a result of an accident or illness. It is not just those people who suffer; their families suffer too. If adequate facilities are not available in the community to enable disabled people who are able to do so to go about their daily lives there will be problems.
Part II contains measures to improve traffic conditions in London. However, they could adversely affect disabled motorists if certain changes cannot be agreed. Part II offers an opportunity to introduce urgently needed improvements in the orange badge scheme and provisions for disabled motorists in
434
central London. That need will increase with the strengthening of parking controls in London. Disabled motorists are those whose disabilities make it necessary to resort to the use of a private road vehicle in London because the public transport network is inaccessible to them.
If the needs of disabled motorists are not to be overlooked, it is essential for there to be specific reference on the face of the Bill to those needs and how they can be met. Such references need to appear at various points in that part of the Bill dealing with priority routes and red routes where parking is generally abolished and strict controls placed on loading and unloading.
A person who is unable to walk and unable to use public transport is entirely different from anyone else. A red route could become a no-go area for disabled people if proper provisions are not agreed. There should be specific mention of the needs of disabled motorists in Clauses 45, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 57.
Many people believe that if one is an orange badge holder one can park almost anywhere. That is not the case. I have been involved with orange badge legislation over the years. There are still problems, but disabled people who are badge holders are anxious that the scheme should not fall into disrepute. Disabled people are dismayed when the badges are used by non-disabled people. Disabled people are asking for the mere display of a badge when the vehicle is not being used by a disabled badge holder to be made an offence.
Because the orange badge is not recognised in central London and those boroughs have their own badges for people living and working in the area, disabled people who need to travel around London on business or pleasure have no parking concessions whatever. It would be very welcome if the Minister would meet with interested Members of your Lordships' House and representatives of some of the disabled organisations such as RADAR before the next stage of the Bill. We may find satisfactory solutions and thus save some of your Lordships' precious time.
I have spoken with the Minister about the matter of taxi drivers and disabled people. However, I should like to mention it to your Lordships. Many taxis in London have now been made suitable for a person in a wheelchair. I travel to and from stations a great deal and I use taxis. I find that many of the drivers refuse to take disabled people. When tackled on the subject, their excuses are that they do not know how the ramps work, they are frightened that they will do the wrong thing or just cannot be bothered to give the few moments of extra time required. When one thinks that many people who help the disabled day in and day out are often women who are not very strong, that is a sorry state of affairs. So often what is vital is not just the adaptation of equipment, such as a taxi, but the training and advice given to the operator so that he knows what to do. So many taxi drivers have said that the ramps are still in their plastic wrappers in the boot of the taxi. Perhaps the Minister will say when he will do something about the problem as regards the cab

435
firms and owners of private cabs. Disabled people are not being treated as citizens but are being abandoned and have no other alternatives open to them.
As I travel around London I notice that vehicles delivering goods hold up traffic for long periods. Would it not be possible for that to be done after the shops and offices have closed, especially in the City where there are not many residential areas and people sleeping would not be disturbed? That would not include small vans delivering food, flowers and such commodities as newspapers but apply only to heavy vehicles which take up half the road.
My three priorities for this Bill would be preventing accidents on the road, keeping the traffic flowing and giving disabled people facilities so that their daily life does not have to stop.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill to us so clearly. As he said, the North Report was published in April 1988 and the Government's White Paper was published soon after that. On 5th April 1989, as noble Lords will remember, I introduced a short debate on the road user and the law. Now, at long last, there is a Bill which will implement the North Report's proposals to reduce accidents, death and injury on our roads. Like other noble Lords and everyone involved in road transport and safety, I welcome the Bill.
The proposals in Part I have the potential to make a valuable contribution towards making our roads a safer place for road users. However, this Bill will not do that by itself. There must be a big change in driver behaviour and awareness before we shall achieve the target of a one-third reduction in road casualties by the year 2000.
Like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome the use of automated video-based technology to assist in the detection of speeding vehicles and to provide evidence for the purposes of prosecuting not only drivers of speeding vehicles but also traffic light jumpers. That is becoming widespread. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me whether such technology will be used also to keep the junction boxes clear and if so, what sort of penalty that would carry. I am told that in Scandinavia where cameras are in use, there are more boxes than cameras so that drivers do not know which boxes are operational. I am told that that works very well, and perhaps we should consider that.
I am sorry that there seems to be no mention of motorway driving to stop "tailgating" and, more importantly, to enforce lane discipline. I am told that in Belgium and perhaps in other countries that is a fixed penalty offence which works well. I ask my noble friend to give that matter serious thought and perhaps to table an amendment at Committee stage.
Clause 29 is going in the right direction but the type of course—and thereby the course content—must be such that the offender's attitude towards using a motor vehicle whilst unfit through the use of drink or drugs is changed, and that his or her behaviour reflects that changed attitude. I am told that the courses presently available in this country are varied in content and largely operated by the probation services
436
in association with the local road safety officer and/or the police. Much of the content is didactic in nature, and little objective evaluation has been conducted to ascertain the actual value of the courses. That is not to say that I or RoSPA do not support the concept; far from it. I wish simply to say that greater investment of resources will be required to produce a standard—proven—course which is likely to provide the most appropriate environment for the problem drinker in which to change his or her ways.
There is little point in requiring attendance on specific courses if they do not accomplish the desired result; that is, presumably stopping the drinker wishing to drive his or her motor vehicle while unfit. The involvement of the TRRL is welcomed. However, there may need to be a lengthy running-in period during which various schemes are tested.
Clause 31 only makes it mandatory for a court to order an extended driving test for a restricted range of offences. In so doing the Bill fails to implement a major recommendation of the North committee, which proposed that the courts should order a mandatory extended driving test for all driving offences attracting disqualification of 12 months or more.
I and others fail to understand the logic in omitting drinking and driving offences from the re-testing proposals. Drink drivers are by definition irresponsible. Their omission from the re-testing removes a useful penalty. We believe that the re-testing proposals should he extended as North recommended: to cover all offences requiring disqualification of 12 months or more. Both clauses go in the right direction, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft advised me that the voluntary services welcomed them also.
In the White Paper, paragraph 3.23, headed "Traffic Signs", says that the Government intend to simplify and clarify the legislation on traffic signs. That does not appear in the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend could say what is proposed. Likewise, I see no reference to day fines in paragraph 12.20 of the White Paper.
Under Clause 2 of the Bill—"Careless, and inconsiderate, driving"—can we not include the use of car signals? All too often drivers turn without using their indicators, which, if not inconsiderate to pedestrians and other drivers, is at least careless driving.
Under Clause 22, will the police be able to use video equipment in their cars as recommended by North in the White Paper in paragraph 5.1? Perhaps my noble friend can advise me. Many of us, and North, are specifically concerned about enforcement of the law by the police and the courts. Who worries about penalties and the outcome of offences if they think there is little chance of being caught in the first place? The cameras will go a long way to help but we need more police on our roads and motorways. I am not in favour of a new police force to deal with traffic. I suggest we leave it as it is; but let us have more police on the roads in marked cars and not plain ones. I know it is not relevant to the Bill, but perhaps we

437
could have more uniform sentencing. At present all too often a different sentence is given for the same offence; there is too much variation.
Random breath testing was mentioned. I am not in favour of it. The most appropriate means of deterring the drinking driver is better and more obvious enforcement.
Part II of the Bill concerns the red routes. I am totally in favour of them; they must improve the movement of traffic in London, so long as drivers do not block the junctions,—something that I have already mentioned.
Paragraph 6.6 of the White Paper states that the Government recognise the importance of improving public understanding of the law; that it is proposed to produce a clear and simple guide for the lay person to understand and a revised Highway Code. I hope that my noble friend can give me news of that and say when it will be produced.
This is the first time for a long time and may be the last for some years that we shall be able to amend driving offences in depth. Let us take the opportunity to bring the laws up to modern times to meet the changes that are taking place. North and his team did a good job. Let us do it right and not have another report like this for some time to come.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was appointed Minister for Transport in July 1954 by Sir Winston Churchill. It follows that I have seen a number of road traffic Bills of one kind or another. This Bill falls into two parts. Part II deals with London. Part I deals with general road traffic law. It is on that part that I wish to express a little mild surprise.
We have heard already—most movingly I thought —from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, about the enormous number of casualties occurring on our roads. Every year over 5,000 people are killed and some 300,000 injured. It struck me during the debate that those appalling figures appear to have made remarkably little impact either on your Lordships' House or on some of the terms of the Bill. If casualties of anything like this nature were incurred in any other form of transport, in the air or on the railways, there would be the most appalling outcry and a demand for drastic measures. This steady figure, which has been maintained to a greater or lesser degree over a number of years, does not seem to stir people into feeling that drastic action must be taken.
I am not sure that that detachment is shared by those outside. A great many people who have suffered the loss of a relation, friend or a dear one, feel bitter about the appalling number of casualties on the roads. I wonder whether the Government are giving particular thought to this matter. The M.4 catastrophe of a few days ago undoubtedly aroused and focused public attention on the matter to a greater extent than perhaps has been the case for many years.
So that I do not appear to be simply bemoaning the failure of successive governments to deal successfully with the matter, let me put forward one suggestion which was briefly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord
438
Clinton-Davis. I refer to the question of speed limits. It is the fact that on the highways of the United States the prevailing normal speed limit is 55 miles per hour, though I accept at once that in certain states that is modified to allow 65 miles per hour.
On the whole, the highways of the United States are magnificent, as those noble Lords who have travelled on them know. They cover long distances. It does not seem to be self-evident that we in this country, with our high casualty lists, are necessarily right in maintaining a higher speed limit of 70 miles per hour which, as has been pointed out, includes not only cars but also coaches. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who drew attention to that point in regard to coaches. I agree with him. I suggest that the question of speed limits needs careful consideration.
I do not know whether your Lordships saw a most interesting letter in The Times of last Saturday from Professor Miles Irving who is the chairman of the external affairs board of the Royal College of Surgeons. In that letter he drew attention to the dangers resulting from high speed on the roads and to the desirability of tightening up on speed limits. In an interesting aside he said that there were two ways of seeking to deal with this very serious loss of life. The first was to reduce permitted speeds and to enforce them. In parenthesis, those of us who travel on our roads know that the 70 miles per hour limit is not enforced and that, from the point of view of police action if not as regards their own neck, anybody can safely travel at 80 miles per hour or more.
The professor makes the point that speed limits should be rigidly and properly enforced. He also said that one wants to establish that decent standards of social behaviour do not include driving fast and endangering your own life or the lives of other people. I commend to the Government that very interesting letter which appeared in The Times. It is from someone who speaks with the peculiar authority of his position.
In the great United States 55 miles per hour is the normal maximum speed on the major highways, and that is all that they consider permissible. That raises the question of whether we are right to go on year after year on the basis of an unqualified and unchallenged 70 miles per hour. I emphasise, as I tried to do a moment or so ago, that it will be no use altering the speed limit unless there is proper enforcement. On the highways of the United States there is very strict enforcement. Those provisions give us cause to wonder very seriously indeed whether we are right to maintain that high limit.
Mention has been made of the possibility of a random breath test. I am against that. It would damage the relationship between police and public if the ordinary driver were to feel that any policeman can suddenly stop him and breath test him in slightly humiliating circumstances and, in a large number of cases, unnecessarily. The relationship between police and public would not be helped by that. The present powers of the police go a long way in that direction and I do not think that they are inadequate. Therefore, if noble Lords discuss this matter in

439
Committee I hope that we shall reject the proposal, though I fully understand the sincerity and the very proper spirit in which it has been put forward.
I return again to the subject of speed limits. It is quite absurd that it should be permitted for car manufacturers and dealers to advertise publicly that the cars which they make and sell can be driven at twice the legal speed limit of this country. To advertise such a fact is an incitement to the public, and to purchasers in particular. That kind of advertising should be prohibited. Just as advertising of other criminal activities is a breach of the law so should advertising be which suggests that if one of these cars is purchased you can break the law in it with some ease.
I am delighted at the proposed appointment of a director of traffic for London. We do not want to bring in the local authorities, but we need a central authority. A director of traffic under my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the right answer. I hope that the director will be backed with sufficient authority. I very much favour the red routes, though as a personal prejudice I wish that they were called blue routes. I very much favour the idea of these routes. I hope that they will be designed to effect what is really needed in London traffic—that is to say, to link up the motorways coming into outer London with the centre of the city by roads which are kept clear so that they can be moved on effectively. That would be a very great improvement.
In my opening remarks I referred to my past experience. I put forward one idea which I hope that my noble friend will consider. In the 1950s we were already very much concerned with traffic congestion in London in the rush hour. We arranged to negotiate with many of the major employers for the staggering of office hours in order to secure that people went to and from their offices, but not all at the same time. For example, it was arranged that for three days of the week particular offices should open at 7.30 a.m. or 8 a.m. and close at 3.30 p.m. or 4 p.m. so that those attending travelled outside the main rush hour. Equally, on the other two days of the week, the offices were to open latish, at 9 a.m. or 9.15 a.m., and stay open until 6 p.m. or 6.30 p.m.
That arrangement was taken up on a wholly voluntary basis; there was no compulsion about it. It did effect considerable relief for people who have to travel to and from work in central London. That arrangement could not apply to people at the top of their organisations who had to be at their offices when other heads of organisations were also at their offices. However, that provision applied very effectively to the large clerical and administrative staffs that large companies employ in central London.
After I left the Ministry of Transport that idea was dropped. I do not know whether any thought has been given to reviving it. That arrangement is no more than a palliative and not a cure. It means that more people travel over a wider spread of time and therefore with less congestion to compete with than they might otherwise encounter.
440
The other major problem in central London is the unloading of vans on busy traffic routes. As I understand it, the red routes proposal will restrict unloading to certain hours in respect of offices on those routes. I wonder whether that is sufficient. I wonder whether we should not restrict unloading of any considerable size and weight to late evening and weekends. I do not know whether noble Lords ever have occasion to travel in Beauchamp Place which is a vital traffic connection between routes into London and a good deal of south-west London. Beauchamp Place has a double yellow line on either side but almost always there is a large number of vehicles parked loading or unloading goods in complete disregard of the double yellow lines and without any visible intervention by the authorities or the police. There is a need for much stricter enforcement of the double yellow lines, not only on the red routes but generally on busy traffic routes. That is one of the ways in which we can ease the problems of London.
Several noble Lords have spoken as though the way to deal with the problem is simply to discourage the entry of cars into London and to compel people to use public transport. That is not a very sensible idea. The individual journeys that people have to make do not always coincide with the public transport system. Many people have to use their cars coming from home to the office, quite apart from the problems of the disabled person, so eloquently referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
While doing all we can to boost public transport and to improve it in many ways, we have also to try to prevent obstruction of the roads which will stop people from using their cars if they decide so to do. To do otherwise is to challenge the whole spirit of today. Possession of a car now goes far down the economic scale. It is widespread and it represents what I am sure people of the present generation regard as a necessity of life. Therefore it must surely be right that government should seek to provide the best possible means for those cars to get to and from their destinations.
At the risk of appearing to indulge in repetition, perhaps I may suggest that the unloading of vehicles and the setting up of builders' skips on important traffic routes should be firmly restricted. I realise that this will cause some hardship and some expense, but the greatest good of the greatest number suggests that there should be the greatest possible freedom to use roads for the purpose for which we build roads—to enable people to use them and to get to and from their work.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I must start by apologising to the House for the fact that I have a long-standing engagement at a quarter to seven. I shall of course do my very best to be back for the Minister's winding-up speech but I apologise to those of your Lordships whose speeches I may miss in the interim.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for his very full introduction to this wide-ranging Bill. So comprehensive is it that one really only has time to deal with four or five aspects of it. First, I should like

441
to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, on his thoughtful, thought-provoking, dryly humourous and powerfully delivered maiden speech.
Perhaps I may very briefly comment on the statistic of 5,000 deaths given by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Of course every single fatality on the road is a tragedy for somebody, but we really ought to remember what I think has been forgotten—that the number of fatalities per vehicle mile has fallen by a staggering 94 per cent. over the past 55 years. Deaths and injuries have also fallen in absolute terms as well. That is a magnificent achievement. Britain is now one of the safest countries in the world in which to drive, although it has to be said that the statistics for pedestrians are rather less good.
Perhaps I may start at the middle, as it were, by touching very briefly on Clause 40, which deals with the powers of local authorities to regulate parking attendants. I entirely agree with the submission of the Automobile Association that local authority parking attendants should be compelled to wear a nationally recognisable style of uniform. But one further safeguard is required; namely; that such parking attendants be remunerated in the conventional way by means of a daily, weekly or monthly wage or salary and not on a piecework basis—in other words, according to the number of parking tickets issued.
A dentist of my acquaintance, who practises in the Wimpole Street area, has a patient who is somewhat infirm. Recently her husband drove her to his surgery for treatment. He managed to park right outside and, leaving his engine ticking over, got out of the driver's door and walked round to the near side of the car so as to open the passenger door and assist his wife out of the car on to the pavement. While he was in the middle of doing this a parking warden came along and slapped a ticket on his windscreen. When he protested the attendant merely shrugged his shoulders, said he was just doing his job and then added that all parking attendants in the City of Westminster receive supplementary pay according to the number of tickets issued. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is an intolerable way of doing things, is open to every sort of abuse, is liable to stir up bad blood between the citizen and the authorities and is something that ought not to be perpetuated.
I revert now to the early clauses of the Bill. The reintroduction of the offence of dangerous driving—it is a reintroduction and not an introduction as the Minister seemed to suggest—and the fiasco over the interpretation of the word "reckless" is rather extraordinary. I guess that 999 people out of 1,000 would interpret "reckless" to mean objectively reckless and not subjectively so. The notion that an individual can be so drunk or so doped to the eyeballs that he is incapable of realising that he is being reckless is an odd one. Having said that, I do not doubt that the Government's legal advisers know exactly what they are doing and have got the wording right at long last. It would nonetheless be interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, when he winds up just how many people have escaped
442
conviction on the grounds that they were "unconscious" of their recklessness, so to speak, or merely plain unconscious.
I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Knights about the proposal to introduce a new offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. This is perfectly reasonable in theory—but I must point out a possible flaw. Someone who takes antihistamines for hay fever, for example, is, technically speaking, driving under the influence of drugs. It is a drug that affects the central nervous system and may adversely affect driving. It would be terrible if an accident was caused thereby, but I wonder whether Parliament really intends to send people to prison for up to five years if they have killed somebody accidentally as a result of taking antihistamines. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not, but it is something that we ought to think about.
As we have heard already today, certain pressure groups sometimes use statistics that are a little dubious, to say the least, to try to bully the Government into introducing random breath tests. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that this is a move we should totally oppose. I think my noble friend Lord Knights would acknowledge that the public perception of the police today is not what it was in the days of "Dixon of Dock Green"—by "the public", I mean people of all ages and all classes. It is regrettable but it is a fact. Random breath testing would make relations shakier still. For a perfectly innocent person to be stopped by somebody in uniform at a roadblock and made to blow into a breathalyser is humiliating, and something which, willy-nilly, one associates with authoritarian regimes. Moreover, it would undoubtedly cause a substantial number of road users to be late for work or for business appointments or to miss their planes or trains. All of this would add to the possibly subconscious feelings of resentment against the police that are bound to result. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will notice that I am not actually using pure libertarian arguments at the moment. I have plenty of those up my sleeve but I shall save them for a later stage.
There is another factor which has not yet, so far as I know, been mentioned in either House. A proportion of people who suffer from chronic or acute sinus or middle ear conditions are bound to experience discomfort, pain or possibly even harm when they are forced to blow hard into something. The proportion of those suffering from the conditions I have described and who are thus affected may be quite small; but even if only a couple of hundred mainly innocent people suffer discomfort, pain or harm from being subjected to this procedure each year, it is a couple of hundred too many.
What most people do not realise when talking about drink driving is that, although approximately 16.4 per cent. of fatalities on the road are said to be drink related, though not necessarily caused by drink —we must not forget that and it is a point which we shall come to at a later stage, too—no fewer than 5.1 per cent. are drug related. Of these just under half are related to illegal drugs, mainly cannabis, and just over

