Sitting of 3 December 1992

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

    WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 December.

    SECOND REPORT ON THE MAGUIRE CASE
    Ordered,
    That there be laid before the House a Return of the Second Report on the Maguire Case: The Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions arising out of the bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974, by the Right honourable Sir John May.—[Mr. Jack.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent proposals have been agreed to combat fraud under the reformed CAP.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench.
    The United Kingdom puts a high priority on combating fraud. I therefore welcome the new integrated administration and control system agreed at the November Council, the main purpose of which is to do just that.
    Mr. Martin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. I am sure that he is aware that, for city dwellers in places such as Portsmouth, it is often the horror stories and the costs of the CAP which are more obvious than its benefits. How will the new measures be enforced effectively through the institutions of the EC so that my constituents can be assured that their hard-earned cash will not go to line the pockets of continental con men?
    Mr. Gummer: I would not be too nationalistic about con men. There are people who use systems and they need to be stopped. The new anti-fraud devices will be effective. The Commission has greater powers to inspect inspectorates, and rules will be more clearly and transparently controlled. I remind my hon. Friend that recently it was the Italian Government who discovered Italian fraud and reported it to the Commission, which makes a major change of which I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will approve.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that last year there was a report that the fraud was of the order of £7,000 million? Although there is fraud in Italy, with olive trees being paid for which exist only on paper, is not it true that fraud also takes place in Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that cattle are moved across the border from southern Ireland into Northern Ireland, back and for'ard, back and for'ard; the cattle have done it so often that they know the road themselves and money is made every time? Is not it high time that the right hon. Gentleman looked into not just what is happening on the continent, because that is big, but what is happening here as well?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman noticed that I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) that one should not restrict one's complaints to those in the rest of the Community. The very point that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has raised will be precisely covered in the part of the new measures concerning the identification of cattle. I am sure that that will have his full support.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend commend the measures in the Maastricht treaty that provide for the European Parliament the same kind of research that the Public Accounts Committee does in Britain, allowing the European Commission to carry out a proper standard of inspection and investigation into fraud under the CAP?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. Another advantage of the Maastricht treaty will be that countries that do not carry out the regulations to which they have given their vote and their name will be able to be brought before the European Court of Justice and fined; what they have supported will then be enforced.

    Bivalve Molluscs
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by when he expects the European veterinary committee to reach a decision on the application by his Department for approval to be given for the use of the Torry process for processing bivalve molluscs.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The Standing Veterinary Committee approved the principles of the Torry process on 18 November.
    Mr. Wardell: The Council of Ministers approved two directives relevant to that matter on 22 July last year, so why did it take the Minister's Department a year before an application for the Torry process was made to the European veterinary committee so that, today, none of the cockle gatherers of Penclawdd know that that process has

    379
    been approved? The Minister has sounded the death knell of that industry from 1 January next year, because there is no way that those cockle gatherers can implement the process by the time that the directives come into force. This week, I referred the Ministry to the Parliamentary Commissioner because of its maladministration. I want to know from the Minister what is the recipe for those of my constituents who have worked in an industry that has existed since the middle ages, but which will be closed down on 1 January because the Minister's incompetence.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions, but clearly he does not understand the answers, which are very clear. Nobody will be closed down on 1 January or 2 January. We will make sure that the regulations are in place, and we will give clear indications to environmental health officers in the hon. Gentleman's local authority that where it is clear that the operator will take the necessary measures to protect public health—
    Mr. Wardell: In three weeks?
    Mr. Curry:—after 1 January, he will be continuing in business. We will apply the regulations with common sense. If the hon. Gentleman fears that a producer is going out of business, he can bring the case to my attention and we will investigate it—but the hon. Gentleman will have precious little to report.

    Agricultural Training Board
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the services offered by the Agricultural Training Board in central England continue to be at the level required to meet the needs of the region.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): We are carefully considering reactions to our plans to change the status of the Agricultural Training Board.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that training groups are a marvellous way of farmers getting together and provide a perfect forum for disseminating training information to other farmers? Does he also agree that United Kingdom farmers are very strapped for cash at the moment? Will he make a statement confirming that core funding for training, together with some additional funding for overheads, will continue?
    Mr. Soames: It is clear from the response and from comments received that ATB training groups are highly valued by the industry and other agencies operating in the land-based sector. I confirm that if Agriculture Ministers decide, following the consultation exercise, to implement their proposals for changing the status of ATB funding, core funding will continue.
    Mr. Stevenson: In the light of that response, should not the question posed be not so much about core funding for the board in central England but whether or not the boards have a future? Given the Government's negative response in respect of wages councils and similar bodies, will the