443
half to perfectly legal drugs, such as sleeping pills, tranquillisers, antihistamines and so on, which can be bought across the counter or obtained on prescription. No breathalyser is capable of detecting such drugs.
The other equally objectionable proposal which has been made is that the long-established legal limit should be lowered by a factor of almost 40 per cent. With the exception of the fortunate few who are lucky enough to live near an all-night bus route—I do not suppose that there are many of them—such a move would ruin the social lives of most single people. I refer to widows, widowers, divorcees, bachelors, spinsters and so on. In other words, all those people who have no one with whom to share the driving of a car. Whether latter day puritans like it or not, drinking wine, beer, cider or spirits on social occasions in moderation—I emphasise the word "moderation"—is part of our Western European culture. We do not live in an Islamic fundamentalist society—at least, not yet.
None of what I have said thus far means that I favour leniency for those, whether they be drunk, drugged or sober, who cause death by reckless driving. Indeed, that would be a ridiculous accusation against one who managed, with the aid of other noble Lords from various parts of the House, to persuade the Government to increase the minimum disqualification period for this dreadful offence. Indeed, it is good to see that judges are responding to the changes in the law by imposing much longer period of disqualification than was the norm five or 10 years ago. Long may that practice continue.
However, I am somewhat uneasy about the requirement for convicted offenders to retake the driving test. Punishment ought transparently to be a punishment, whether that means imprisonment, community service, a fine or disqualification. The requirement to retake the driving test should only be imposed for strict practical reasons; I believe that it is unsuitable as a form of punishment. People who drive recklessly do not normally do so because they are unskilled in the art of driving; indeed, they are very often pretty good drivers in the normal way. People drive recklessly either because they are drunk or drugged, or because they are vain, aggressive, had tempered, impatient and so on. Such qualities are not normally revealed by a short driving test: it is easy to conceal such qualities in the rather artificial situation of a test. None of those comments implies any criticism of the provisions contained in Clause 29, which are designed to wean chronic drink drivers off drink. That is a different matter and one which is well worthy of support.
I am also somewhat unhappy about Clauses 31 and 32, which provide for the forfeiture of vehicles, because of the capricious and random nature of the punishment which is thereby effectively imposed. However, that is a matter which perhaps should be left for consideration in Committee. None of those criticisms are meant to imply that there is not an enormous amount to be welcomed in the Bill, especially in Clauses 6 to 24.
In conclusion, perhaps I may highlight one other important problem which may or may not be adequately dealt with by the provisions in Clause 8.
444
Those noble Lords who habitually travel long distances by car will be all too aware of the objects which can fall off the hack of lorries that is, not in the popular sense, which implies dishonesty, but in the literal sense, which implies the possibility of injury or even fatality.
The problem is not confined to lorries. For example, about two years ago I was driving north out of London with my wife. On the delimited stretch of road between the point where the A.41 converges with the A.1 and the Mill Hill roundabout, I found myself travelling behind a motorcycle. I noticed that a spare crash helmet had been perched on the pillion. Suddenly the crash helmet fell off right in front of my car. I was travelling at 70 miles an hour and it was impossible to avoid it. I ran over the helmet with the most almighty thump: indeed, I thought for a moment that my sump had been cracked. In my rear view mirror I saw the crash helmet spin at least 20 feet up into the air and land on the bonnet of the car of the terrified driver who was travelling behind me. It was a pure miracle that no one was hurt. However, if the following vehicle had been a petrol tanker or a Land Rover carrying cylinders of propane gas or if the helmet had hit the windscreen rather than the bonnet of the following car, there could have been a very different outcome.
I submit that we must make every effort to minimise the frequency of people who are correctly and legally driving at speeds of 60 mph or 70 mph having to swerve to avoid, or effectively being blinded by, objects falling from vehicles travelling in front, whether they be motorcycle helmets, huh caps spinning off old bangers, tarpaulins blown from the roof-racks of cars or building materials and pieces of packing falling off the back of commercial goods vehicles. Just as the sudden occurrence of fog patches on motorways can lead to serious accidents taking place, so are such incidents capable of causing dreadful accidents of the type which occurred on the M.4 just a week ago.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, at this stage of the debate it is not easy to be original because so much has already been said. Indeed, I find myself very much in agreement with many of the remarks which have been made. As a lifelong pedestrian and someone who has never been and never intends to be a licence holder, I must welcome almost everything contained in Part I of the Bill. But I must say that I may find myself on the side of those who support the introduction of random breath tests as regards drunk driving.
In listening to what has been said thus far, I wonder whether one should not go further. As has already been said, I believe that we must continue to try to make drinking and driving less socially acceptable. We have had a small degree of success in that respect so far but there is still a long way to go. I wonder whether we should not take a leaf out of the Swedish book. That country not only imposes a much lower limit but has additional offences regarding the involvement of others by association. Thus, I believe that we should penalise those who provide a driver with drink; for

445
example, innkeepers or party hosts. Further, I believe that we should certainly consider the Swedish example and penalise those who are in the car at the time that the offence takes place. In Sweden, such people become accessories to the fact.
I spent three years in Sweden in the mid-seventies. I realised at that time that the combination of a pretty vicious limit, very severe penalties and the added concept of guilt by association had a powerful effect on people's driving habits. In particular, at parties one saw very low levels of drinking. Moreover, if people became aware that the police were carrying out random checks in the area, low drinking very often became a policy of no drinking. That is a step that we should certainly consider.
As a pedestrian I am by definition in favour of any provision which seeks to improve the flow of public transport. Therefore, I am largely in favour of priority routes, although I realise that they have to be refined, not least in respect of those whom one might call riparian landowners; that is, those who run shops or own houses alongside such priority routes.
I remind noble Lords, as we have already been reminded, that any provision which makes buses travel quicker and more reliably must be fought for and emphasised. The greatest resource we have in London in dealing with congestion is the unused bus with its 14 per cent. occupancy in the off-peak periods. Of course that is a very small share of the traffic but it has a large potential for moving people.
My concern is not about Parts I and II of the Bill; it is about resources and enforcement. In his introduction, my noble friend Lord Brabazon sought enforcement which is more effective, strict and uniform. He also promised us that it would be consistent. Indeed, he managed to use the word "enforcement" on six other occasions when speaking about priority routes and parking reform. Following him, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also made much use of that word, not least when he asked whether existing laws were being enforced. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, managed to find a sort of synonym for the word. He said that laws were no good if they were not adequately policed. The words "police" and "enforce" may not be in Roget's Thesaurus in the same paragraph but they deserve to be in the context of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, excellently put forward the case as seen by the police. He called for high profile enforcement.
However, what stage have we reached thus far? A modest straw in the wind was provided during transport questions last Monday in the other place. My friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic revealed that during the whole of 1989 only 1,250 people were convicted of riding a bicycle after dark without lights. That is a nationwide figure. I should have thought that the Cambridgeshire constabulary, in one of the high profile actions to which the noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred, could have produced that many convictions in one night in Cambridge, which, after all, is dominated by the bicycle. One has only to walk around London, as I frequently do, to see the number of cyclists riding without lights after dark.
446
Another aspect of the lack of enforcement is shown by the number of offences I observe, for example, during my daily walk from Portland Place to Westminster. What did I spot today? I spotted cyclists on pavements; even worse, a cyclist on the pavement cycling the wrong way up a one-way street while using a portaphone; and strings of cars using Oxford Street. Oxford Street is signposted clearly as being accessible only to cyclists, buses and taxis. What do we find? One sees eight cars or commercial vans crossing Oxford Street. When the lights change there is nothing crossing, but when they change again one sees five vehicles going in the opposite direction. Again I ask, where is the enforcement? The law is an ass if it is not enforced. That has been said many times in the House in many contexts, and I fear it will be said many times in the future. The ultimate offence relates to red traffic lights which are nowadays regarded as advisory rather than compulsory.
Why do we not have enforcement? Is it a matter of resources? Is it caused by the public relations element —the fact that the most frequent contact the police have with the public is when they deal with motorists. Is it caused, as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said, by the divergence of the police from traffic duty to deal with the burglar alarm that rings falsely? Is it the triviality of the offence? I return to my offence of riding a bicycle without lights—although it is not my offence, because I do not have a bicycle. I am whiter than white in that context. Is it because there are more important offences to be dealt with? Is it merely the public attitude, so well enunciated by my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis? My noble friend said that drivers treat being caught as an occupational hazard. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the chances of being caught were low. Therein lies our problem: we return to enforcement. I hope that I have summed up the problem of enforcement and the weaknesses of the consequences and—dare I say it?—the enforcement of the Bill.
Lastly, I turn to the subject of bridge-bashing. It is a subject that I trailed in the debate on the Address. It is where lorries or buses collide with bridges over which British Rail or other railway undertakers run trains. At that time I was worried that not enough was being done about trucks and buses hitting those bridges. I gather that in 1990 there were some 900 incidents, and each incident is potentially lethal. The effect on a train travelling at 125 mph, or even 60 mph, which has been deflected, even marginally because the track has been skewed a little, can be serious, despite the inherent strength of nearly all British Rail's rolling stock.
I welcomed the conclusions of the joint working party, summarised in the two latest reports of the Railways Inspectorate. I welcome the support that the Department of Transport gave to those conclusions. I am pleased to note the work that British Rail is doing. I am encouraged to see that 12 out of the 40 local authorities that have at-risk bridges have responded positively to Sir Bob Reid's initiative. I am worried

447
about the four local authorities that declined to take action and the 16 authorities that did not even bother to reply to his letter.
I hope that my friends in British Rail can continue to count on the department for support, especially in relation to the variable cab indication of height and the steadily renewable or redefinable cab indication of height. I hope that enforcement will not take place only at ports of entry such as Harwich. I was delighted to hear that there have been a reasonable number of convictions. There should be spot checks on the highway and attention should be paid to the point during HGV and PSV training and examinations because it is an aspect of road safety that can be readily enforced at no great cost to anyone.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill, implementing, as it does, the final recommendations of the North Report and the provisions of the White Paper. Both parts of the Bill will make a significant contribution to road safety and to a lesser, but nevertheless important, degree to the improved movement of people and goods through the streets.
I am pleased to see Clause 20 which introduces corporate liability for offences committed by company drivers. In that context, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, drew our attention to offences committed by HGV drivers. He mentioned the submission of the Road Haulage Association which called for a stricter licensing regime. I do not know whether it is the noble Lord's intention to pursue that point, but if he does he may well have my support.
I shall turn to some specific provisions. We have had a great deal of discussion about Clauses 3 and 4 which relate to drinking and driving. I agree with the view on that part of the Bill expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. It is all very well for Mr. Peter Joslin to say that many people drink and drive because they do not believe that they will be caught. The only thing I shall add to what the noble Lord said, is that if the current provisions which give the police wide discretion—my noble friend the Minister referred to this point—were exercised by all police forces to a common and higher standard, the public would have a much greater awareness right across the board. A higher profile would be created and it is likely, especially in view of the change in social attitudes, that more people would resist the temptation to drink and drive because they would have a greater fear of being caught.
It is not good enough for different police forces to have different standards for enforcing what is national law. We should not merely content ourselves with giving drinking and driving a high profile at Christmas and other Bank holidays. The offences occur throughout the year to a greater or less extent.
Perhaps I may also add to the noble Lord's earlier remarks. He referred to the tragic accident on the M.4 last week. He gave some defence of the police and the Department of Transport. I share his view in that regard, particularly as even where there are speed signs they are only advisory. We may have to look at
448
that. Even though there are few of them, perhaps they should be obligatory. But it is nonsense to suggest that either the department or the police were at fault because some road speed advisory signs were not switched on, when it was as plain as the windscreen in front of the driver that hazardous conditions obtained.
The following day, on Wednesday, I had to drive from Bournemouth to London in similar but not as severe conditions. It was amazing! With the radio reminding listeners of that tragedy on the M.4, with 10 deaths and 20 or 30 serious injuries, cars were thrashing past with no regard for life nor limb, nor anybody else. There is little that a policeman can do unless we have a couple of police cars every mile or so on the road. Speed is a personal responsibility, as is drinking and driving.
I want to turn to Clause 16, the hobby-horse of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I have some doubts here, and I shall look at the specific provisions that the Minister described as "closing a loophole". As a road safety measure, I cannot at first sight see much merit in Clause 16, since very few accidents—never mind the injury aspect are connected with mechanical failure. As a consumer protection measure, perhaps this is good. However, my first cursory survey of the clause, against the background that I have in the motor car industry, suggests that it is not going to be very meritorious.
Clause 18 deals with physical fitness. I shall want to discuss at a later stage eyesight testing and the declaration of a change in the circumstance of health that is currently required, and which is somewhat flouted. I have long held the view that the present number plate eyesight test is not quite good enough. Although one may see in a number of reported court cases that a driver has said, "I did not see it coming from my left", or wherever, sometimes this is a matter of perception. He did not perceive it coming. He was not aware of it for other reasons; but too often because of common eye defects the driver may not have seen the hazard. We ought to look again at that.
Turning to Part II, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, had to say regarding car parking attendants wearing nationally identifiable uniforms. I have spoken in your Lordships' House on this point on previous occasions because I am seriously worried at the proliferation of uniformed people. Sometimes they are security guards; sometimes they are wardens from the police authorities; sometimes they are from the local authority; and sometimes they are railway police. There are all sorts and manner of people who wear grey and blue uniforms, with epaulettes bedecked with gold, badges, insignia, and so on. That is extremely perplexing to everybody. When challenged, it causes a little ruction between the officer and the motorist.
When we come to Clauses 44 and 46, I am happy about priority route designation, holding that in general—not necessarily in particular—the roadways are designed for the movement of traffic and not the resting of vehicles or skips, and not the parking of them. I say this in general terms. This is going to be helpful. However, I do not accept the premise that the

449
noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that to make the roadways more accessible we should have a positive reduction of cars coming into London. That is not a very democratic way of going about things. I would look upon priority routes as one of the traffic management systems that can be employed effectively and quickly, bringing some immediate alleviation to the problem while other and more important long-term solutions are worked out.
I have some doubts however as to the effectiveness of the traffic director. As I read Clause 46, the traffic director is responsible for designated roads only. He also has powers to deal with certain of the provisions under the New Roads and Street Works Bill, hut, as I read it, for designated roads only. I would prefer to have a city traffic authority, whether it is Greater London or Inner London. That office should be a functional office; it should be an appointment; and it should not have any political connotations attached to it whatsoever.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford—and it might also have been my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—who talked about the democracy of local authorities. When one has 21—shortly to be 22—crossings over and under the Thames controlled by 33 different boroughs (some of those crossings controlled by two and three boroughs), one cannot see how any joint committee of 33 boroughs is going to be at all effective. I should like to see provision in the Bill for the traffic director to have a greater authority. I should also like to see in the Bill enabling powers for the Secretary of State to appoint traffic directors in other cities and metropolitan areas where it is necessary.
Finally, I want to touch on the matter of parking and parking charges. Parking in cities is largely in the hands of the local authorities and also British Rail, although there are two major private companies which have a large share of that market. As I understand it, provision of parking facilities is not a service within the meaning of fair trading legislation. That provision is exempted. Therefore, we do not see the rights or the interests of those who seek to park and the relative charges being given any further consideration, in the way in which other services are controlled.
Where charges are concerned, I have always had great difficulty in accepting that there should be different charges for different areas made by different people. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that the aim of parking charge variations was to develop parking facilities and controls. However, he then said that he would table amendments at a later stage in this regard. In 1986 and 1987 over £20 million was collected in the London boroughs in parking charges, and £12 million was spent. Where did the rest of the money go? Similar proportions of moneys are involved across the country. Those charges should not be used by local authorities as a support for their general income. These are charges and fees, not taxes. The question of hypothecation does not arise. We shall have to consider much more carefully a number of other points in Committee. However, as I said at the outset, I give a warm welcome to the Bill.
6.41 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, when I added my name to the list of speakers for the Second Reading of this Bill, I thought this was one Bill in which I should not have to declare an interest. However, I find I must declare an interest in that I am in receipt of a small pension from British Rail. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, on making his maiden speech non-controversial. To do so on such a topic was a brilliant effort. I felt, in listening to the noble Lord, that at last there was another noble Lord who would support me in defending British Rail.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly mentioned that one of the easiest ways to solve London's traffic problem was by staggering working hours. As I stated fairly recently when making a speech on London, if one staggered working hours one would dramatically reduce the congestion and overcrowding on railway trains coming into London.
I have a particular query for the Minister. I have read through the Bill and I note that it contains some 70 clauses. I believe the Bill has some omissions which I shall refer to. Part I contains provisions relating to driving under the influence of drink or drugs. New Section 3A(1) refers to causing the,
"death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle"
under the terms of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Subsection (3) of that new section states:
"Subsection (1) (b) and (c) above shall not apply in relation to a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle other than a motor vehicle".
If I have understood that provision correctly, it means that a person driving a mechanical digger or a crane does not have to be breathalysed if he is drunk. If that is the case, there appears to be a terrible omission in the Bill. I cannot believe that is the case, as the Bill is so good in so many other respects. I hope that I have misunderstood the position.
I am worried about the extended driving tests. I believe the Minister said those tests would be twice the length of the normal driving test. I am in a slight difficulty here as I have never taken the normal driving test. On the other hand I have taken the advanced driving test, which I passed. From everything I hear, it appears that the ordinary driving test is very simple. The point that I find worrying about the normal driving test is that a driver can pass it in a small car driving along quiet roads in quiet villages and, having passed the test, can jump into a high powered car—as one speaker has pointed out, some cars are advertised as being capable of reaching speeds of 140, 150 or 160 miles an hour—and drive on a motorway with no conception of the speeds that a high powered car can reach. Further, one only takes a driving test during the day and therefore when one first takes a car out at night one has no experience of what night driving is like and no training for such driving. Nowadays one sees a great many cars with headlights that are badly tuned. Such cars only have to hit a slight hump in the road for their headlights to dazzle other drivers. I see such cars every day when I drive home from the station. I do not know how the extended driving test will differ from the normal test and I hope that the Minister will issue more information on that point.

451
Reference has been made to courses for drivers who have lost their licences as a result of drunken driving. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked what the courses would consist of. That is a valid point. What will the courses be like? Will they take place on the road or in the classroom? What is their objective? It has been suggested that, if a driver loses his licence through drunken driving, he should be made to retake his test. What is the object of that, apart from constituting an added punishment? There may be men or women who, without realising it, have had too much to drink on a particular occasion and who merely get into their vehicles and decide not to drive. However, such people can be arrested, go to court and lose their licences because they are said to be in charge of a motor vehicle while being over the prescribed limit. These are people who probably drive carefully and considerately every other day of their lives. What about the drivers who drive recklessly and dangerously? They cut up other drivers time and time again and they are inconsiderate. They do not give a damn about anyone else. Those are the drivers who should go back to school and be taught the basic concepts of driving a motor car, as their bad habits have clearly crept in without their realising it.
One noble Lord mentioned red and amber traffic lights. Nowadays people often believe that they should cross the traffic lights if they think they can do so safely. When I am at a set of traffic lights and the lights change to amber I have to look in my rearview mirror to make sure that a car is not driving fast close behind me. If I put my brakes on and stop in such a situation —that is my inclination—the car that is following me will run into the hack of mine.
My only knowledge of priority routes relates to the one at Archway. The other night I listened to some shopkeepers featured on a television programme who claimed that they would be made bankrupt by the priority route. They insisted that no one, neither car drivers nor bus passengers, would be able to stop near their shops. The shopkeepers claimed they would be driven out of business. The red routes will affect tens of thousands of small shopkeepers. I should have thought that those were the very people who would vote Conservative in the next election. But will they vote Conservative if they have just lost their businesses? The Government are taking an awful risk there.
I was delighted to see that cyclists, who use the roads without any payment whatsoever, will be legally obliged to behave better on the roads. On another occasion when I was driving home from the station on an unlit road, I came upon a cyclist who was riding along in the dark with no reflectors and no rear or front lights. Such cyclists are an absolute menace. Often when one is stationary at traffic lights a cyclist will come along, weaving through the traffic and setting off before the lights have changed, so that he can get away first. I believe it is a good thing that such cyclists are being made to change their ways.
As always in this Chamber, heavy goods vehicle drivers come in for a lot of hashing. I admit that a great many heavy goods vehicles are grossly overloaded. Sometimes perhaps the driver knows, but
452
surely it is the responsibility of the people who load the vehicle. They are the ones who should be apprehended, not the poor driver, who is merely told what to do. If time after time he refuses to drive a vehicle because he thinks it is overloaded how long will be keep his job?
It has been suggested that the blood alcohol limit should be reduced from 80mg to 50mg. What is the point of that if everyone admits that at the moment the chances of being caught are slight? I do not believe that. I do not drink and drive, but people say that one will probably get away with it. It is an awful risk. If people are getting away with it when the limit is 80 milligrams the police will not be able to cope if the limit comes down to 50 milligrams. A noble Lord said that it would ruin the social fabric of the country. One must have a certain amount of sense. As I said, I do not drink and drive; or I may have one glass of wine and no more until I get home. What I do when I get home is quite a different matter, but I do not drink and drive.
Many noble Lords have mentioned random breath tests. The police have sufficient power at present. They can stop a driver and ask for documents. What is the point of that? One does not have to carry one's licence and insurance documents; one has to take them to the nominated police station within 24 hours. A number of cars are driven at night with only one headlight, one sidelight, one rear light or no number-plate light. The police do not need a change in the law. They are doing it now. They stop the whole lot and go through every single one. The police have a bad enough reputation today without being made even more odious to the citizen who considers himself to be law abiding.
I should like to finish on the subject of the orange badge scheme. I wish the Bill provided that wherever a parking space is designated for orange badge holders anyone parking there who does not have an orange badge is to be prosecuted. When I go to my local supermarket if I see a car parked in the wrong place I put a note on the windscreen or find the driver. There are people who have difficulty in walking. I suffered from that problem for several months last year when my feet were in plaster and I had to walk with crutches. I did not have an orange badge so I could not park in designated parking places.
I have said that that was to be my last point, but I should like to return to the question of drink-driving. What I say may be taken the wrong way; it may be thought that I am being frivolous, but I am not. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that one in six deaths on the roads in this country was drink related. To show how dangerous such statistics are I should like to point out that if one in six deaths are drink related that means that five out of six are not. It could therefore he said that one is safer if one drinks and drives than if one does not drink. I know that that is not true, but people will use statistics incorrectly and to give a false picture.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I owe the House an apology for not being able to be in my place for the whole of the afternoon. I was here for several

453
speeches but I had a very important meeting and therefore could not listen to the wise words of so many of your Lordships who care as deeply as I do, which is a very great deal, about the roads, traffic and the problems of driving in this country.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the way in which he has given us an insight into what I regard as a very important and long overdue Bill. There is a great deal in it and it is very well laid out. It is understandable, which some of the Bills brought before your Lordships' House have not been.
We have been told that in 1990 there were 24 million vehicles on the roads of this country. That is a very high number. I also made a note of the percentage of accidents, which was very high. Your Lordships have heard the figure so I shall not repeat it.
Part I represents an attempt by Parliament—and it is only an attempt—to make the punishment fit the crime. Without the police, without the magistracy, without the deterrence and without the Crown Prosecution Service which is enabled to bring prosecutions, the punishment will never fit the crime. In Clause 3, relating to the offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, a prison sentence is prescribed. In my view that should be mandatory. It is part of the deterrent. If a person—and noble Lords will have realised that I did not say "a man" but "a person"—knows that he or she has drunk too much that person will know what the punishment will be. In my view, without any question whatever, the sentence under Clause 3 must be a prison sentence.
In the course of my magisterial work I have found that the ability to deprive someone of their liberty for even as short a time as five days and five nights is a deterrent. There is no need to put someone behind bars for even 28 days, costing the country a great deal. Of course it depends on the seriousness of the offence, but it seems to me that as little as between seven and 14 days loss of freedom is a deterrent and is certainly a punishment where someone has taken another person's life.
In another part of the Bill it is provided that the police must have authority over roadworks. I do not know how that applies in this Bill. This House has been deliberating on the "holes-in-the-road" Bill and I do not know whether under that Bill the police are to be given powers to stop roadworks if they are dangerous or to move people on. I should like to know either now or at some other time whether that is so. I feel that the police should have such a power.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and no doubt other noble Lords, referred to the orange badge scheme for disabled drivers. That is always a difficult problem because there are so many cheats on the road. Orange badge holders are often unable to find anywhere to park. Then someone walks briskly up to a car that he has parked in a place that we thought might be our own. In those circumstances, I say very deferentially, "I wonder why you have parked in this particular bay, which is for orange badge holders". The reply is, "I
454
don't hold an orange badge but I have such a terrible heart that I feel that I must have a special place to park". They get away with it every time.
Whether bus lanes are to be retained as they are or are to be called something different I am not quite certain. But I want to allude to them because, as we all know, taxis, buses, the fire service, the police and the ambulance service are all allowed to use bus lanes. I have been asked by the medical profession, who I think have written to the Minister through the BMA, whether room can be found for emergency doctors, people who because of their expertise are called to accidents or hospitals.
Frequently, they are caught up in big queues of cars and are not able to get to the hospital in good time. They have been told they are not allowed to use bus lanes and if they are picked up it may mean court proceedings and a fine. They certainly lose a lot of time on their way to an accident, to a hospital or to somebody seriously ill in the home. All of that causes a very great deal of trouble and, I understand, has on several occasions caused loss of life through their not being able to get to the scene in good time. Those doctors have green cones which they can place on the roofs of their cars which light up when plugged into the smoking socket. I am assured that they would hardly ever be used but are necessary for certain emergency doctors.
The other day when I was driving—not in a hurry, though I could have been—from one end of Cromwell Road to the far end of Piccadilly the journey took me less than 10 minutes. I did not stop once. The lights were green and phased right the way through. Together with a lot of other cars I was able to go right the way through for perhaps two and a half miles. I understand that Brussels uses a system of phased lighting on its major routes all the time. I was wondering whether we could not use such a system to control traffic. Maybe that would be too difficult, but it seems to me to be a fairly cheap way of controlling traffic if one can go from one part of London to another by phased lighting.
I am interested in the establishment of a traffic director. I wish him luck, but I think he will have an awful job coping with the different local highway authorities, all of which like their own way of doing things and do not like to be told by anybody what to do. However, if there is a traffic director I hope that he will take account of the problems of disabled people. Oddly enough, disabled people have to shop and visit doctors occasionally.
As far as random breath testing is concerned, we have been assured by the police—and I think this is correct—that they already have enough authority. But I believe it would be a deterrent to people who drink and drive if they knew there was random breath testing. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what has been done by way of research.
As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, Clause 18 requires a person filling in a licence application to say whether he is physically fit to drive a car. The question of a motorist's eyesight has come up before in your Lordships' House; it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who unfortunately is not here

455
this evening. I am told by opticians that many people with bad eyesight are driving cars on the roads of this country. That leads to a foreshortening of the view of oncoming cars and eventually to accidents.
My final point relates to high level brake lights, which is a point I have raised in your Lordships' House before. As we now know, they are fitted to nearly all London taxis. They certainly prevent accidents. When driving, at eye level one can see through the back window and front window of any vehicle other than a lorry and see whether brake lights are being used. If the lights come on one is instinctively aware of trouble ahead even 10 cars away. In the United States of America the fitting of these lights to all new cars is compulsory. Research has shown that on the basis of a controlled group there are 54 per cent. less accidents suffered by cars fitted with these lights. Our authorities here have carried out tests only in the laboratory; I believe that they should get out on the road and do more tests. The EC is in the process of issuing regulations to make the fitting of these lights in cars compulsory. Meanwhile, for the cost of about £10 we can install them in our cars and that will prevent accidents. I do not say that lightly: I have seen it done. I know from personal experience of driving all over the country that a red light prevents accidents.
I have practically no bones at all to pick with the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage through the House. I hope that its provisions will be taken on board by motorists in this country because that needs to be done. I wish the Government well with the Bill.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I found it interesting that many noble Lords, including Lord Brougham and Vaux, mentioned tragic injuries caused on roads. We are all aware of that. I have little sympathy with cases involving self-inflicted injuries, because that is just a parallel to somebody smoking himself to death, or whatever else he chooses to do. The people for whom I have great sympathy are the innocent parties killed by dangerous drivers because of either drink or drugs. I was stunned to hear what Lord Monson said. I am sorry he is not here now. I know the noble Lord is a great believer in freedom. However, to say that you should be able to take antihistamine pills, having been warned that you may fall asleep, and then feel free to drive is to me unbelievable. That is the whole purpose of saying that people taking that type of tablet which makes driving dangerous should not drive. I view that matter just as seriously as a case where a driver has taken too much alcohol.
One would not be surprised that I favour a random breath test, bearing in mind my Australian origins. Random breath tests have proved successful in Australia. As a magistrate, I know that a policeman has to produce all sorts of detailed and difficult points even to justify his pulling up of the motorist. He has to say that he saw him driving erratically, that one of his signals kept going and so on. Some sort of reason for stopping the motorist has to be adduced. I do not believe that the breath tests which are carried out are
456
as random as one likes to think. Breath tests are carried out because people are suspected of having had too much to drink and are therefore stopped. Therefore I believe that there is nothing but good in a random breath test.
The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, who recently joined us in this House, brought in the first drink-driving laws. She was brave enough to do it because she was not a driver herself. For that reason she saw the situation very clearly. It is time that we moved on and took some action to stop drunk-driving. I believe that the random breath test is the answer. I have with me a letter—I understand many noble Lords have received a copy of this—from Professor Sims of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which believes that a prominent part of the framework of action is to introduce random breath testing.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, told the House about the situation in the USA, where lane hopping is not allowed. It is a tremendous hazard. Driving on the motorway one can suddenly find a car speeding past, cutting across in front and even cutting across to the inside lane, then coming back and repeating the manoeuvre. I am told that the reason for doing it is that in that way the driver can fool those who are checking on the speed limit. That may be the reason—I do not know—but it is incredibly dangerous.
Many noble Lords mentioned that the 70 mile per hour limit is not enforced. I completely agree. Driving along the motorway at exactly 70 miles per hour you always find someone sitting on the tail of your car, flashing his lights, making it quite clear that you are nothing but a nuisance and insisting that you get out of his way. Yet you are driving at the correct maximum speed for that road. This is a matter of great concern.
I am delighted to welcome a director of traffic. I have spoken often in this House in favour of a director of traffic. The problem in London is that each borough looks at its own patch. It does not worry about what is going on across the border but is only interested in moving people out of its own area. A director of traffic should be able to take a strategic view of the overall London position and should be of enormous value.
The red routes listed in Clause 54 are a good move. I heard two Members of the House refer to unloading at night. That is marvellous in theory, but not in practice. Statistics produced by the Greater London Council showed that the number of people living close to places where there is unloading at night is very high indeed. Perhaps unloading could be done at off-peak times in the day, or specific hours could be worked out in relation to particular areas. However, the solution of having all unloading done at night is not as simple as it appears to be.
Beauchamp Place was mentioned. I must stress that that is in the Royal Borough, which does not have the privatised wardens that Westminster employs. During the debate we have heard complaints about the over-efficiency of Westminster wardens. That is

457
probably true, but the wardens cover their area within 20 minutes and return to cover it again in 20 minutes. That means that no one can outstay his entitlement.
We have all heard horror stories about that situation. I myself heard one today about a patient who was going to the dentist—of all things! I saw a similar incident in my own street. I saw a woman helping an elderly disabled person out of a car. Standing right beside her was a Westminster parking warden—not an official warden with a yellow armband, but a Westminster warden. The woman turned to me and said, "I don't know what to do. I have to take this patient into the pharmacy to get her medicine but this warden says that I cannot even pull up here to let her out of the car". I took issue with the man. Fortunately at that time another car pulled out of a meter bay immediately behind us. I rushed to the space and stood there, saying to other motorists, "You must wait because there is a lady who needs this space for a disabled person". I have to tell your Lordships that I was abused fairly soundly for trying to keep that space. However, that immediate problem was resolved.
Clearly there must be some direction or degree of guidance given to the wardens about when to use their discretion. Certainly there have been many complaints made to the City Council because no few minutes of grace are allowed on the meters. Someone is always standing beside the meter and waiting for it to tick up. That is not fair. Anyone can make a mistake of a matter of a few minutes. If guidance is adequate, especially in cases of disabled people, the system could work quite well.
Builders' skips have been mentioned. When I was holding my dental surgery in the City of London to park a skip was not allowed at all. That is going back maybe 20 years. The skip had to be brought, everything had to be loaded into it and it then had to be taken away within a certain number of hours. I greatly resented the fact that the local authority could not charge for the skip when it was put in a parking bay and occupied it for weeks and months. Now a charge can be made, so that problem has gone.
I am pleased to see that there is a new offence, of causing death while driving. I personally feel quite deeply about that. As a magistrate I have always thought the present situation most unfair. There was the case of an elderly man in Clapham who was crossing the road and was knocked down by a car. The driver was found guilty of careless driving. He said that he had seen the old man quite clearly but he thought that if he went faster he could miss him. The old man went faster to get out of his way and the two collided. The old man died. The clerk of the court told us that we must totally disregard the death. We in the magistrates court were not allowed to consider that fact. Neither were we allowed to consider it in a case which occurred on a stretch of the M.40 near White City. A driver on the 40 m.p.h. section was hit by a car driven at great speed by a man under the influence of drink. The impact was such that the victim was catapulted out of his car. The police had to search and eventually found the body 150 yards away in the hedge
458
on a housing estate. We were told that in such cases the death could not be any part of our consideration at all. I believe that it is good to have that new offence.
The power to order a new driving test is good if the power is discretionary, but not if it is mandatory. In many cases of people driving under the influence there is nothing wrong with their driving; it is the alcohol that does the damage. I do not think that it would be right to have an automatic re-test. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, one can drink in moderation. I do not agree with him that one is ruining the lives of single persons, widows and divorced people if one does not allow them to drink to a point where, when they drive, they damage other people.
Pedal cyclists were also mentioned. Again, statistics show that many pedal cyclists are involved in accidents and cause accidents because they ignore traffic lights. Noble Lords may have seen, as I have, a pedal cyclist pulling up at traffic lights which are showing red. He gets off his bike and walks it across totally ignoring the traffic lights. Alternatively, he rides ahead waiting for the lights to change and then rushes out. The roads of London are very narrow and pedal cyclists cause great chaos in some places.
I am sorry that Clause 11, which gives powers to inspect the public passenger vehicles, does not cover minicabs. Noble Lords will know that I hold strong views that minicabs should be inspected and licensed. A local authorities Bill was passed through this House, but it was defeated in another place by the black taxis lobbyists on the grounds that they do not want any recognition given to minicabs. The black cab drivers said that there would be an understanding and that things would improve. New ideas which they themselves were to bring in would work wonders. Instead, there is the same situation that has existed for years. Minicab drivers do not have their vehicles tested. There is no guarantee that the drivers have a licence. In London many thousands of minicabs are not legally entitled to apply for hire, but they certainly do so. It is time that the black cab drivers woke up to the reality of the situation and appreciated that if they do something to control minicabs—it is only in London that there is no control—the public and the cab drivers themselves would be better off.
Part II, in Clause 44, provides for the designation of routes. That is good. Clause 45 issues guidance to local authorities. That is good. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, referred to the difficulty of the traffic director to cope with the London boroughs. I support her on that. The traffic director will have to deal with a hotchpotch of mixed boroughs rather than individual boroughs. I believe that that will be difficult. It is important to work out how those provisions will be effected.
Clause 54 regulates the exercise of the powers of London authorities in relation to priority routes. There is a slight problem. Some of the local authorities already have designated parking areas in what will become the red routes. Local authorities consider it important that they still have control over those places, as they always have had, if it is appropriate that such places remain in use. Part of that reasoning is that they would lose a lot of income if they did not

459
have that control. There are occasions when parking meters and bays have to be suspended. The authorities want some provision for such occasions.
Clauses 66 and 67 concern me most. It is important that the Minister has time to consider the issue before the next stage. Clause 67 permits different charges. Clause 66 covers parking guidance to the boroughs. The provisions for the setting of new charges by the boroughs for penalty charges, charges for wheel-clamping, the towing away and storage of vehicles are splendid. However, the changes will not be set by an individual borough to suit its own area; it will be undertaken by a joint group of London boroughs.
My husband serves on the London Boroughs Grants Committee. It is an all-London combined body. It met this week. He had received only the first four sections of the agenda; there were 1,304 pages. He later received more pages. How can anyone take those in and deal with them? How can 32 London boroughs, or 33 if one counts the City, possibly come to any agreement? Enfield will have no interest in what Westminster does; and vice versa. Different conditions will apply. In Enfield there was a need to prevent people parking all day in a shopping area next to the station. Commuters from out of town left their cars all day. Local people could not shop because of that. Enfield needed to introduce a system of different times of parking. It did so; and it worked very well.
The guidance and setting of the charges are linked. After the guidance the procedure is too complex. Issuing parking guidance involves six stages. First, the London Planning Advisory Council has to produce a draft. Secondly, the boroughs consider the draft. Thirdly, the London Planning Advisory Council (LPAC) considers the response and issues the advice. Fourthly, the Secretary of State issues the draft guidance to consult the police, London Transport, the borough associations and others. Fifthly, the boroughs consider and respond to the LBA and the ALA. Sixthly, the Secretary of State issues guidance.
Setting the new parking charges involves four more stages. Seventhly, the boroughs set up a joint committee. Eighthly, the joint committee recommends charges to the Secretary of State. Ninthly, the Secretary of State issues the charges. Tenthly, the boroughs implement the charges. Those procedures involve LPAC twice, the boroughs four times, the joint committee once and the Secretary of State three times. There are 10 stages in all. It could take one year, and LPAC believes that it will take five months to reach the third stage.
Some parts of the procedure are reasonable; some are not. It is reasonable that the London Planning Advisory Council should be involved in the broad strategic parking issues. It is reasonable that the Secretary of State should have reserve powers to act against the authority producing unreasonable charges. It is reasonable that penalties imposed by the police and boroughs should be co-ordinated. A compromise might be that the boroughs work out their own parking charge scale and give that, with one month's notice, to the Secretary of State or to the traffic director. If he did not object, they would then be free to act on it.
460
There is a precedent for that with the boroughs proposed traffic management schemes on designated roads. However, it is not reasonable for LPAC and the Secretary of State to be involved in the setting of ordinary parking charges for each area or all areas. It is not reasonable for boroughs to lose the power to tailor the charges in their area to their costs, their need to deter illegal parking, and the need to restrain inessential trips. It is not reasonable to impose new delays on the ability of the boroughs to change the charges. It is not reasonable to involve two separate, unwieldy, London-wide committees in the process.
I give an example. Westminster has four different parking tariffs with three levels of excess charges. Maida Vale has the lowest charge; it is 50p an hour to park and the excess charge is £10. In Mayfair and theatreland it is £2 an hour to park and the excess charge is £30. The procedure must be simplified. I shall not go further into that issue now. We shall discuss it, and I shall bring forward amendments at Committee stage. However, it is important that we either remove LPAC from the charge setting process and allow autonomy to the boroughs, or we find some other way of simplifying the system. We have to keep bureaucracy to a minimum. It should be simple to use the principle that has always existed: that the charges for parking meters should be set on a basis to provide a regular turnover of meters for others wishing to park. Such meters are not designed for long-term on-street parking, for which residents' parking and long-term non-resident parking in off-street car parks is available.
This is an excellent Bill. However, I have plenty about which to worry the Minister at Committee stage. While I cannot see the Bill making speedy progress through the House, I support it.
7.27 p.m
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, the new Road Traffic Bill will go a long way towards improving road safety and conditions. I am sorry that there is no specific mention of motor cycles, even though there are 980,000 in use, which is a considerable number. I believe that the use of motor cycles should be encouraged as they are well suited to modern traffic conditions and do not cause traffic jams.
A motor cyclist needs only a third of the space of a car. A motor cycle uses about half the petrol. Ninety-five per cent. of them will run on unleaded petrol. Eighty per cent. of commuting cars carry only one passenger. Therefore three solo motor cyclists may use the same space as one car driver. Motor cycles cause negligible wear and tear on the roads. At the end of their lives they are dismantled for spare parts and are not an eyesore like derelict cars.
Furthermore, motor cycling is more healthy than travelling in crowded public transport. The rider enjoys the freedom of movement and ease of parking denied motorists today. However, solo motor cycle bays become overcrowded. I hope therefore that our new traffic director will recommend enlarging the present parking bays and creating more of them.
Motor cyclists should be allowed to travel in lanes which are at present reserved for buses, taxis and

461
pedal cycles. When I suggested that in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion I was told that motor cyclists would run over pedestrians. I presumed that they would already have been run over by the buses and taxis but that the pedal cyclists were more lethal because one could not hear them coming. If dispatch riders were allowed to travel in bus lanes they would stop frightening everyone to death weaving in and out of the traffic as they do at present.
Another danger to motor cyclists is the spillage of diesel oil, particularly on roundabouts, which is a major hazard. It is often invisible and has the same effect as driving on ice. As the bike leans over to travel round the corner it simply slides away. On a straight road one might have a sporting chance of correcting it. I should like to see anti-spill fuel tanks made compulsory under the construction and use section of the Bill.
Another great danger to motor cyclists is the increasing use of bumps in the road, or "sleeping policemen" as they are known. A rider unused to an area travelling on a dark and wet night could come to grief. I suggest that the approaches to sections of roads with bumps should have illuminated and reflective warning signs.
Traffic congestion would be eased considerably if all vehicles were allowed to turn left at a red light, having first stopped to see whether the road was clear. That is common practice in America, where it works extraordinarily well, although of course the traffic turns right. At crowded junctions with pedestrian crossings a large sign merely reads, "Don't turn on red", and therefore there is no danger to pedestrians. When I made that suggestion the official reply was that it was better to have a system of phased lights. However, many thousands of traffic lights are not phased, particularly in suburban areas.
I am pleased that the Government have not given way to the pressure groups which are demanding random breath testing. The police already have adequate powers to stop motorists at any time. It is legal for them merely to ask to see the tax disc and therefore there is a minor form of random testing.
I have been stopped in France twice in the course of a year and subjected to a random breath test. The last time was about two weeks ago when I was returning from the Geneva Motor Show travelling on a minor main road. When going over the brow of a hill I was confronted by about 20 gendarmes holding what I thought was a blue football. I thought that they were about to indulge in some strange French game. Not a bit of it; they were holding large breathalysers. Everyone travelling on the road had to blow into them. Not a drop of the demon alcohol had passed my lips all day so in that regard I was all right. However, I had great difficulty blowing it up and had to get out of the car to get enough breath to do so. I have not tried our British model, I am glad to say, but the French breathalysers were enormous and are hard work to blow up.
Anyone of a nervous disposition could be most distressed by the whole affair. I am not of a nervous disposition and therefore I was not distressed but I felt
462
insulted and annoyed. Random breath testing which involves queues of people would do nothing to improve the good will of the motorists towards the police. I do not condone driving over the limit, but one should put the whole matter in perspective. Out of 5,000 fatal accidents only one-quarter are drink related and one-third of those are drunken pedestrians.
I am convinced that more fatal accidents are caused by people who cannot see properly than by drivers who are over the alcohol limit. When I have raised that point in the past I have always been told that no statistics are available to prove it. Of course there are no statistics because no one has ever compiled any. I have never heard of a driver being made to have an eyesight test after an accident. No one seems to take the subject seriously, probably because it is respectable to have bad eyesight but not respectable to be over the limit. At the end of the day it is irrelevant whether one is run over by a drunken driver or by one who cannot see.
I have a number of elderly friends who drive but who cannot see at all well. I am frightened of meeting them during the day and horrified in case I meet them at night. Professor Cook of Brunel University has made a study of the subject. It is his opinion that about 20 per cent. of drivers suffer from low luminance myopia, which one might call night blindness. He believes that the condition is responsible for a number of unexplained accidents. That is a disturbing thought and I hope that one day some form of eyesight testing will be introduced in the interests of road safety. With those few observations I welcome the Bill.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Brocket: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name on the list of speakers but I wish to make only a few brief comments. Many are made in the light of experience of my local police force. Clause 12 deals with the power to prohibit the driving of unfit vehicles. That is all very well but the trouble is that most people who drive unfit vehicles—for that one can read "wrecks"—are not very law-abiding citizens. On the whole they are ticked off, their name is taken and they continue to drive their unfit vehicle. My local police force has a terrific problem with such incidents. Its record books show the same names cropping up repeatedly. Drivers are ticked off for driving an unfit vehicle but continue to do so. Provision should be made to force them to take notice of being banned, be it by taking measures against the drivers or against the cars. I know of a recent case in front of magistrates in which the driver had been banned three times but was still driving. They were wondering what to do with him. There should be some way of dealing with such people. The same problem arises in relation to Clause 19; offenders are banned but they continue to drive.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of eyesight. I saw a classic example yesterday on the M.25 at its junction with the M.3. A middle-aged couple were in a car which changed lanes at the roundabout and drove into a green Transit van. Bits flew all over the road. The couple got out and looked

463
at each other. The van was undamaged but their car was only just drivable. We made sure that they were all right and they got back into the car. The driver drove straight across the roundabout and hit an Audi travelling at about 60 miles per hour, so two cars were now in pieces. I spoke to the couple and discovered that the driver, who was only 50, was as blind as a bat and could not see a thing. The only reason why his wife was not too concerned was because she was deaf and could not hear anything. I can add to that case by saying that my wife cannot drive at night because she cannot see too well. I am a night-time chauffeur on most occasions.
Clause 29 relates to courses for drink-drive offenders. I shall be interested to know what form the course will take. I believe that most people who are over the limit are not drastically so; to put it bluntly, they are not paralytic. They have not an alcohol problem but a problem of responsibility. I shall be interested to know the form that the courses will take but they must tackle the responsibility aspect.
Clause 33 relates to the conditional fixed penalty offer, which is close to my heart. I am all in favour of fixed penalties but of paying on the spot. The Germans have a wonderful system of collecting the money from the driver there and then. One may wonder whether the policeman is crooked, but he must give a receipt and pay the money in within 24 hours (one can hand it in at the police station the following day). If he has not done so he will be for the high jump; he will leave the force rather rapidly. I am in favour of that system. The sheer volume of paperwork created by fines is mind boggling. The amount of paperwork which a policeman must do when he comes off his beat is almost enough to make him want to leave the force.
Clause 39 refers to meter charges. My noble friend Lady Gardner remarked on this matter. Nowadays one needs a mortgage to fill a meter, particularly in central London. The cost of using a parking meter in central London is four to six times more expensive than it is in central Manhattan. Our meter rates have gone completely barmy. Last week a meter was stolen, although I cannot remember where from. My American friends understand that theft because they believe that we must regard parking meters as banks on sticks because there is so much money inside them. The stolen meter must have been extremely heavy containing so much money!
Clause 44 deals with red routes, and I have always been in favour of them. They are a brilliant idea. In Germany and America they work very well. I was sad that there was only one experimental route—Archway. In order to test the system properly there should be quite a few experiments on the arterial routes leading into London.
When we go ahead with the red routes, I wonder how we shall make sure that they are kept clear. I suppose, rather like wheel clamping, we could franchise various routes to operators. However, we must be ruthless and we must make the fines very expensive. We could charge £100 if a vehicle is lifted off a red route and give £50 to the operator and the balance to the local authority. That would be a good
464
deterrent and also a good encouragement to the operators to make sure that the routes are kept clear. However, will diplomatic cars be included? I wonder how many diplomatic cars will be put on the back of trucks. If one uses Baker Street as a commuter route every morning one can see many diplomatic cars outside the department stores, their occupants doing their shopping.
There is a social point as regards red routes. Many of the shops with premises on red routes will be like shops in the middle of the Sahara. Not much will happen. There must be a way of compensating those shopkeepers, because their profits will plunge.
Clause 57 deals with planning. When planning authorities grant planning permission for retail premises or premises which create business in towns, I hope that they will stipulate as part of that planning permission that adequate parking shall be available, particularly in the case of shops. In the United States, if the parking does not exist or cannot be provided, then the facility is not granted. If one wishes to build a new shop or department store, then adequate parking spaces must be made available. That ensures that streets do not become clogged up. Provision must be made to rectify the lack of parking in the older parts of London where it is not possible to build car parks. There must be some creative thinking in that area.
Otherwise, I support the Bill and I believe that it will be a great improvement on the present arrangements.
7.44 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it would be churlish not to join with other noble Lords in welcoming the Bill. Part I may well achieve some increase in road safety and Part II may well reduce congestion. However, the Bill is fundamentally flawed. That is not the fault of the noble Lord who presented it so clearly. I do not blame anybody because I do not believe that the problem is easy to solve; it is due to the sheer number of cars on the roads.
The aim of the Government is admirable. They wish to cut the number of road accidents by one-third by the year 2000. As I said the other day on a Question on motor cycling, the progress towards that aim is not very encouraging.
I have just worked out that it was 31 years ago that I wrote articles about British cars for distribution to foreign journals. During that time I had to stretch the truth a little. I did my best at the job. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, will agree with me that in 1960 British cars were not very reliable. But they were becoming more attractive and at that time the British car manufacturing industry was doing quite well. Tyre technology had not developed to the extent to which it has now and we know that over the past 30 years there has been a dramatic change in the fortunes of the British car industry and indeed of the world car industry, particularly in Japan. The result of those changes has been that there are a very large number of cars on the roads, particularly in the developed world. Those cars have become increasingly

465
more reliable and attractive. They now include technology which in 1960 we should have thought was impossible.
Electronic chip technology performs various functions in the motor car. Indeed, marketing in the world manufacturing industry has become so competitive that refinements are used in it which most drivers do not understand. I do not know whether most drivers understand the difference between a 16-valve motor car and an eight-valve motor car. I wonder whether they know what the characteristics of a two-wheel drive motor car are in comparison to a four-wheel drive motor car; and I wonder whether they understand some of the possible dangers of the technology of anti-lock braking systems.
In short, over the past 30 years there has been an increasing number of cars on the road. Of course it is good that many people are now able to afford the luxury of a motor car and that cars have become extremely sophisticated and reliable. They are high performance cars. Many have become extremely boring to drive. They would not be boring to drive if there were fewer of them because there would be more road on which to benefit from the car's performance and so on.
Various factors are involved in road safety today. Cars are so good, there are so many of them on the road and there is so little space in which to use them that motorists have become extremely frustrated. Perhaps it is a characteristic of the meandering nostalgia of progressive middle age, but I believe that today drivers are more aggressive and selfish than they were 20 years ago, let alone 30 years ago.
It is interesting to observe the behaviour of people in accidents such as that which took place on the M.4. I was travelling to London on that very day but I used the A.303 and fortunately avoided that road. Having observed people driving in fog or bad conditions, I believe that they feel cocooned by all the high technology and luxury. They are less aware of people around them. Indeed, on top of all the advances which I have described there is now the advent of highly sensitive in-car entertainment to which people turn when they are frustrated or feel like a change of mood.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, people become even more frustrated when they use their hand-held cellular telephones because they cannot get through to the people at the other end. Every day, particularly on motorways, I see drivers straying from lane to lane holding those telephones. I know that it is careless driving to behave in that manner and I should be interested to know how many prosecutions have been brought against people driving carelessly holding their hand-held cellular telephones.
The scene has changed; it is no longer pleasant to drive. That is one reason I have returned to riding a motor cycle. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, the high priest of motor cycles in your Lordships' House, I drive my motor cycle more than I drive my car. I am less frustrated on the motor cycle. I feel safer. If a motor cyclist reaches the age that I have, in middle-age we motor cyclists learn to be defensive in
466
our driving techniques. That is one of the aspects of motor cycling. If one continues to drive a motor cycle into one's fifties, one becomes a defensive enthusiast, and that is reflected in insurance premiums.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is not in his place, but I believe it was he who said that heavy goods vehicle drivers were particularly reviled in your Lordships' House. I fancy they are not so reviled as motor cyclists. Every time the subject is debated we hear a lot of angry talk, particularly in regard to dispatch riders and messengers. That is understandable. However, I feel that it is aimed at all motor cyclists for varying reasons.
Motor cyclists who carry goods and work for hire have a different motive for riding a motor cycle. They drive extremely quickly in order to earn money, and that is the problem. I agree absolutely that it is intolerable for the situation to continue where people are allowed to ride motor cycles professionally on a provisional licence. The Government must address that problem. It is not only dangerous but causes much offence. It is dangerous to pedestrians as well as other motor cyclists.
In the excellent and amusing maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, in which there were many interesting points, mention was made of company cars. I congratulate the chief executive, if that is who it was, of Body Shop for encouraging her employees to have a company bicycle. I should imagine it was not very popular. An inordinate amount of time in companies is spent deciding who should have which motor car. Inevitably in the end everyone receives a dull one; they are much too big and the drivers do not have the same appreciation of the car as an owner. We shall ultimately need to deal with company cars because congestion in the cities and the commuting process is aggravated by them. However, we face the built-in conflict with manufacturers, the interest of government and the Exchequer, other road users and public transport in that regard.
I do a little cycling and find it the most exciting form of transport. One risks death and injury in a hundred different ways every time one rides a bicycle. They are a very brave body of men and women who practise cycling. On the other hand, now I have complimented them, I must say that they are the most irresponsible section of the road-using community. Although we should encourage cyclists to use their cycles on the roads, even to the extent of giving more lanes to them, in return they must do so in a better and more responsible way. Cycling organisations should ensure that cyclists obey basic road laws which are properly enforced by the police. All the anecdotes we heard this afternoon have shown what an important area that is.
I shall not go into the topic of motor cycling again. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, covered it very well. However, the aim of the Government to cut accidents in regard to motor cyclists by 40 per cent. by the year 2000 is well on target. Motor cycle accidents have been reducing gradually over the past 10 years on a regular basis. The standard of motor cycling in this

467
country, leaving aside the professionals that I denigrated, is extremely high. Most motor cyclists ride responsibly and defensively.
In regard to drink-driving, as my noble friend Lord Tordoff said—and to use his expression—I am an agnostic. Most noble Lords know my views in that regard; I abhor it. However, apart from anything else, I have certain anxieties about the ability of the police to exercise random breath testing in a way which would maintain their relations with the public. Where drink is concerned it is important to have proper identification and rehabilitation of drivers who have offended more than once—not just more than twice or three times—to ascertain whether they have a drink problem and to ensure that they are rehabilitated if necessary. Like other noble Lords, I ask what would be the content of the rehabilitation courses for such offenders.
I am somewhat pessimistic whether congestion will be relieved by the proposals made by the Government in Part II of the Bill. I am hopeful that it will be. I should like to see more people using public transport, cheaper buses and more of them. I should like to see fewer cars in areas where buses are carrying people to and from their place of work. The best driver is an enthusiastic driver who drives for pleasure. The best drivers are not those who own company cars and drive as a routine to work. That may be a contentious view but it is relevant to the debate.
I accept the Bill and its contents gracefully. I wish it well but I have reservations.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, for his maiden speech. I note that he is keenly interested in transport matters. That, together with his wide experience in local government, means we welcome him to our transport group as one of our transport fraternity. We need more like him. I congratulate and thank him for his speech.
Noble Lords will recall the debate on road users and the law in April 1989. On that occasion I said from this Dispatch Box that the Opposition in general welcomed the recommendations and the response of the Government to the North Report. When we consider Part I of the Bill we must consider whether it fulfils the objectives of North and the general trend of the Government's White Paper.
Perhaps I should mention at the outset that the North Committee in its report stated that the law would be most effective when it is seen to be laying down necessary and reasonable standards for road user behaviour. It went on to say that, the law should be made accessible and clear to the average road user. It added that,
"no law will be truly effective if it fails to command the confidence of the community".
I believe that that view was reflected in many of your Lordships' speeches. It involves the important question of enforcement. I do not suppose the Minister will be able to reply immediately, but I should like to feel that when the legislation in Part I is enacted, there will be the widest possible consultations on how to achieve the maximum possible effective
468
enforcement of all the provisions. Unless we do that we are wasting our time in considering so much new legislation.
The Bill reflects the recommendations of North that the present offences should be replaced by ones which consider more firmly the standard of driving. I am sure that most people will agree with that general aim. At Committee stage the Minister must consider whether or not the various provisions achieve that desirable objective.
In general we approve the provisions for the new offences of dangerous and careless driving. We give full support to the offence of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink and drugs. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis emphasised that in the other place the Opposition pressed for the inclusion also of incapacity through fatigue. In his remarks he mentioned the need for there to be suitable and adequate parking facilities for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles. Only today I received a communication from a regional office of the Transport and General Workers Union pointing out the closure of one such place to drivers of heavy goods vehicles. This will obviously have some effect.
I should like to ask the Minister what kind of enforcement there will be to carry out the law concerning drivers' hours and rest periods which are quite clearly laid down. How effective is the enforcement on tachographs? There has been general acceptance of them although there were suspicious feelings at the outset.
We have had a great deal of discussion today about random breath testing. I believe that the public now generally accept the serious concern that there is about drink and driving. As my noble friend said, there is wide support for random breath-testing from a substantial number of influential organisations. Their opinions cannot be dismissed out of hand. In particular I mention the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Road Safety and the Consumers' Association. Both organisations approach the problem from different angles. They both strongly support random breath-testing.
The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, queried whether the introduction of random breath tests would disrupt relations with the public. We have sound information from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. In a survey, the results of which were published last November, 77 per cent. of the responses were in support of random breath-testing. Surely nobody would query the research work carried out by the TRRL. We have the argument put forward by ACPO and the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who referred to the fact that random breath-testing meant checking without any exception. If random breath-testing is accepted one has to determine how it should be carried out. There will have to be strict guidelines. There can be either an extension of the present random selection that the police make or there can be proper stops in which, say, each of 10 motorists is checked. The regulations will have to be considered later on. The important point is to make a clear decision as to

469
whether there should be additional random breath-testing above that which we have now. It has always seemed wrong to me that we should have to rely on a pretext or a subterfuge for the police stopping a person to check whether he or she is guilty of a drink-driving offence.
As my noble friend emphasised, on this side of the House there will be a free vote on this matter. It is a very important issue and I hope that there will be a free vote throughout the House. It is not just a question of the detection of individuals, but of deterrence. Random breath-testing will be an important deterrent. The important issue is as to how we can deter more people from engaging in drink-driving.
There are 43 clauses in Part I of the Bill many of which have new or extended powers. We have general agreement on many of them. I am certain that we shall have a very full and interesting Committee stage. I appreciate—and I am certain that other noble Lords do also the fact that the Minister has stayed throughout and has heard every single word of this debate. I am certain that he will find that beneficial when we come to the Committee stage. There are no politics in this matter, except on one issue to which I shall refer later. In Part I of the Bill we are all after the same objective: namely, how can we make our roads and the travelling public more safe.
There are so many important provisions in Part I. I shall mention only a couple. I welcome the provision for the use of camera technology. On a previous occasion I stressed how important that can be in detecting speeding. I said how important it can be as regards people who jump the red light. I use a car to come here on some days, but today I came by London Underground. It depends how late the House is going to keep me at night. That is a very important factor. The worst offence that I have come across concerns the number of people who jump the red light. That is a most dangerous practice. I hope that the introduction of camera technology will do something about that.
I hope that we shall not be faced with the situation that we reached over the introduction of the radar speed equipment. It took three amendments before the Government accepted that there had to be an approved standard for equipment. If we intend to include this provision in Part I of the Bill there must be an approved type and standard for equipment in order to achieve accuracy and reliability. I hope that the Government themselves will introduce an amendment to that effect.
The other provision in Part I to which I wish to refer is variable speed limits. There will need to be a great deal of co-ordination between the various highway authorities if that is to be introduced. I can see the beneficial effect of introducing that provision. In order to have co-ordination there may have to be effective consultation between neighbouring highway authorities.
I am pleased that reference has also been made to a possible review of speed limits. Reference has been made to a limit of 60 miles per hour for heavy goods
470
vehicles. If my memory is correct, there is now a procedure for limiters to be put on coaches. I believe that measure was approved in 1988. Is any effort being made to ensure that there are speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles? Most of the goods vehicles which pass me, often driven by very competent drivers, are travelling far faster than 60 miles an hour. In fact many of them attempt to pass at 70 miles per hour coaches which are also supposed to have speed limits imposed on them.
I now move to Part II of the Bill. Part I of the Bill is non-contentious though there will be many differences of opinion at Committee stage. Part II is a very controversial part of the Bill. I am sorry that it has been added to a Bill which deals with road traffic law. That will upset some of our discussions. In our debate on transport, with particular reference to London and the South-East, considerable emphasis was placed on the need for a central strategic planning authority for London. This part of the present Bill reinforces the need for such an authority.
I call the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, my noble friend because we were engaged in getting through the provision for the compulsory wearing of seat belts. He asked how we could possibly get 33 London boroughs to agree. I believe that another noble Lord made the same comment. They can be made to agree if there is one central strategic authority, which is what we must have for London. If ever there was an argument for that provision it was that comment from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
Arising from the road assessment studies, the Government conceded that the construction of new roads is not the answer to London's transport and its congestion. Having accepted that, we now have a rather piecemeal approach without the sound co-ordinated approach to the plans for London transport.
Reference has been made to buses. They cannot be treated separately. I welcome some of the approaches that the Government have made about them. There has to be a co-ordinated plan for the whole transport system of London. We have the Government's decision on the network of priority routes which are commonly called the red routes. The Government frankly state that the objective is to enable traffic to move smoothly and to avoid congestion.
How will the encouragement of more through traffic to move quickly persuade people to leave their cars behind and use public transport? That is the last thing they will do if the traffic can move effectively. Moreover, when the traffic has reached the end of the red routes where does it go? Noble Lords who attend this House are very fortunate because we have a car park outside. If one goes across the road one finds that it is impossible to get a parking place in the underground car park. There is always a notice displayed to the effect that the car park is full. Employers are paying for season tickets for many of their senior employees to use the car park. I know an individual who had one. Through traffic passing quickly does not encourage people off the road but possibly encourages more people to come into central London, with all the problems that causes.

471
Both the Conservative-controlled Association of London Boroughs and the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities oppose this Part II of the Bill. Neither accepts the concept of red routes. Even those who may favour red routes surely must query the proposal to appoint a director. There are concerns about his powers. He will be accountable only to the Secretary of State. In fact, as someone commented in another place, he is a one-man quango. The director will designate a priority route network and in the preparation of this network plan he need consult only those boroughs and associations as he considers appropriate. By and large the local authorities will be bypassed and the public will in no way be consulted on the desirability of a red route going through their area. Local authorities may be directed by the director to vary their local plans. There is even the draconian power to fine local authorities if they do not fit in with the director's plans or do not exercise compliance with the director's wishes.
I know the Minister said that this is only a fallback power which he hopes will never be used. I can recall that some of us tried to provide a fallback power in the New Roads and Street Works Bill but the Government refused to accept it. This Bill contains very draconian powers. I hope that we shall give this part of the Bill very serious consideration.
Various noble Lords will have received, as I have, communications from at least two of the organisations concerned with the mobility of the disabled. There is not time to deal with the issues tonight, but I hope that when amendments come forward noble Lords will be as sympathetic to matters concerning the mobility of the disabled as they have been on previous occasions. I hope too that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will be as sympathetic as he was when these issues were raised on the New Roads and Street Works Bill. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for her very moving address on this issue. When we are dealing with transport matters in London, including the red routes, we should not overlook the important question of provision for the disabled.
Perhaps I may ask a rhetorical question: where do the pedestrians and cyclists come in? The only place I can see cyclists referred to is under the offence of reckless cycling. On the road I use coming through to the City there is now a cycle path. I was a keen cyclist. Noble Lords can see that I am now too old to be a cyclist but I was once captain of my cycling club and rode a regular tandem. Some motorists treat cyclists very badly and allow only about six inches when passing them. We should bear in mind the reckless attitude adopted by motorists towards many cyclists. The cycle paths are a disgrace. The Government can learn a great deal from cycle paths in the Netherlands, not only those that cross the countryside but those in towns as well, with their own traffic lights. We must give further consideration to the question of pedestrians and cyclists.
I am sorry if I have taken too much time but I must make a final point. I was asked by my noble friend to deal with it. We welcome the Government's change of attitude regarding local authority parking provisions.
472
All parking provisions are now given to local authorities except those connected with red routes and the neighbouring areas. Parking guidance is to be given by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what exactly will be the nature of the consultations before that parking guidance is given.
There is also the question of the number of officers who will be carrying out this work. There is at present a severe shortage of Metropolitan Police traffic wardens in many areas. If local authority parking attendants are to be provided for in the Bill, we must ensure that there will be adequate numbers. We must ensure that adequate training is given. I support noble Lords who have suggested that there should be a recognised uniform for all local authority parking attendants. We have separate police forces and separate fire services, but there is always one common recognised uniform. We need to have the same in connection with local authority attendants.
I wish to raise one further matter. If we are to have adequate numbers of parking attendants to enforce all the parking provisions, how will they be controlled in areas where roads can be very dangerous? I have previously criticised the complete lack of parking controls in my own area. Will the transport supplementary grant, which I believe can cover certain safety provisions, be extended to ensure that local authorities have the finance in order to employ a suitable number of parking attendants or will this be taken into consideration in the standard spending assessment for local authorities? It is little use giving local authorities power to carry out parking enforcement, which they will welcome, unless we make sure that they have the resources to carry out the job. It is the same as passing laws to deal with road traffic conditions and not having the proper means of enforcing them. We must provide the resources necessary to enforce all of Part I and also those provisions in Part II of the Bill.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome in the House for the broad thrust of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said, I am sure we all agree that we should be working to improve road safety and ease congestion on our roads.
Perhaps I may join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Braybrooke on his contribution to a debate that has ranged widely. I hope that we shall hear more from him soon on transport subjects.
The Bill is not and does not purport to be the Government's sole contribution to road safety. The House will be well aware of the wide range of government initiatives in this field. I have in mind in particular the compulsory wearing of rear seat-belts, on which draft regulations were issued on 14th March, and the proposals for the compulsory fitting of speed limiters to heavy goods vehicles, announced in another place on the 7th February.
Although it is not everything, the improvement of road traffic law is a vital element in our road safety strategy. The new offences, the new penalties and the

473
new and improved enforcement through camera technology are not simply aimed at conviction rates. We hope that they will change drivers' behaviour.
Equally, the Bill's traffic management provisions do not lay claim by themselves to solve the problems of congestion in London. They are an important new thrust for improving the movement of traffic in London. The new local authority parking system will trigger the release of substantial numbers of police traffic wardens to enforce prohibited parking on the priority routes and other important roads in London. That will bring direct benefits for traffic movement and for road safety.
The provisions of the Bill should be seen against the background of our policies for improving traffic conditions in London. We are widening the M.25, and the New Roads and Street Works Bill which has been considered and passed by this House will make an important contribution towards reducing obstructions due to utility works. Moreover, we now have 300 junctions controlled by SCOOT which is a computer-controlled technique to adjust traffic-light timings to match the traffic flow. More than twice that number of London traffic lights will be controlled in that way by 1993. I hope that that will please my noble friend Lady Macleod.
In outer London detectors are being fitted to give buses priority at traffic lights. We are introducing variable message signs to advise drivers of any problems ahead. We shall be introducing a new system of direction signing which could save £35 million a year in wasted mileage. New driver information systems are also being introduced.
I should like to respond so far as I can to the points raised by noble Lords during the debate. As regards the road traffic law provisions of the Bill, many noble Lords raised the question of random breath testing. Let us he clear on the matter. When my noble friend Lord Waddington was Home Secretary, he gave a full explanation in another place on 21st March 1990, of the extent of police powers. We have concluded that the police have adequate powers to order roadside breath tests. It is lawful for a police officer in uniform, acting in the execution of his duty, to require the driver of any vehicle on a road to stop. The police officer who stops a vehicle on a road for the purpose of investigating whether its driver has alcohol in his body is acting in the execution of his duty. Accordingly, it is lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose, provided that there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct on the part of the officer.
It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require a driver who has been stopped in such circumstances to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, provided that the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body. It is clear therefore that existing powers are sufficient. Indeed, they have permitted a tripling in the number of breath tests over the past decade. There has recently been a welcome downward trend in the proportion of positive breath tests. Therefore, I do not believe that a further power to institute formalised roadside checks
474
would be an effective approach to policing the problem of drink-driving. Indeed, it may act as a constraint on the police. Why should the police want to administer breath tests where there is no suspicion that a person has been drinking? For the latter reason, I cannot see why the police should want what has been described as "unfettered discretion". Surely they have all the discretion they need at present.
Of course I appreciate that the checkpoint approach has brought about a reduction in drink-driving in such countries as Australia. However, in many cases it has proved to be a temporary phenomenon. Our approach—that of changing attitudes—has brought about a larger reduction. Existing police powers have been shown to be sufficient for the job of bringing down the incidence of drink-driving. The case for change has not been made out. Moreover, apart from the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Clinton-Davis, and by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I have not heard much support in the debate this afternoon for such a change.
I turn now to deal with other road traffic law points which were raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred especially to the question of corporate liability and employers' responsibilities for heavy goods vehicle offences. Employers of heavy goods vehicle drivers are required to have an operator's licence. They must give undertakings to the licensing authorities that they will operate vehicles safely and within the law. Enforcement is aimed at ensuring that the operator and his driver comply with undertakings and other requirements of road traffic law. Of course, an operator's licence can be revoked if necessary by the licensing authority, usually following prosecution in court.
The issue of fatigue experienced by lorry drivers and suitable rest provisions was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Clinton-Davis. The causes of such fatigue are complex. The rules governing the hours worked by drivers provide for adequate rest and driving limits. Those are the paramount factors in preventing overtiredness. There are currently 45 motorway service areas in London all of which provide separate parking for lorries. Plans for a further 20 such areas are at various stages of development. Some motorway service areas provide lodging accommodation including showers, shaving points and separate catering facilities for commercial drivers. However, on some all-purpose trunk roads there is a shortfall in the provision of' facilities for heavy goods vehicles. I agree with the noble Lords on that point. Discussions have been held with the local authority associations and with the private sector to promote the provision of more and better facilities where needed. I am encouraged by the fact that lorry facilities are being planned and provided by the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also referred to heavy goods vehicle speed limiters. We have recently consulted on their compulsory introduction for new

475
vehicles. There is also the possibility of some retro-fitting. We shall shortly be bringing forward draft regulations in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, particularly requested that seatbelts should be fitted in minibuses and coaches. The Government would also like to see good quality, easy to use and retractable seatbelts being fitted to all seats in minibuses and coaches. Indeed, seatbelts have been required to be fitted to all front seats on new minibuses and to exposed forward facing seats on new coaches since 1st October 1988.
We have been pressing the EC Commission for some years to amend the relevant directive so as to allow us to require seatbelts to be fitted on all seats in both minibuses and coaches. As a result of that pressure, the Commission has requested that proposals be put forward by the end of 1991. We hope that they will be suitable for our requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned the use of car telephones in vehicles. I do not believe that it is necessary to create a specific offence as regards using a car telephone when driving. It has already been established that such behaviour can be dealt with by one of the bad driving charges, such as careless or inconsiderate driving. However, I cannot at present tell the noble Viscount how many prosecutions have taken place. Of course we have emphasised in The Highway Code the risks involved in using a car telephone when driving.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords mentioned police resources for enforcement of the provisions in Part I of the Bill. There have been significant increases in police force establishments over the past 10 years. But of course there can never be enough police officers, as noble Lords pointed out this afternoon, to meet all the calls for increased enforcement, whether for traffic or other offences. The chief officers of police have to target their resources so as to have the maximum impact in accordance with local and national priorities. I can tell my noble friend Lord Mountevans that in 1989 about 8.7 million alleged motoring offences were dealt with by the police. That was an increase of 2 per cent. over the figure for 1988 and represents a continuing rising trend.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I have with me the same sort of Home Office statistics. It appears that 8.7 million or 8.9 million cases were dealt with by the police. However, how many people got away completely? That is the nub of the enforcement problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer that question. No one knows how many people got away. Indeed, no one ever will. The key proposal in the Bill is to improve enforcement through the use of technology. We hope that that will also act as a deterrent.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also referred to Clause 6, which deals with endangerment. He asked why that provision did not apply to Scotland. It is unnecessary to apply to Scotland the new offence of
476
endangering road users as common law adequately covers the statutory offence and penalties up to life imprisonment could apply in serious cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and others referred to rehabilitation. The courses will be designed to educate drink-drivers and encourage self-examination of attitudes. The Secretary of State will have to approve courses. He will do so by incorporating conditions which allude to course conduct. Precise details will initially be a matter for the course organisers. They will put forward proposals to the Secretary of State.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who asked about vehicle examiners, that resources will be adequate. Although the number of vehicle examiners is not increasing at the moment, there are efficiency gains, and vehicle conditions are as much enforced through the annual roadworthiness test as they are by the powers of prohibition.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, not unexpectedly, referred to the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. He will recognise, as do the Government, that provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to the sale of unroadworthy vehicles have been criticised for being easily circumvented. Our proposals to strengthen the law were included in our amendment to the Bill in another place and are now contained in Clause 16. I believe that the new clause will help close the loophole which unscrupulous dealers have used to escape conviction.
The noble Lord also referred to the overloading of heavy goods vehicles. We are worried about the low level of fines imposed for overloading offences. That is why we are consulting about a possible change in policy to concentrate prosecution efforts on the most serious cases; in other words, on those vehicles which are more than 10 per cent. overloaded. No decision has yet been taken. The most effective means of enforcement is the prohibition on overloaded vehicles until the weight is reduced. We shall continue to prohibit all vehicles which are more than 5 per cent. overloaded.
My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned an interesting point about the application of road traffic law to light rail vehicles, trams and so forth. I share his concern about the application of the Road Traffic Acts with the imminent introduction of street running light rail systems. I shall await with interest my noble friend's detailed amendments in Committee. I should warn the House that that could be a complicated matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to anti-spray devices. Since 1984, vehicles registered in Great Britain with a maximum weight of more than 12 tonnes have been required to be fitted with spray suppression devices meeting the specification of British Standard BS200. The provision, however, cannot be legally required on vehicles registered outside this country.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as everything will be European next year, could there not be a European regulation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would not go as far as the noble Baroness. However, a European Community directive has now been agreed for spray suppression equipment the performance requirement of which is similar to our British standard. Although the directive is not mandatory, we hope that other Community member states will implement its provisions. That would have the effect of reducing the number of vehicles on our roads which are not fitted with that equipment.
The noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Brocket, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about rehabilitation courses. The courses will be approved by the Department of Transport. Voluntary and private sector organisations will be involved in running them. The experiment will be monitored by the Department of Transport's Road Research Laboratory, reporting to the Secretary of State for Transport. Officials from the Department of Health and the Home Office will be working with the Department of Transport in setting up and monitoring those courses.
On orange badge offences, the noble Baroness will be aware of the proposal to introduce a new passport-style orange badge with a photograph. It should be a major step towards dealing with abuse. The badge will not be displayed permanently on the windscreen. The motorist will leave it on the dashboard when parked. So an offence of falsely displaying an orange badge will not be needed.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux mentioned the retesting of drink drivers. He asked why we had not made that compulsory in the Bill. Compulsory retesting will, as he said, not initially apply to all drink drivers. We consider it more appropriate for those drivers who have displayed a serious deficiency in their standards of driving through their conviction for dangerous driving. However, courts will have discretion to order an extended retest for drink drivers when they think fit.
The Bill also contains enabling powers for the Secretary of State to extend, by order, the categories of disqualified drivers who are subject to compulsory retesting. We shall consider whether an extension is desirable in the light of experience.
My noble friend was also worried about tailgating. It would not be appropriate to create a specific offence. Such behaviour can be charged as one of the bad driving offences. Prosecutors have the discretion to bring a charge of careless or inconsiderate driving. In certain circumstances the behaviour may amount to a more serious charge such as the new dangerous driving offence. A specific offence would unduly restrict the prosecution.
The new technology will initially be used for speeding and red light offences. There is power to extend the list of offences by order. The changes made in the Bill will, as envisaged in the White Paper, enable us to make full and effective use of technological developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned the type approval of camera technology. I can assure him
478
that the Bill already provides that the equipment used to detect speeding and red light offences will have to be type approved.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter mentioned speed limits and compared those in this country with those in the United States. I recognise the importance of setting a speed limit which achieves a balance between the efficient movement of people and goods on the one hand and safety on the other. The department keeps that issue under review. Recent initiatives have included the introduction of 20 mph zones in residential areas, and the announcement of our plans, to which I have already referred, to introduce speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles, consultations on which have recently been completed. The majority of the respondents were in favour of the proposals.
On the advertising of the speed of motor cars, we are concerned about the undesirability of promoting cars by emphasising their speed. Discussions have taken place between the department and the Advertising Standards Authority which is seriously considering the issue. It already bans advertisements which it considers place undue emphasis on speed or encourage any other unsafe practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked how many people had escaped conviction for reckless driving because of the defence that they were unaware of the risks that they were taking. That has happened. What is more, that defence has discouraged the bringing of prosecutions for the more serious offence. Careless driving charges are sometimes brought instead. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the extended driving test and whether it would include motorway driving. It is not feasible to include motorway driving. There are insufficient test centres within easy reach of motorways. Noble Lords have only to look at a map of the motorway system to realise that there are large parts of the country which are many miles away from a motorway. The extended driving test will allow skills to be tested over a wide range of driving conditions, including fast, open road conditions.
My noble friend Lady Macleod referred to police powers at road works. The Bill contains no provision for police to control road works. That issue was dealt with in the New Roads and Street Works Bill that we have just passed. Clause 6, which creates the offence of endangering road users, refers only to a person who obstructs the road without lawful authority. It would not be appropriate to apply that offence to those who have proper authority to undertake street works. Provisions for the control of street works are made in the New Roads and Street Works Bill.
Finally on this part of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Mountevans referred to bridge bashing. Work is in hand by the department, British Rail and the local authorities to implement the working party's recommendations, including the provision of improved signing and warning systems at the most vulnerable sites.
Turning finally—I am aware that I have many points to answer and I shall not be able to cover all of them, but I am doing my best—to Part II of the Bill,

479
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Boyd-Carpenter in particular for their warm welcome to this part of the Bill.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the need for a strategic transport authority for London, notably the noble Lords opposite—in fact, only the noble Lords opposite. We have heard these calls many times before, but I must repeat that the Government have no intention of re-creating a GLC-style authority for transport in London. We do not want the grand strategic plans and additional bureaucracy that such an authority implies. It is salutary to recall that the Greater London development plan took 11 years from the start of preparatory work until ministerial approval, and was out of date before the work could begin. What we want is action to tackle London's urgent traffic problems. We have set the broad framework within which those with transport and traffic responsibility are working. This is producing results, and the measures in Part II of the Bill will make a significant further contribution.
I have listened to the concerns about the role of the London traffic director. His organisation will be small and his prime function will be confined to improving the movement of traffic on London's roads. In our view setting up and running the priority route network needs to be co-ordinated if it is to be effective, and that is why we need a traffic director. A piecemeal and uncoordinated approach will produce sporadic improvements, moving traffic on more efficiently from one black spot to the next. I do not accept that the solution is for the local authorities—all 33 of them in London—to co-ordinate an overall approach. Like my noble friend Lord Nugent, I doubt that they could agree a single strategic view.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked whether there could be traffic directors and red routes outside London. The need for co-ordination outside London is not as great as it is in London, so we are not proposing traffic directors for other towns and cities. It will be for local authorities to consider the introduction of priority routes in their areas, using their existing powers and negotiating enforcement with the local police.
The traffic director will be under a duty to consult local highway authorities, the police and others in preparing plans. He will not be a highway authority himself, and his default powers will be used only if the local authorities refuse to co-operate. He will need the consent of the Secretary of State to implement plans on local roads and will be bound to follow the normal statutory procedures. So far as his accountability is concerned—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to—he will be working within the guidance and objectives from the Secretary of State, and there will be consultation on guidance. In fact there is an enormous amount of consultation built into the Bill and into the arrangements.
I have listened to the concerns about the operation of the pilot scheme in north London. I believe them to be slightly alarmist. The trunk road section of the scheme became operational on 7th January. There were some teething troubles early on, but many adjustments have been made and initial indications
480
are that traffic appears to be moving more freely. The new signs and lines seem to be well understood, and space appears to be available in areas marked for loading and unloading, so deliveries are not unduly hampered. The full range of benefits will become available when the scheme is fully implemented. Comprehensive surveys will take place throughout 1991, and it is only when these results are known that the full picture will take shape.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred particularly to damage to traders on the routes, but overall red routes should provide efficiency gains for delivery of services. I accept that businesses may need to make some adjustments but their interests will be fully considered in the pilot scheme. They should benefit from a safer, cleaner and less cluttered environment, and that is particularly important for shops.
It has been suggested that red routes will encourage further traffic into central London. I do not agree with that. Additional capacity will help existing road users, including buses, pedestrians and cyclists, and it can be used to draw traffic out of residential areas, which is a particular benefit. We shall not be encouraging traffic growth or more car commuting to the centre. Careful allocation of additional capacity and local authority parking policies, supported by the record current investment in public transport, will be influential in maintaining the downward trend of car commuters.
So far as the environment is concerned—my noble friend Lord Braybrooke made particular reference to this in his speech—this Bill will help the local environment by reducing air and noise pollution. Sound traffic management helps to keep vehicles moving and thus reduces the emissions caused by stop-start traffic. Many existing measures are already at the disposal of local authorities but the Government are providing new advice on civilising road transport through traffic calming, parking control, bus priority and better road signing and traffic control. Illegal parking is also a major cause of congestion. Red routes in London will create a system of through routes to keep traffic moving and also help buses, cyclists and pedestrians.
So far as the application of a new system of permitted parking outside London is concerned, Part II of the Bill has been brought forward to deal with the traffic problems in London. Parking proposals are in response to detailed consideration by the Home Office working party, which concluded that the main problem was in London. I accept that there are problem areas outside London, but we consider that we should tackle the problems in London first. But I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Knights, that the Government will reconsider the case for extending the system outside London in the light of experience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked about consultation with cycling organisations. Cycling organisations were consulted over the Government's traffic in London proposals in December 1989 and the traffic in London legislative proposals in June of last year. These consultation documents led to Part II of the present Bill. The noble Baroness also asked rather curiously whether the Department of Transport had

481
been consulted in the publication of the Department of the Environment's latest Wake Up booklet, as it is called. I would go further. Not only was the Department of Transport consulted and co-operated fully with this edition of the book but the latest edition was in fact launched by one of my Department of Transport colleagues, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, on the 4th of this month, so we were fully involved all the way through.
Turning now to the point on disability, raised particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lady Macleod, my honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave an assurance to the Standing Committee in the other place that the Secretary of State's traffic management and parking guidance, which are the basic policy documents for the traffic director and the London authorities to take into account as appropriate, will address the needs of disabled people.
Examination of the pilot red route in North London at the moment will show that disabled people have benefited from that and that special exemption allows vehicles to stop on red lines to pick up or set down disabled people who qualify for orange badges; orange badge holders can also use waiting and loading areas, plus exclusive use of bays reserved for them at selected sites such as hospitals and places like community centres. We shall be looking at the lessons from the pilot scheme for the red route network as a whole.
I am coming to an end, as noble Lord will wish me to do, but I have two more points. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth referred to local authority arrangements for enforced permitted parking and uniforms in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also referred to that. Uniforms, pay and conditions are matters for the local authorities, and the joint consultative committee which the Bill proposes that the local authorities should establish will consider issues of common interest. One of the joint committee's functions will be to appoint parking adjudicators who will be a safeguard for drivers and owners who are aggrieved at local authority enforcement action. It will be independent and consider appeals from road users and owners who are not satisfied with the way their representations to local authorities have been dealt with.
As regards consultation on parking guidance, we shall set out guidance in our advice to local authorities for them to co-ordinate their action on parking in London. We shall describe the new system of permitted parking and the designation of special parking areas. We shall include advice on their introduction. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there will be consultation on the draft guidance. We shall include in that consultation the police, London Regional Transport, the Association of London Authorities, and others as appropriate.
I am conscious that I have not been able to answer all the points that have been raised in the debate this afternoon, but I have already well exceeded my time limit and there is further business to be dealt with. I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience. I can tell
482
that we shall have an interesting and productive Committee stage. This Bill is an important element in the Government's strategy of improving efficiency and safety in all modes of transport. It should be welcomed, and I hope the House will allow the Bill to receive a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991
8.51 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord MacKay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord MacKay of Clashfern) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 20th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is necessary to seek your Lordships' approval of the draft order that is before the House, in accordance with Section 120(4) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. That section requires affirmative resolutions in both Houses before the draft order is made.
The main effects of the order are twofold. First, it will abolish the present financial limits on the jurisdiction of the county courts in most cases. Secondly, it will replace those limits with new, flexible criteria for the allocation of those proceedings over which both the High Court and the county courts have jurisdiction. Before I explain these effects in more detail, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I take a few moments to place the instrument in its context.
I am seeking to make the order in exercise of powers conferred upon me by Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act, whose passage through this House was completed barely four months ago. That Act marked a significant step in the Government's overall aim to make civil proceedings simpler, cheaper, speedier and more accessible for those who resort to them.
This order takes up the purpose of Section I, an enabling section which is central to these overall aims. In establishing new arrangements for the distribution of proceedings between the High Court and the county courts, the order will give effect to what the Civil Justice Review recommended after a thorough examination of the way the present arrangements operated.
Your Lordships may recall that the review body found that too many cases suitable for determination by a county court were being handled and tried in the High Court. That resulted, in its view, in a wasteful use of the resources of the High Court which ought to be reserved for specialist or substantial cases, or cases of importance or complexity. Litigants therefore suffered unnecessary cost and delay when they could have benefited from the cheaper, quicker and more accessible procedures of the county courts.
The good sense underlying the review body's recommendation had already been recognised by the senior judiciary who, by practice direction, have been encouraging a better distribution of cases between the High Court and the county courts since 1988. I pay

483
tribute to the judges' foresight and initiative in this. That has resulted in the transfer to the more appropriate forum of the county courts of many cases which would otherwise have proceeded in the High Court. The order to be made under Section 1 provides an opportunity to consolidate their initiative by putting it on a statutory footing, and to go further in some respects. This is made possible by other initiatives that we have recently taken to help the county courts to absorb new work. Among them are the development of trial centres where longer cases can be heard on consecutive days without interruption; the introduction of a computerised summons production centre; and the lessening of the courts' role in handling suitors' cash. These changes have enabled the judiciary and court staff to give a better service, and they prepare the way for the jurisdictional changes now proposed.
My department will continue to monitor the workload of the county courts after the new order has come into effect, if it is approved, for I cannot stress too strongly the importance I attach to introducing these reforms at a pace that the courts and court users can comfortably accommodate. That is one reason why the order does not seek to tackle all classes of case at once. I do not intend to introduce further changes until I am satisfied that everyone will be able to cope with this first step.
Let me turn now in more detail to the ways in which the draft order seeks to fulfil its aims. I should say at the outset that the order will be supplemented by rules of court setting out the detailed procedures to be followed. It is my intention that these should come into force at the same time as the order which, as Article I states, is planned for 1st July of this year.
Article 2 deals with the jurisdictional limits of county courts. The present upper limit of £5,000 will be abolished in most classes of case. Among the limits that are to be retained, at least for the time being, is the capital value limit of £30,000 on actions in equity and probate. As I have said, this step by step approach will enable the department to monitor the effects of the changes in respect of debt, housing and, in particular, personal injury actions, before considering extending the jurisdiction of the county courts to more specialised classes of business.
Article 3 of the draft order confers jurisdiction on the High Court to deal with applications for certain remedies in cases where proceedings have been commenced or are about to be commenced in a county court and where the county court is precluded from granting those remedies. This provision is necessary because I intend to make regulations restricting the county courts' power to grant some of the more draconian remedies which raise important issues about the rights of the citizen. I have in mind in particular orders enabling a party to enter premises and seize property in order to preserve evidence; and injunctions freezing the assets of a party pending the determination of a dispute. The Civil Justice Review recommended safeguards in the granting of these remedies when more cases in which they might be sought should come to the county courts for trial.
Articles 4 to 6 provide new criteria for determining where proceedings are to begin. Article 4 states the general principle that where both the High Court and the county courts have jurisdiction in a particular action, the plaintiff or applicant has a free choice of the forum in which to commence. The main exception to this principle is given in Article 5. Paragraph (1) of Article 5 requires that actions for damages in respect of personal injuries of which the value is less than £50,000, must be commenced in a county court. The definition of value for these purposes is set out in Article 9(1) (a); namely, the amount which the plaintiff reasonably expects to recover. I shall return to Article 9 in a moment.
The way in which this exception will work, under rules which I shall be inviting the rules committee to make, is that a plaintiff commencing a personal injury action in the High Court will have to certify that he reasonably expects to recover £50,000 or more. Should the High Court consider that the plaintiff cannot reasonably expect to recover such an amount, it will be required to transfer the proceedings down to a county court. If the plaintiff persuades the High Court to allow the case to proceed there, and if it transpires at the end of the case that no reasonable plaintiff could in fact have expected to recover a sum of £50,000 or more, the amount of costs recoverable from the losing party might be reduced. We shall monitor the working of this provision very closely. If it works successfully, I may bring forward proposals in due course to extend it to other classes of case.
Article 6 provides the only other exception to the plaintiff's or applicant's free choice of forum. It applies to the audit of accounts provided by public bodies under Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The requirement here is that the specified proceedings must commence in the High Court.
Article 7 sets out the principles determining where a case is tried. The first paragraph states the principle that where both the High Court and the county courts have jurisdiction, an action may be tried in either forum.
Paragraph (3) sets out a minimum value for High Court trial by directing that cases of a value below £25,000 shall be heard in a county court. Paragraph (4) sets a maximum value for county court trial by directing that cases of a value of £50,000 or more shall be heard in the High court. I stress, however, that both these levels are presumptive. By that I mean that they can be overridden by the criteria set out in the next paragraph. It is these criteria which also determine the proper forum for trial of a case whose value falls between £25,000 and £50,000, or which has no reasonably ascertainable value.
Let me now turn to the four criteria set out in paragraph (5). The first refers to the financial substance of the case. This is to be considered in the context of the other criteria, and not, as at present, by reference to rigid jurisdictional limits. The next two criteria refer to importance and complexity. Paragraphs (5) (b) and (c) give indications of the considerations to be borne in mind. The final criterion determining the forum for trial is whether transfer of

485
a case is likely to result in a more speedy trial of the action. A court will not, however, be entitled to rely on considerations of speed alone when exercising powers to transfer a case.
I now move on to Article 8, which deals with enforcement. It provides that county court judgments for the payment of a sum of money of £5,000 or more may only be enforced by execution against goods in the High Court. Where the sum is between £2,000 and £5,000, the judgment may be enforced in the High Court or a county court. A judgment below £2,000 must be enforced in a county court. It is already the position that county court judgments for more than £2,000 can be enforced in the High Court; and, as the present county court limit is £5,000, that article in effect largely preserves the present position.
Articles 9 and 10 represent an important new departure. They introduce a more logical mechanism than we have at present for determining the value of an action for the purposes of the commencement and trial provisions that I have outlined. The simplest case is the action for a sum of money. In such actions paragraph (1) (a) provides that the value is the amount which the plaintiff or applicant reasonably expects to recover. If the action is for a known amount, such as in the recovery of a debt, there is no problem. However, if the claim is unliquidated, as, for example, in damages for personal injury, a requirement that the expectation be reasonable will enable the courts to discourage deliberate overvaluation of claims for the purposes of defeating the allocation criteria.
A slightly different approach is needed, however, in respect of other types of action. In actions seeking relief other than sums of money—such as applications for possession of land, for injunctions to restrain nuisance or breach of contract, or for declarations about a trust fund—there is unlikely to be a figure which represents the case's value. At present the county courts' jurisdictional limits use several different methods. They use rateable or annual values for actions for the recovery of land, the value of the estate or fund for equity cases where a remedy other than damages is claimed, and the value of the estate for contentious probate matters.
The impetus to re-examine the method of valuing non-pecuniary claims arose partly from the abolition —as from 1st April 1990—of domestic rateable values. On examination, however, it appeared that all the methods I have just mentioned were illogical and unsatisfactory. The value of a capital asset—land or a fund—is no guide to the substance of a case in which the dispute is over partial ownership or temporary possession (for example, tenancy). Paragraph (1) (b) of Article 9 therefore provides that the value of such a claim is equal to the amount of money which the plaintiff could reasonably state to be the financial worth of the claim to him.
Perhaps I may give some examples. In a landlord's claim for possession of land, the value would be the difference in market value between the land when encumbered and when vacant. In a claim for declaration of a constructive trust of a property, the value would be that proportion of the value of the
486
property to which the applicant claimed to be entitled. In a claim for an injunction to restrain a nuisance such as noise, the value of the claim might be the sum which the plaintiff would need to expend in order to protect himself from the nuisance were his claim to fail.
There will be some cases in which no sensible value can be ascribed. The draft order recognises that and exempts such cases from setting a value—they will be assessed purely by reference to the general criteria. It will therefore be possible for the plaintiff to start such actions in whichever forum he chooses, subject to scrutiny and possible transfer should be choose the High Court.
Paragraph (1) (c) provides that the value of a claim in which both money and non-pecuniary relief are sought is the aggregate value of both parts of the claim.
It is common pleading practice to add a claim for further or other relief to a claim. This is generally just a precautionary measure and does not add significantly to the value of the specific relief pleaded. Paragraph (2) therefore provides that in determining the value of an action such additional claims are to be disregarded.
The draft order then goes on to deal with Crown proceedings. I have adopted the principle that the Crown should be in the same position as others so far as concerns the allocation of cases. However, in order to give time to those who conduct litigation on behalf of the Crown to adapt their siting and structure to the new arrangements with the minimum of wasted public expenditure, Article 11 allows a period of two years from the effective date of the order before new proceedings to which the Crown is a party can be transferred to a county court without the consent of the Crown.
Finally, Article 12 makes clear that the order will not apply to Family or Admiralty proceedings. Nor, I should add, does it make reference to applications for judicial review. That is because Section 1 of the parent Act expressly reserves such cases to the High Court.
The only other matter which I ought to mention concerns the consultation procedure that has been adopted. I am required by Section 1(9) of the Courts and Legal Services Act to consult the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor and the Senior Presiding Judge before making any order under Section 1. I have done so. There have also been two consultation drafts which have been issued during the preparation of the draft order. The responses received, both from the senior judiciary and from others, have been enormously helpful and constructive. I have taken full account of all that they have said, and many amendments have been made. I am most grateful to all those who have contributed to the final form of this draft order which is before your Lordships, and I can confidently say that it has the broad support of the judiciary, practitioners and the representatives of court users. I beg to move.
Moved that the draft order laid before the House on 20th February be approved [12th Report of the Joint Committee]. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has patiently explained the provisions of the order. Having said that—and he may sympathise with my point of view—I think that it is quite dreadful that an order of this importance, which affects the procedures in and the jurisdictions of our courts and the cases of little people, by and large, should be taken at this late hour before an empty House. The order was to have been discussed on another day, as the noble and learned Lord knows. It was postponed because, such was its importance, it was considered likely to arise too late on that occasion. It is thoroughly regrettable that we should be dealing with this important order in a House which is empty except for the small number who graciously occupy it at this hour.
I should like to deal now with some of the points in the order. I venture to say that they are important points. There is no doubt that the aim of the order, which comes under the provisions of an Act which was passed by Parliament, are thoroughly welcome. The main provisions dealing with the upper limits will enable county courts to deal more economically and efficiently with various types of case.
I have only two reservations. The noble and learned Lord wisely said that the transition from High Court jurisdiction to the county court has to be made in stages to ensure that the county courts are not overloaded. I hope that we may have his assurance that even with the limited transfer, there are sufficient resources of personnel able to deal with these important matters which will now be dealt with by the county courts.
The other request that I would make is that as a matter of priority we see to it that, now that in many cases there is great similarity between the county court and High Court jurisdiction, there is a common core of procedural rules. As the noble and learned Lord well knows, that was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Civil Justice.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the new limit in regard to personal injuries, namely, that those cases where the damages are reasonably estimated to be less than £50,000 shall be within the jurisdiction of the county court. It is not an easy matter for a practitioner in personal injury cases to certify, as he will have to do, what the limit of the damages may be, but that is not my main point. My main worry—which is shared by many practitioners—is that within the definition of "personal injuries" come medical negligence cases. Quite apart from the concern of the plaintiff and the worrying nature of an action which involves the good name of doctors and, very often, health authorities, the complexity of an average case of medical negligence has given rise within the profession to a type of practitioner who specialises in this type of case. As a result, judges and Masters of the High Court become accustomed to the special directions which have to be given in such cases.
One wonders whether it is wise to have medical negligence cases incorporated in this category of personal injuries. I suggest that when such cases come before the county court those directions are given by judges, certainly by Masters of the High Court, who
488
are familiar with these actions, which are of great importance to those who bring them and those who have to defend them.
I move on to the small claims court. Your Lordships will be interested to know that as from July of this year the £500 limit is to be increased to £1,000. The small claims court does an extremely useful job. In an informal atmosphere that helps everybody it decides many matters in dispute involving manufacturers, retail shops and consumers. What worries many is that it is the custom of the small claims court to make no award of costs. If we are to increase the limit to £1,000 and that court is to deal with personal injury cases up to £1,000, a very different situation will exist. Of course, it means that there can be no legal aid and, as things stand, no award of costs. I ask the noble and learned Lord to look into that when he remembers, as I know he will, that these days the cost of a medical report by a specialist is between £100 and £200. Indeed, a police report—which in most personal injury cases is vital—costs £38. The court fees would be £43. Those are sums that the little man who has suffered a personal injury just cannot afford to risk. One must remember that the average defendant in a personal injury case is represented by an insurance company which will have no difficulty at all in obtaining legal advice and representation at the small claims court.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider what I have said and to see whether personal injury cases should be excluded from the small claims court or, if they are to be included, whether the usual rule in regard to costs should be altered to provide for costs to be awarded in appropriate cases. It may well be within the knowledge of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that Northern Ireland has just such an exception in its small claims courts. It may be somewhat appealing to him to find that a similar provision is also advocated by the Scottish Consumer Council.
I move on to actions for recovery of land. Noble Lords will realise that in many cases possession is claimed because of alleged arrears of rent or indeed for breach of some covenant. Such actions also include cases in which mortgagees are claiming possession against mortgagors. It is surely just for the defendant in such cases not to have to incur the expense and perhaps extreme inconvenience of having these matters tried in the High Court. It is to be hoped that such cases for recovery of land can be dealt with in the county court in whose area the defendant resides or in which the land involved in the case is situated.
As I said, the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the county court in these matters is not one that should be encouraged in this type of case. I repeat, it should be the county court that has jurisdiction. If the whole of what I am asking for cannot be granted, perhaps we can go back to the old rule, which was, if I remember it, that the case went to the High Court or the county court depending on the rateable value of the land. If that were maintained it would at least improve the situation, because it would largely mean that the people at the lower end of the

489
income scale would be protected by having the cases dealt with as a matter of convenience to them in their local county court.
That brings me to my last point: the convenience of the parties on transfer from the High Court to the county court. When he explained Article 7 of the order, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor correctly, as one would expect of him, dealt with this matter and the considerations that applied. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, in Article 7(5) four considerations are to be the criteria. One of them is missing. I am surprised that it is missing but perhaps I have somehow missed an interpretation of Clause 7.
When the Courts and Legal Services Bill came before this House I ventured to move an amendment incorporating the convenience of the parties as one of the criteria which were to be taken into account when a transfer was made to a court. The noble and learned Lord moved an amendment to delete certain words from the Bill and insert the words:
"appropriate, having taken into account the convenience of the parties and that of any other persons likely to be affected and the state of business in the courts concerned".
The noble and learned Lord was good enough to say:
"In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed an amendment to amend the original draft of the new Section 40(4) of the County Courts Act 1984 which would be inserted by Clause 2 of the Bill. As it stood, it provided that proceedings transferred under this section—that is, from the High Court to the county court—should be transferred to such county court as the High Court considered convenient. My objective, as I explained to the Committee, was not to prevent the courts from taking account of the convenience of the parties, but to ensure that wider factors —especially of course the convenience of parties to other cases—could also be taken into account. There was, I think, little or nothing between my aim here and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and"—
I emphasise these words—
"I therefore accepted his amendment to require the court to take its decision having taken into account the convenience of the parties.
I said at the time, however, that I would hope to be able to come back if on reflection it appeared that the phraseology was perhaps not the most expedient, and that is why I invite the House to consider this amendment. It is designed to render the section a little more elegant and to set out explicitly the other factors which will have to be considered when the High Court decides to which county court to transfer a particular case. 1 beg to move."—[Official Report, 20/2/90; col. 156.]
I replied that I was most grateful to the noble and learned Lord because it meant that in the Courts and Legal Services Act the convenience of the parties was included as one of the categories for the High Court to take into account. That is singularly missing from the order. I ask the noble and learned Lord why.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his response to the order; and for his kindness in giving my office notice of the substance of the points that he was to raise. The result is that I am perhaps able to deal with them more concisely than I might have done without that kindness; I take the points in the order in which they were raised.
We have made arrangements for sufficient resources for the county courts. Seventy-two trial
490
centres are offering a continuous hearing in the county court now. That is the essential change in order to make the provision work. As the noble Lord knows better than most, the county courts did a great deal of administrative work in connection with debt collection. They were not geared up to heavy litigation. We have tried to alter that in this way. Over 400 staff have been added to the courts this year. We have also curtailed some of the administrative work that the courts used to do, first by cutting out suitors' cash responsibilities in a good number of cases; and in concentrating the routine work required for the issue of summonses in a great number of cases in the summons production centre at Northampton. We expect that about half of all the county court summonses will be issued eventually at Northampton. We are well up to the target of about 1 million now.
The noble Lord asked about a common core of rules. I am committed to moving in that direction because of the good sense which attaches to the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review in that connection. However, the way to arrive at that is by steady convergence. A Big Bang approach would create difficulties for the professions as well as for the courts. The legislation and rule rounds consultation on such provisions would produce an enormous task over months or years. We are more likely to make progress—I hope that the noble Lord agrees—in seeking to converge the two sets of rules by approaching the matter gradually.
Not all personal injury cases require the specialist attention of the High Court. The noble Lord singled out medical negligence cases. It may be difficult to say that merely because a case is a medical negligence case it is necessarily one of complexity. Various things can happen. For example, liability might be admitted even in a medical negligence case. The mere fact that it is medical negligence does not of itself mean that it would not be suitable. We have the complexity criterion available. If on consideration of a particular case it was thought to be complex, that would be a ground for having it tried in the High Court. It is fair to say that quite a number of medical negligence cases are dealt with in the High Court by deputy High Court judges, some of them being circuit judges. One might therefore receive the same attention under a somewhat different name.
As was said by the noble Lord—and I am grateful to him—the small claims jurisdiction is doing an extremely useful job. I thoroughly believe that that is right. The question of whether personal injuries cases should be included in the small claims jurisdiction, and if so whether special conditions should be made, is one that I am still considering. We shall be developing a small claims regime, and in that consideration I shall take account of the points made by the noble Lord tonight. As yet, I have not reached a concluded view.
I turn to land cases of the type described by the noble Lord in which local knowledge of the case is desirable or in which it would be unreasonable to expect a defendant to travel outside his locality. Such cases will be good reasons for transfer in addition to the criteria established under the order.

491
The noble Lord referred to his success in persuading me that the convenience of parties should be incorporated in Section 2 of the Act. That was not difficult. Because the provision is in Section 2, it does not require to be in the order. The noble Lord has achieved an overriding consideration by having it included in the Act. Therefore the Act binds, and the convenience of the parties in accordance with Section 2 is a criterion which the court must take into account. The criteria in the order are only other criteria not specified in the Act. They are desirable and in a sense complementary to the jurisdiction arrangements made in the order. The overriding consideration which the noble Lord achieved by his amendment and which I modified only slightly overrides that—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that the noble and learned Lord will not mind my intervening in order to clarify the situation. Would the position not have been happier if reference had been made to those circumstances by words such as, "Apart from the considerations to be applied under Section whatever-it-be of the Act, the other considerations were put down"? The order will be looked upon by the profession as being a complete guide. I am a little apprehensive that the important point, which the noble and learned Lord was gracious enough to concede in Committee, will be ignored.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the arrangement is that Section 2 of the Act amends a section of the County Courts Act and puts the issue into the county court code. Therefore, it will be before whoever is considering a transfer. The way in which all that information is gathered together in practice is of some importance. One believes that a guide for the practitioner will have the statutory provisions from the primary legislation and the secondary legislation gathered together. It is important to note that it is not only the conditions of the primary legislation but that there are other issues in addition. It would be an encumbrance to include them in the order which is not intended to be complete. The order is only supplementary to the provisions of the Act and is made under the powers contained in it. I desire not to make the order longer than necessary. I hope that in conveying help to practitioners and to litigants generally, we shall be able to give them not only what is in the order but also what is in the Act.
In opening his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke of the hour and of the number of your Lordships present. I can say only that by his kindness the noble Lord has helped to make the hour earlier than it otherwise might have been. Of course, your Lordships make up in quality what we lack in quantity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
9.30 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of an additional £104.8 million for the current financial year. This brings the total Estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services this year to some £4,418 million. The second purpose is to authorise the Vote-on-Account of some £1,941 million for 1991–92. This is based on a standard formula of 45 per cent. of expenditure in the current year which is required to enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 1991–92 main estimates are brought before the House later this year.
Perhaps I may give a brief explanation of the main items in the order. The Department of Agriculture's Vote 1 provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on national agriculture. Modest increases are required for capital grants and for hill livestock compensatory allowances. These increases are, however, fully offset by reduced requirements under various capital grant schemes. This results in a token increase of £1,000 in the Vote.
In the Department of Agriculture's Vote 2, covering local support measures, additional provision of some £1.5 million is sought for the disease eradication programme, for special temporary aid to the pig and poultry sectors and for on-going research and development programmes. These increases are fully offset by additional receipts, mainly from timber sales, and by a delay in the commencement of fishery harbour development works. The overall result is a token increase of £1,000 in the Vote.
In the Department of Economic Development's Votes I and 2 token supplementaries of £1,000 are sought where various increases in expenditure are offset by savings elsewhere within the Votes. In Vote 1, which covers industrial support and regeneration, the main increase is an additional £11.5 million for the provision of factory buildings. This reflects the continuing success of the Industrial Development Board in attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland.
In Vote 2, additional net funding of £6.2 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit —LEDU—Northern Ireland's small business agency. In addition to LEDU's current commitments it will also enable the development of a network of local enterprise agencies to help stimulate community-based job creation initiatives. There are 27 such agencies now operating in the Province, providing work space and business support in their local communities. Some 2,000 jobs are currently supported by the scheme.
Also in this Vote, an additional £0.92 million is sought for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. This will enable the board to undertake additional

493
marketing activities to promote Northern Ireland as a holiday destination. Just over £0.5 million is also required for capital grants to district councils for the improvement of tourist amenities. A record 1.1 million visitors came to Northern Ireland in 1989 and we expect that the figures for 1990, which are due to be announced shortly, will show a further modest improvement. These additional resources will allow the tourist board to build on this success.
In the Department of the Environment's six Votes, an additional £0.7 million is sought for the department's Vote 2 covering housing and £6.6 million is for the Housing Executive, which brings that body's gross expenditure to the very large figure of some £467 million. This is offset by some £6 million reflecting a downturn in activity by housing associations. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland in the current year is now expected to be about £504 million.
Perhaps I may just select a small amount of the education Vote. An additional £360,000 is being made available for expenditure on grant-maintained integrated schools. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that Northern Ireland now has 12 integrated schools, 10 of which have so far been granted grant-maintained integrated status. It is welcome news and shows that an increasing number of parents are recognising the benefits which integrated education offers.
In the Education Vote 2 a net increase of £1.9 million is sought for a range of services. That includes grants to the two universities in Northern Ireland to cover expenditure on equipment and a computer network. Provision is also made for an initiative to improve access for disabled people to the arts.
For the Department of Health and Social Services an additional £20 million is sought in Vote 1. That includes some £14.6 million for the health and social services boards, mainly to meet the costs of pay settlements and service development; £7.1 million is required for the family practitioner service to meet additional expenditure arising from the new GP contracts and increased drug costs.
In DHSS Vote 3 an additional £5 million is required. Almost half of that is for health and personal social services. Together with the additional resources in Vote 1 it will help to maintain existing levels of health and personal social services in the Province. Because the figure is so large perhaps I may mention that in Vote 4, covering social security, an additional £50 million is sought, mainly for payments into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund and for industrial injuries benefits which are now a charge on the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1990.
Finally, I draw attention to the Department of Finance and Personnel Vote 3, where an additional £0.7 million is sought for the community relations programme. Over the past three years a range of programmes has been developed to promote cross-community contact and appreciation of cultural diversity. Those include programmes by district
494
councils to develop community relations work at local level, a cultural traditions programme and a research programme to increase understanding about the nature of community division and effective ways of improving community relations. That remains one of the Government's highest priorities. Expenditure by the Central Community Relations Unit and the Department of Education has increased rapidly from around £0.5 million in 1986–87 to some £4 million in this financial year.
It is the Government's belief that we are making an important contribution to the creation of a more stable and cohesive society in Northern Ireland by this work. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February he approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for drawing our attention to the main features of the Spring Supplementary Estimates. Whenever an appropriation order comes before the House nobody in his right senses can be complacent about the state of the Northern Ireland economy. I do not propose to pursue that topic this evening. It is a matter to which I shall return on another occasion.
The fact that the standard of living has been further depressed during the past 12 months is reflected, for example, in the Department of the Environment's Vote 2, which reveals that the housing associations did not take up around £6 million which had been set aside for loans, to which the Minister referred. We know that there is a great demand for decent homes at affordable rent in Belfast and elsewhere, not least for the homeless.
Not so long ago I was at the offices of the Simon Community in Belfast and was greatly impressed with its very good work. I hope that the department will bear in mind the needs of the homeless in Northern Ireland and the level of support that they can validly give to the Simon Community and similar organisations in the Province.
The votes of the Department of Agriculture are the first referred to in the Estimates booklet and one of the first to be mentioned by the Minister. There is widespread concern about the future of the rural economy in all countries of the United Kingdom.
Agriculture is particularly important for Northern Ireland. As industry sheds further labour in the course of the next few years, it will not be easy to find alternative sources of employment. As outward migration will only intensify the economic and social problems in urban centres such as Belfast and Londonderry, does the Minister believe that it may be possible to get a better deal out of Europe which can help the rural economy of Northern Ireland? Meanwhile, can a little more be done within Northern Ireland to stimulate greater co-ordination, co-operation and partnership between the statutory and voluntary agencies in order to encourage local initiative and enterprise in the rural communities? I appreciate that LEDU is making a very good

495
contribution. If one can encourage greater co-operation between the voluntary and the statutory organisations that will also help.
The Minister said that a very substantial part of the further expenditure authorised by this order will be spent on the health services. I propose to spend a few minutes on this topic. During the past three weeks two strong deputations came to Westminster, both protesting at the hospital reorganisation plans proposed for their districts. It is not often that a deputation comes to Parliament to protest against the closure or reorganisation of the hospital service.
The first deputation came from Coleraine, Ballymoney and Ballycastle Health District to plead for a brand new hospital on a green site to serve its community. The other deputation came to plead for retention of the Moyle Hospital. I did not agree with everything that I heard, but the arrival of these two deputations provides at least a starting point for the examination of aspects of the Northern Board's capital and revenue resources and its consultation procedures.
We were told by members of the deputation that the Northern Board is under-funded both as to revenue and capital when compared with the other Northern Ireland boards. We were told that the revenue under-funding is of the order of £5.5 million per annum at 1988–89 prices. We were also told that the board had received only 6.17 per cent. of the new capital funds since 1970. How do the Government answer that criticism, if it is correct?
It is also claimed that this particular board habitually goes out to consultation on the basis of one solution and not on a range of options. That echoes a similar criticism made by the 26th Report of the Committee of Public Accounts 1989–90 but in a different context. We were told that the Northern Board gives the impression to interested parties that that is the way the reorganisation is to go and that the deed had been done. The consultation is therefore perceived as being just a softening-up process to prepare communities for what is going to hit them.
If it is true that this board, and possibly others, do not consult on the basis of a range of properly-appraised options, we on these Benches urge the department to review the consultation guidelines which it issues to the boards in order to take account of this criticism. One knows that it is always difficult to embark on a policy of closing hospitals consequent on the reorganisation of the service.
But I may suggest to the department that much more could be done by the boards, or even by the department itself, to explain to the general public what is the role of a modern hospital service and what is the role of a community hospital within that structure.
Before leaving health, perhaps I may mention one other matter. We heard much criticism from the deputations—I think it is fair to say that this criticism is not confined to Northern Ireland—that it takes far too long to design and build a new hospital. Nevertheless, some authorities in Britain have shown that the stage of designing a hospital and the process of building one can be substantially accelerated. I wonder whether the Northern Ireland Office is
496
keeping pace with the up-to-date procedures. The fact that both procedures, the design and the building, can be accelerated should lead to a presumption that it should be done. I hope that the department and the boards can be persuaded to review these procedures so that there is no unnecessary time-lag between the decision to build and the hospital opening its doors to its first patients.
At this stage I want to refer to a copy of a letter dated 5th March and addressed to Mr. Richard Needham, who is the Minister in charge of the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland. It is signed by about 20 voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland and it urges the Minister to receive a deputation in connection with the proposed reduction of almost 30 per cent. in the grant to be paid to the Community Volunteering Scheme for the year 1991–92. The organisations believe that this proposal will have far-reaching consequences. I am in no position to comment on the merits or demerits of the proposal. I do not know what is the department's case. But I would urge the department to invite the deputations to Stormont in the hope that the difficulties can be resolved.
About a month ago we received the 1990 report of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman. This happens to be the last report of Dr. Maurice Hayes. I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of these Benches to record our appreciation of his excellent work. I note from the report that planning continues to produce a relatively large number of complaints in the Province. That may be understandable, but it has been suggested to me that departmental officials should consider whether any changes could be introduced which might help to reduce the number of complaints against it. The department might like to bear that in mind.
I believe that two of the complaints made against the departments or their agencies are worthy of mention. There is a complaint against LEDU, or it might be against the industrial science division of the Department of the Environment. The complaint is made by a designer of a mechanical engineering tool company. As I understand the summary of the case, it was part of a complaint that somebody somewhere had failed to carry out a thorough patent search in connection with his project. Patent law is a complex and difficult subject and is not well understood by most solicitors or most barristers. Northern Ireland is a good distance from the specialist service of the Patent Bar here in London, and even further away from the European Patent Office in Munich. Nevertheless, it is important that inventors from Northern Ireland should not be left without competent advice in this treacherous field. As a result of that complaint, I trust that LEDU and other organisations are aware of the situation.
The other interesting case is that of the educational psychologist who had no teaching experience and who failed to gain an appointment in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding her lack of teaching experience, she was professionally qualified under Scottish requirements, but not so qualified according to Northern Ireland requirements. As an EC directive places a duty on member states to facilitate the movement of

497
professional people across boundaries, has the department now issued a clear statement of the position so as to avoid the recurrence of a similar conflict? Those are small points of detail, but they may be of general significance.
I return now to deal with the broader field. Last October the Fair Employment Commission published its first report. Despite the fact that it was able to report some progress—I was especially pleased by the expenditure of just over £1 million on fair employment support schemes in the private sector—such progress is, nevertheless, slow and patchy. Moreover, although Queen's University, which is the recipient of additional funds under the order to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred, signed the fair employment charter—that is, not last year, not five or 10 years ago but 15 years ago—the fact remains that Catholics are significantly under-represented at that university. The attitude of the district councils in Northern Ireland has been just as disappointing. Despite the fact that successive governments have tried for over 20 years to eradicate discrimination in employment, the first report of the Fair Employment Commission shows once again how difficult it is to move from the past.
I accept, nevertheless, that there are some encouraging signs in the proposals. For example, we very much welcome the increase in the budget of the integrated schools and also of the Community Relations Unit to which the Minister referred. In time, those two significant developments will surely bring their influence to bear in moulding public opinion and thereby ease the task of the fair employment legislation. We agree with the Government that those two developments deserve the highest priority.
Finally, I note that the Community Relations Unit —or, in fact, it may have been the council; I am not quite sure about this—has given a grant to one body which has caused controversy and criticism. For my part, I would not be too severe on the unit on that score. If it gave no grant which caused controversy, it would probably not be doing its job. Nevertheless, publicly financed support ought not to venture into areas of more extreme experiments as that would rightly incur public stricture. I have no further comments to make on this very important order.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I may join with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in thanking the Minister for his helpful holding of our hands through the explanation of the order. I should also like to associate those of us on these Benches, as there has been no other opportunity to do so, with the tribute that the noble Lord paid to the Northern Ireland Ombudsman.
There are two general and three specific points on the order that I should like to make. The first general point relates to DHSS payments on page 7 of the order. In the light of the fact that no less than 50 per cent. of the supplementary sums granted are for the DHSS in the year ending March 1991, is the Minister satisfied that the provision of £442 million for the coming year is adequate to deal with the steadily increasing level of unemployment in Northern
498
Ireland? As the Minister will be aware, nearly 100,000 people are out of work. The rate is double that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Is that not especially disappointing given that almost 40 per cent. of employment in Northern Ireland is funded directly or indirectly by the Northern Ireland Office? That raises the larger question of the state of the Northern Ireland economy. The most recent CBI survey has shown a sharp drop in confidence, with 54 per cent. of companies in Northern Ireland saying things are worse and only 8 per cent. saying that they are better.
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, Northern Ireland agriculture is in an acute predicament. Given the high priority that the Secretary of State has rightly assigned to economic progress as one of the main preconditions for controlling terrorism and making political progress, what special measures do the Government propose to take in the coming year to contain the recession in Northern Ireland?
The first of the specific points that I should like to raise relates to page 4, Vote 5, which shows an apparent cut in expenditure on energy efficiency. What is the expenditure on energy efficiency and renewable resources? I notice that the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Needham, claimed credit for the new Antrim wind-powered turbine recently as an example of the Government's commitment to renewable energy. I hope that that commitment is more generally justified by the appropriate budgets than seems to be the case on the figures at which we are looking.
My second specific point relates to page 7, Vote 3, which contains a reference to £713,000 for community relations. That is welcome to the House. Will the Minister further break down the support that is being offered across the board and in the various budgets for voluntary organisations as a whole? That is a point that has already been mentioned in the debate.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the growth in the number of voluntary and community organisations is essential to the creation of a pluralistic, civil society in Northern Ireland, with fibres strong enough to resist the men of violence and the absolutists. I am sure that, like us on these Benches, he will also welcome the fact that there are signs of growing community and voluntary activity in Northern Ireland, often involving women and often on a cross-community and non-sectarian basis. What do the Government plan to do to help Northern Ireland people to help themselves through their community grants?
My final specific point takes up a matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in relation to Moyle Hospital. I raise it only because it is of acute concern to the people involved. As the noble Lord said, there may well be more than one side to the argument. I have been struck by the fact there is now no emergency centre to deal with the 1.5 million tourists—the noble Lord mentioned the passengers and tourists entering Larne—and they will have to go 35 miles if there is an emergency. With the number of cars coming in and out and the way they are handled, the likelihood of serious accidents occurring must be

499
high and 35 miles seems a long way to travel. Whatever the arguments for and against the Moyle Hospital—and it is something I know the Government are still considering—the case for maintaining an emergency facility seems well nigh unanswerable. This may be slightly outside the terms of the debate, but since we are looking at large expenditures on health it is a question I should like to ask the Minister.
10 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the Minister for the way in which he introduced the order and also for his courtesy in having invited advance notice of points that we might wish to raise. In fact I am not going to raise all the points of which I gave him notice, partly because the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has kindly made most of my speech for me. In case the noble Lord thinks that I might need to be prompted I am deliberately leaving out some of the things I was going to say.
Under the topic of agriculture we are faced with a big problem. This is not unique to Northern Ireland. It is common to the whole of the United Kingdom. It is the disposal of fallen animals. The position, as I grasp it, is that the rendering plants cannot process fallen animals at the moment because of the risk of BSE. This is a big problem and there is only one solution that I can see from the information that I have been given.
Ulster Farm By-products, which is the main rendering plant in Northern Ireland, should be enabled to set up a completely separate line in a different building to be able to process cattle for fertiliser by-products. Otherwise the rest of the by-products will not be acceptable to the customers. It has been advised to open up for a month on an experimental basis, but I am told that if it does and puts all by-products through the same rendering line it will lose the confidence of its customers, and thus the business would become completely non-viable in the long term. Unless something is done about this, the problem of the disposal of fallen animals is going to become greater and greater.
I am particularly fortunate because I have an area of semi-waste land and I have a digger, so it is not too difficult to dispose of the animals. But that will not last for ever. There is not an indefinite amount of land that can be used for burial. I know of farmers whose land is on rock where the soil is probably only two to three feet deep. They cannot bury their animals. What are they going to do with them? This is not a problem from which Her Majesty's Government can distance themselves. This is a major problem involving not just agriculture but public health and the environment as well. I suggest that both the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Great Britain must address themselves to this as a matter of urgency.
Turning to the Department of Economic Development, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the volunteer development resource unit and the reduction of its budget from £854,000 to £600,000. That seems to put the future of its efforts to
500
introduce people on a volunteer basis into employment in considerable jeopardy. I hope that due attention will be given to this, because it is voluntary effort on which we rely to a great extent to solve the employment and social problems that we have in a disadvantaged area of the United Kingdom.
On the subject of the Department of the Environment, I venture to ask again why it is that listed buildings are zero rated for VAT as regards alterations but are charged the full rate of 15 per cent. for restoration or repairs. I believe it is group 8a of Schedule 5 of the VAT legislation which offers zero rating for alterations but not for repairs or maintenance.
Four years ago I mentioned the example of a listed building. I was at that time involved in an appeal for the restoration of a cathedral. In one particular year the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission gave the cathedral £25,000 in grant aid. But then we had to pay £30,000 in value added tax. That does not seem to make sense. It is administratively extravagant apart from anything else. That measure is not in the best interests of preserving our historic buildings as it appears one is encouraged to alter them but discouraged from maintaining and restoring them.
I cannot help wondering why the attitude towards planning seems to have changed in so far as there now appears to be almost a kind of snowfall of bungalows all over the countryside. One of our greatest advantages in Northern Ireland is the unspoilt nature of the countryside; but it now appears that the planners are prepared to allow bungalows to be built anywhere and everywhere. I wonder whether there is any reasoning or thought behind this apparent change of plan.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, have referred to two hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is well-briefed on this matter. My appreciation of the matter is that if the Moyle hospital in Larne is deprived of its acute services, people will have to travel a distance of up to 37 miles to the new hospital in Antrim. There is no direct public transport service to that hospital so those who are not lucky enough to own cars will be in real trouble. There is a genuine case for maintaining the acute services in the Moyle hospital at Larne. As regards the other hospital in the Coleraine area, a careful and expensive survey has been carried out. My appreciation of the matter is that £24 million would be required to build a new hospital in addition to the £21 million which has already been earmarked for the upgrading of existing hospital services. To my mind that extra money would not be well spent; it would be money well invested. The report that has been drawn up by Coopers, Lybrand and Deloitte indicates that that would represent the best investment that could be made for the health services in the north-eastern part of the Province.
I gave the Minister notice of the fact that I wished to refer to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Since I wrote to the Minister, his right honourable friend in another place has made an announcement and made a proposal to the various interested parties involved in the discussions that have been taking place. I merely

501
say now that I salute the Secretary of State for his patience in persevering and exercising his best endeavours to try to bring the parties together to indulge in meaningful discussions. If his efforts come
502
to nothing, it will reflect no discredit on him; it will reflect discredit on the politicians in Northern Ireland who are so blinkered and who are so fixed in their views that they can only look backwards and not forwards.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise for only a few minutes to reinforce what has been said by my noble friends Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme in relation to the deputation that we met last month in regard to the hospitals at Moyle and Coleraine. Anyone who met those deputations would have been struck by their intelligence, their concern, their sincerity and their total grasp of every aspect of the subject. We talked to them at length. The deputations included doctors and others involved in the medical profession in both hospitals, and particularly in relation to Moyle. They included the Mayor of Lame and others who were also involved in the attempt to keep the acute services at Moyle Hospital.
None of us who do not live in the area could be totally aware of all the emotional reasoning behind the demand for the retention of the acute services. I perhaps better than most in your Lordships' House this evening am aware of the circumstances in Larne, yet I am not acquainted with every aspect. However, I know that the people who went out of their way, at great personal expense, to come here as part of a deputation to meet Members of your Lordships' House and of the other place believe that they have a case.
A point that was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies struck me. The members of the deputation feel that their representations are not being listened to. They feel that they have a genuine case and that the powers that be in the department are not concerned. Indeed, in my discussions with members of the deputation I mentioned that I had received an undertaking from the noble Lord in this House that a deputation would be received by the department at some time in the future and that perhaps a different answer would emerge from that meeting. They then showed me one set of correspondence which appeared to conflict with the original correspondence. It was their estimation that their deputation would be received by the Department of Health but that by that time a decision would have been taken and they would be told the result when they entered into discussions with the department.
That is not the best way to conduct business, particularly in Northern Ireland where representative sections within the community feel that they have a right to make representations and that those representations should be heeded. I hope that in replying to the debate this evening the noble Lord will be able to say that no final decision will be taken in relation to the issues raised by the Moyle action committee until further representations by that action committee have been heard and taken into consideration by the department.
What was said by my noble friend Lord Dunleath concerning the assembly is relevant to that case—and I hope that that possibility of the assembly functioning once again in Northern Ireland becomes a reality. I have no doubt that if there were a representative assembly sitting in Northern Ireland different decisions altogether would have been taken in relation to the two hospitals. The assembly would have had control of affairs and would have been aware of all the aspects. The representatives of those areas would have
504
been involved. From my experience of Stormont over many years I know that there would have been great reluctance on the part of Ministers or the powers that be to push aside representations made by locally elected representatives. If an assembly were in existence we should not have had to discuss the issue of those two hospitals this evening.
I should like to ask the Minister another question. I realise how difficult it is for him to answer. For many years I represented West Belfast. West Belfast was always an area of high unemployment, poverty and social deprivation. It was a Catholic ghetto; it is even more of a Catholic ghetto now. The feeling among the population then (even more so now) was that because they were members of the Catholic minority the powers that be at Stormont (now Westminster) were not terribly anxious to try to attract employment into the area. I know now that that is not true and that the present Government and prior Labour Governments have done everything they possibly can to attract industries into the socially deprived areas of North and West Belfast.
It is from those two areas that the greatest amount of terrorism emanates. In a situation of high unemployment the many hundreds, if not thousands, of young people who have no possibility of jobs are easy prey to various paramilitary and terrorist organisations.
As an MP I remember that many young lads from West and North Belfast—indeed, from all over the city—would come to my advice centre to plead with me to try to get them jobs in Belfast. Although I am now no longer living in Belfast and no longer an elected representative, I get letters from boys and girls living in North and West Belfast asking me whether I can get them jobs in London or anywhere else. They ask me whether there are any jobs available in Kent or Berkshire. There is a feeling of despair that they will never be able to get jobs in the city in which they live. They are prepared to leave home to get jobs and are writing to me, no longer as an elected representative but as someone who either they or their parents knew in the past. I believe that to be a sad state of affairs.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he could indicate if the Department of Economic Development is taking any extra measures to try to create employment in North and West Belfast. Are any special incentives being offered to potential industrialists? Do the Government feel that they are talking to the right community and elected representatives in those areas? I understand why the Government would have great difficulty in talking to Sinn Fein representatives in North and West Belfast, and I would support them in that. I do not believe those representatives are interested in creating employment. But I wonder whether the Government are talking to people other than Sinn Fein or SDLP elected representatives (though there are now not too many of the latter in West Belfast) to see whether they can get to grips with evolving a plan to attract outside industrialists. If they cannot attract investment from Europe or further afield, is there any way in which the Government can engage in industrial development in West Belfast?

505
I can recall the ill-fated De Lorean project. Though ill-fated, the one thing it proved was that a factory could be built on a greenfield site and a skilled workforce quickly and easily found for it. The failure of the De Lorean project had nothing to do with the people who were working in it. The reasons for its downfall had nothing to do with the people who were working on the shop floor. They were all too anxious to make that industrial project a success. In view of that, it must give the Minister confidence to know that if some means can be found to attract industry there, he will find a ready and willing labour market in particular of young people in those areas.
10.15 pm
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the short debate that we have had on this order. It is an important order to provide for the rest of the expenditure in this year and the beginning of the expenditure in the next financial year. I thank noble Lords for indicating to me in many cases the line of questioning that they would take.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me about homelessness and mentioned in particular the contribution of the Simon Community in Northern Ireland. I assure him that the Government are fully aware of the contribution made by that community in assisting homeless people. I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is the responsible body, that assistance totalling some £76,000 has been made available to the Simon Community during the current financial year.
In a more general question the noble Lord asked whether it was possible to get a better deal out of Europe which would help the rural economy. He referred to the importance of the rural economy particularly to Northern Ireland. I could not agree more fully with him. The problems of the Province have already been acknowledged by the European Community in the award to Northern Ireland in the reform of the Community structural funds of Objective 1 status, which is designed to promote development and structural adjustment. Since Northern Ireland is largely a rural society, that is of obvious benefit to its economy. Perhaps I may just add that in the past the United Kingdom has been successful in negotiating separate arrangements to take account of the special needs of Northern Ireland agriculture so far as concerns the common agricultural policy. We shall certainly continue to seek special and correct treatment for Northern Ireland in appropriate circumstances.
I thank the noble Lord for mentioning the need to encourage local enterprise in the rural community. It gives me the opportunity to draw attention to new structures announced recently by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to produce the integrated development of the most deprived rural areas of the Province. The Government's objective is to support self-help initiatives combined with a positive and integrated response from the public sector. To that end a rural development council will be established
506
outside government as a source of expert advice and assistance, financial and otherwise, to local groups engaged in the process of regenerating their areas.
All noble Lords have spoken about health. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the criticism that the northern board is under-funded. Over the past two financial years the allocation of revenue resources has reflected a deliberate skewing of resources toward the northern board. From 1992–93 all boards will be funded to reflect the needs of their resident populations rather than as in the past an historical pattern based on service provision. I understand the noble Lord's point in the context of capital funding. At the moment three major new acute hospitals are being built in other board areas. That has been a determining factor so far as concerns the allocation of capital resources. The need for an area hospital for the northern board has been recognised and a new hospital at Antrim at a cost of about £45 million is under construction and due to be completed in 1993.
The noble Lord also commented on the consultations undertaken by the northern health board. The strategy drawn up in 1976 for the development of acute hospital services in the Northern Health and Social Services Board area involved the concentration of acute services in a new hospital at Antrim to serve the southern half of the board and the further development of services at Coleraine to serve the northern half. That strategy was the subject of widespread consultation at that time. Nonetheless, all noble Lords in one way or another have mentioned once again the Moyle Hospital. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned the need to cater for the people who come into Larne harbour area.
The position remains that any decision will be taken by the board. A commitment has been given that for the time being it will seek to maintain services at present provided at the Moyle Hospital. Final proposals for future services will be subject to the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services. My honourable friend Mr. Hanley, who is the Minister responsible, has given assurance to the action committee that it will be afforded an opportunity to make any representations which it considers appropriate. Perhaps I may say in that context that I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said. I assure your Lordships that the department will continue to listen sympathetically to views expressed before decisions are taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether the department proposes to adopt new design and construction procedures in order to cut down the time lag in building and opening new hospitals. The department constantly evaluates and reviews its strategy for the design and procurement of health facilities. When approval is granted for the building of a new hospital, the department will examine all the design and procurement options to determine the most appropriate to ensure value for money and speed of completion.
The noble Lord also asked whether there is a need in the light of the ombudsman's report for a review of procedures in the planning department to reduce the

507
number of planning complaints. Given that almost 20,000 planning decisions are issued annually in Northern Ireland, it is the department's view that the level of complaints accepted by the ombudsman is not excessive and does not indicate any fundamental problem in the planning procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked about bungalows being indiscriminately built in the countryside. I thought that the noble Lord may have been a little hard about it. I accept that the more liberal regime that was introduced in 1978 following the Cockcroft recommendations should be reviewed. That is currently under way. The Department of the Environment's revised standards for location siting and design which were introduced in 1987 with the aim of improving the quality of developments in the countryside are already having some effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised three further points. The first was about patent rights. It is important to state that in the establishment of patent rights it is usual, because of the expense involved, to seek the guidance of a patent agent. Northern Ireland designers have access to agents both locally and on the mainland and therefore have access to first-class product advice.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked about the need to harmonise professional qualifications for education psychologists. Following a broadly based consultation, education and library boards—which are the employers of education psychologists in Northern Ireland—have been informed that the existing requirements, including two years' teaching experience, should stand for new entrants to the profession. However, the boards can also consider applications from qualified candidates with a minimum of five years' relevant employment experience, if they do not have actual teaching experience. The EC directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications does not prevent employers from seeking other requirements such as teaching experience or other relevant employment elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to a reduction in funding by the Government of the community volunteer development resource unit. He asked whether the Minister concerned would consider sympathetically a request for a meeting. I shall indeed draw that request to the attention of the department concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the subject of fair employment. This is an important area and I assure the noble Lord that the Government remain fully committed to ensuring equality of treatment for all the citizens of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked what special measures the Government will take to try to contain the recession in relation to Northern Ireland. Although its economy is closely bound up with the national economy and is experiencing considerable recession at the present time, one can draw comfort from the results of a number of recent independent surveys. Taken together they show the economy there being more buoyant than in other regions of the United Kingdom. It is interesting to note that Northern Ireland manufacturing output rose by 17
508
per cent. in the past three years and that employment in manufacturing rose by more than 1,000 if one compares the figure for September 1990 with that for September 1989.
We recognise that success in markets at home and abroad depends largely on establishing and maintaining a competitive edge. We have tried to give shape and substance to this belief through the launch last year by the Department of Economic Development of its strategy document entitled Competing In The 1990s; The Key To Growth. Within the framework of that new strategy, the Industrial Development Board and the Training and Employment Agency have published more detailed plans. One theme running through those plans is the emphasis on training and education for the present and future workforce in Northern Ireland. We already have a strong educational system there but increased importance is being placed on enhancing our skills portfolio in developing our human infrastructure so that we can meet the challenges of the future.
The noble Lord asked me to give details of expenditure on energy efficiency. The estimates before the House this evening provide for an additional £400,000 in the current financial year. That makes a total of £632,000 for expenditure in this area. That is to expand the publicity programme and grant aid to help the companies identify and implement energy saving measures in Northern Ireland. However, that expenditure is additional to the substantial sums which all areas of the public and private sectors are devoting to cost-effective improvements in energy efficiency. In the case of the public sector, the firm target is a 15 per cent reduction in energy consumption by 1994–95.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also asked me to specify the amount being given to support voluntary organisations working for reconciliation in the Province. The sum is £850,000 for the current year. That is being given to assist voluntary groups in their work of promoting increased cross-community contact and co-operation and greater mutual understanding. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a key role for voluntary bodies to play. Any efforts at community reconciliation must have strong local support.
The noble Lord also asked about provision for social security payments given the recent increase in unemployment in Northern Ireland. I assure him that the provision for this financial year, and for the next, will take full account of unemployment rates and those entitled will receive the payments that are due to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, spoke about a problem which is in the minds of everyone involved in agriculture in Northern Ireland; namely, the disposal of fallen animals. The reinstatement of rendering would offer the most appropriate solution. However, the agricultural industry must accept financial responsibility for the cost. Discussions are continuing with the rendering plants with a view to their providing at an economic cost a collection and rendering service for fallen stock. Any such service would ensure the separate treatment of material from

509
fallen stock. When the noble Lord said that the Government cannot stand away from the issue, I must point out that the Department of Agriculture and its Minister is standing close to it and are trying to seek a solution to a difficult problem.
The noble Lord asked me about an apparent anomaly, in that the alteration of listed buildings is zero rated while the restoration of them is not zero rated. At this stage of the discussion I simply say that that is a matter for Customs and Excise. Perhaps the noble Lord will have an informal talk with me outside the Chamber and we may be able to pursue that matter.
I thank noble Lords for the speeches which have been made. I deal lastly with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. He asked whether I could indicate what measures are taken to attract industry into West Belfast, which the noble Lord knows so well. He specifically asked whether we are talking to the right community leaders and elected representatives.
That is where the initiative called Making Belfast Work is important. In addition to the substantial amount of public funds already being spent annually on programmes for health, housing, education, job creation and the environment, additional funds are provided under that initiative. As a result of increased public expenditure announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last November, the total amount of additional funds in the six-year period 1989–90 to 1993–94 will be £123 million. A major feature of the initiative has been the development of partnerships between government departments and public bodies with bona fide local community organisations, many of which are supported through the work of the Belfast action teams.
In covering that point about talking to the right people, I assure the noble Lord that the major job creation agencies such as the IDB and LEDU are making major efforts in those areas. For example, last year LEDU promoted over 1,000 jobs in the action areas and identified 52,000 square feet of office and industrial floor space for private sector development.
Finally, the Minister responsible in this area, Mr. Needham, spends almost his entire time endeavouring to attract investment from outside. He has just returned from abroad in order to do exactly that. Urged on by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, we shall continue to do our best. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
10.37 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these orders adjust various statutory limits imposed by Northern Ireland legislation on certain financial transactions and they do not provide for any additional public expenditure.
Article 3 will enable part of the regional rate collected in each financial year to be paid to the Department of the Environment Water Service instead of being paid into the Consolidated Fund as required at present by legislation. We believe that will improve accountability. It will be a temporary measure until proposals for the establishment of a government-owned company are brought forward which would take over the water and sewerage function with effect from 1st October 1992.
Article 4 is technical. It increases the ceiling on the amount of government loans advanced from the Consolidated Fund to include loans to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Article 5 will enable the interest rate on a government loan to a district council to be fixed on the day the loan application is received by the Department of Finance and Personnel. The change will let borrowers know where they stand and will bring arrangements in Northern Ireland into line with those operated in Great Britain by the Public Works Loans Board.
Article 6 repeals the Loans Guarantee and Borrowing Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, which has become obsolete.
Article 7 removes the requirement for the Department of Agriculture to obtain the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel before carrying out emergency drainage works, subject to a cost limit of £25,000.
Article 8 changes the funding arrangements of the Northern Ireland Sports Council from deficit grant to that of grant-in-aid. Under the present arrangements the Government have to take into account the council's likely income from all sources before deciding on the level of deficit grant required and at the end of the financial year any unexpended grant has to be surrendered. By switching to grant-in-aid we are giving the council more flexibility in the distribution of its resources, and enabling it to plan ahead by carrying over surplus cash from one financial year to the next. The change should also encourage the council to maximise its income from non-government sources since the level of grant will not suffer as a consequence.
I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, explain this technical order and make it sound a little more interesting. I am sure that Article 5 will be welcomed by the district councils, and Article 8 will be welcomed by the sports council. I feel sure that Article 6 was long overdue. Article 7 abolishes an unbelievable requirement. However, I understand that the civil servants, true to their traditions, had already found a way round that stumbling block.
Clearly the order is a very sensible order. We on these Benches, as usual, are pleased to support a sensible order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1991
10.40 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue for a further period the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987, together with certain provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as they apply to Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill received its First Reading in your Lordships' House on 7th March. That Bill would supersede the legislation which the Government are asking the House to renew again tonight. The continuance order, therefore, is in the nature of a temporary measure so that a gap should not occur between existing legislation and consideration of the new Bill.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a brief word about the existing legislation which the order would renew. The 1978 Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act provides the legal authority for the so-called Diplock courts. It creates the category of prescribed organisations for Northern Ireland. It provides the police and armed forces with additional powers to stop and question, enter, search and seize. The 1978 Act also contains powers for the requisition of private property and the closure of public highways for security reasons.
The 1987 emergency provisions Act contains statutory safeguards for persons arrested under the terrorism provisions to have a friend or relative informed of their arrest and whereabouts, and to have access to legal advice. It also contains a statutory scheme for the regulation of security guard companies in Northern Ireland.
Part VI of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is also covered by the continuance order, empowers the police and armed forces in Northern Ireland to impose restrictions on the occupants of houses and vehicles during searches for terrorist equipment; it contains arrangements relating to remission and the sentencing of persons convicted of scheduled offences.
As I have mentioned, without the order the temporary provisions of the emergency legislation would expire later this week. That is not a situation the Government could be prepared to contemplate. Therefore the legislation is vital if the courts, the police and armed forces in Northern Ireland are to be in a position to tackle the problems of terrorism effectively.
Within the past two or three weeks we have witnessed again in Northern Ireland events which typify the continuing tragedy of terrorism in the Province. Two members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have died as a result of a mortar attack on
512
an army patrol near Armagh; four men were gunned down mercilessly by the Loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force in Cappagh, and a Roman Catholic taxi driver was shot dead in North Belfast. In addition to those brutal attacks there have been other attacks on the police, armed forces and on civilians in the shape of punishment shootings. That continuing level of violence underlines the importance of the debate tonight.
I should like to emphasise that incidents such as these, many of which involve the taking of life, do nothing to advance any political cause. Their only effect is to bring misery and suffering to family and friends as well as to the wider community. No cause can justify the taking of lives. I repeat the Government's firm commitment to bring terrorism to an end from whichever quarter it comes.
In that context the Government believe that the emergency powers remain necessary, a view which was shared by my noble friend Lord Colville in his review last year. On behalf of the Government I should like to thank my noble friend for a most thorough and skilful report. It is a document to which the House will return with increasing interest when the Bill comes before us. In Chapter 2 of the report my noble friend carried out a careful analysis of the various powers that are available under the emergency and ordinary criminal law and he concluded that in general the additional powers available to the police remain necessary. He reached a similar conclusion with regard to the armed forces. He concluded also that the unusual procedures in the so-called Diplock courts continue to be justified.
Finally, in seeking the approval of your Lordships to this order, I ask the House to remember the people of Northern Ireland on both sides of the community who continue to show such resilience and fortitude in the face of the most extreme provocation. They deserve special praise. In particular I pay warm tribute to those who are engaged in the work of law enforcement, often at the most serious personal risk. I am thinking of the men and women of the police service, the full and part-time RUC and the Reserve, the armed forces, including the Ulster Defence Regiment, the judiciary and the staff of the courts and the prison services. The people of Northern Ireland remain very much in their debt. These people have the full support of the Government and of all decent and law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland. By bringing the order forward this evening we are ensuring that they will continue to have at their disposal the means necessary to tackle the problems of terrorism. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Belstead.)
10.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I join with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in expressing our appreciation of the courage of the people of Northern Ireland and of the members of the security forces. They deserve our support. We recognise the importance of this order, but as the

513
Minister has explained, its immediate effect is to hold the existing legislation until the new Bill which we shall be discussing in three to four weeks' time is passed and comes into force. I shall therefore confine my comments this evening to two or three sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. The noble Viscount concluded last summer his thorough review of the workings of the existing legislation. His report drew on a wealth of experience and knowledge. A great deal of thought and excellent work went into the preparation of his report.
It is a worrying reflection that the Government have been unable to adopt many of the important recommendations made by the noble Viscount which many of us had expected them to accept. Having made that valid point I shall not delay your Lordships further as we shall have the Second Reading of the Bill in a few weeks' time.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, whatever the case may be in other political quarters, we on these Benches are quite clear on the need for the continuance of this order. Terrorism will be defeated in the end not by military means but by other means that the Government and all of us wish to see pursued. But in the short term the violence has to be resisted. I should like to associate those on these Benches with the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and by the Minister, not just to the security forces who deserve our thanks and encouragement but to the people of Northern Ireland who have to bear the brunt of this alien force in their midst.
The need for the order does not eliminate some real concerns about the details of this legislation, to which, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I shall return when we discuss the Bill. Perhaps I may say today that the question of the video taping of police interrogations, which was one of the recommendations of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has been supported by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. After the freeing of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, I can imagine that there will be no one who does not think that confidence in the police, in the judicial system and in the fair treatment of prisoners alike requires that every precaution be taken so that justice can be seen to be done. I give notice that it is a matter to which I intend to return when we discuss the Bill in April.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was quite right to catalogue a further increase in the number of people killed and maimed since last we discussed this issue earlier in the year. I recall saying then that, however long the Gulf crisis might last and however high the casualties might be, when it was all over we would still have the Northern Ireland problem. We have, and the public memory is all too short.
To the list of atrocities to which the noble Lord referred can be added one more. It seems to have departed from people's minds. It is only a month—18th February—since a young girl was carried out of Victoria railway station crying, "Save my legs, save
514
my legs, I am getting married in June", and a young man, Mr. Corner, who was going to work that morning, died. So terrorism is not only confined to Northern Ireland. It has spread its terrible tentacles all over the United Kingdom and all over Ireland. One has only to think of the week following the bombing at Victoria and the absolute chaos which Londoners faced because of the delays to the trains and the hoax calls.
I certainly have had reservations about the emergency provisions and particularly the Prevention of Terrorism Act in relation to exclusion orders and so on. However, I rise for a few moments to put on record something which has annoyed me intensely over the past two or three days. For many years, many people in Ireland, here and further afield have concerned themselves with what they saw as the terrible injustice of the gaoling of the Birmingham bombers. Last Thursday that saga came to an end. The Birmingham Six were released. A great sigh of relief was felt by those concerned about the case. Then, on the following evening, or the evening after it, I sat and watched my television set and saw one of those released prisoners, Mr. Walker, going to Derry, his home town, and being grabbed and welcomed home by one of the most notorious former IRA/Sinn Fein members in Northern Ireland, Martin Maguinness. My blood ran cold when I saw that.
I remember vividly the night the bombs went off in Birmingham. I remember the terrible carnage that we saw on our television screens. I remember reading the awful accounts of the terrible injuries that were inflicted on all those people in Birmingham, inflicted by the IRA and its blood brother, Sinn Fein. Here we have one of those whom, it would appear, was wrongly convicted being welcomed back to Derry into the arms of the very terrorists who were responsible for his incarceration for 16 years. That was how I felt. How in the name of God must the people who are related to those victims in Birmingham have felt when they saw that? What thought would have immediately crossed their minds? It would not have been that these men were innocent; it would have been that they were guilty because they were being welcomed home by their blood brothers.
I then tried to reason with myself. I supposed that the person who was going home, Mr. Walker, was not in any position to organise who would be on the welcoming committee when he arrived in Derry. I thought that perhaps he was totally innocent, that he was merely going home and that he did not know that Mr. Maguinness, the Sinn Fein apologist, would be there.
However, the same thing occurred the next day in Belfast. Two other members of the Birmingham Six were welcomed into the Old Park Road and North Belfast by Republican and Sinn Fein councillors. There is no difference between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Again, how must the relatives of those people who died in Birmingham have felt?
Since that time, everyone to whom I have spoken has asked me about what happened. They have tried to find some reason for this occurrence. I appeal now to those three people who were met by representatives

515
of the IRA and Sinn Fein—that is, the people who were responsible for the carnage and for the Birmingham Six serving all those years in prison—that they either individually or collectively find the means to say, "We did not ask for that type of reception; we did not know that we would be received by, and welcomed into the arms of, IRA supporters. We want to dissociate ourselves from the kind of reception we received, which was planned without our knowledge". That would do something to ease the confusion and the tension which now exists in the minds of many people who fought for such a long period of time to secure the release of the Birmingham Six. Allied to that plea, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that no effort must now be spared until we find out who was really responsible for that explosion.
A few months ago I was sitting in my home watching television like many other people in this country. I watched a programme called "Who bombed Birmingham?" A heavily disguised individual was interviewed during the transmission. He was disguised so that he could not be identified. He admitted that he was responsible for the bombing and that the Birmingham Six did not cause the explosion. Yet again I found myself wondering what sort of a country I was living in when the person who claimed that he committed this deed was sitting in the television studio, either in London or in Dublin—the exact venue has still not be confirmed. The producers, the editors and the cameramen involved in that programme are all guilty. They were all involved in a conspiracy not to name the individual who was sitting in the studio admitting that he was responsible for the mass murder which took place in Birmingham in 1974. I wonder how they would have felt if any of their relatives had been the victims of that terrible carnage.
As I said, every effort must now be geared towards finding the person who was responsible. I say that especially in relation to foreign affairs; that is, our relationship with the Irish Republic. I say that as an Irishman. Every pressure that can be found must now be used to persuade the Irish Government that if they do know the whereabouts of this individual then he must be extradited to this country to face trial and justice for his actions.
Incidentally, I should add that Mr. Walker was not only met by Mr. Maguinness; he was also taken into his home. Over many years the Birmingham Six have been saying, "We were not politically motivated; we were not involved in the politics of Ireland". However, after having spoken to Mr. Maguinness for five minutes, Mr. Walker left the house and said to the television crew, "No extradition, no extradition!" That was a highly political thing for Mr. Walker to say if he had no interest in politics. Were the words put
516
into his mouth in the short space of time that he was in the arms and home of Mr. Maguinness? If the individual or individuals responsible for the carnage are found in Ireland, politicians in Ireland must not tell us that they cannot be extradited because of the furore there has been and because there is a possibility that they may not receive a fair trial. If those individuals are found they must be extradited to this country and called to account for the terrible deeds they committed in 1974.
I am speaking to give three of the released Birmingham Six the opportunity to say that they are not involved with Sinn Fein and that they did not expect to be welcomed and rushed into the arms of Sinn Fein, and so relieve the awful fear, tension and disgust that exists in the minds of thousands and thousands of people living in both islands.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I support wholeheartedly what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said. When the furore arose over the interrogation methods used at Castlereagh in the mid-1970s, we said that all interrogations should be video-recorded. Sound tape recordings can be edited, but I understand that modern technology can ensure that video recordings are not edited. Sound effects cannot be introduced without being detected. I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for having one thing in common: your support for the continuation of the order. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked why we have not accepted some of the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Colville. The most careful consideration was given to all the recommendations and observations, and I stand ready to explain our position on individual issues when we discuss the Bill. The subject of video recordings was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Dunleath. No doubt we shall return to that subject.
We all heard with considerable sympathy the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who reminded your Lordships' House of the dangers of terrorism not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. It is in that general context that I again thank your Lordships for the general reception you have given the order, which continues in force the emergency legislation until we reach the Bill which is due to have its Second Reading in your Lordships' House in the near future. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ANGOLA: UN SPECIAL RELIEF PROGRAMME
  ANGOLA: UN SPECIAL RELIEF PROGRAMME
  ANGOLA: FREE PASSAGE OF AID
  ANGOLA: FREE PASSAGE OF AID
  HYDE PARK CORNER: TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
  HYDE PARK CORNER: TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
  SEWAGE SLUDGE: ENDING OF SEA DISPOSAL
  SEWAGE SLUDGE: ENDING OF SEA DISPOSAL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL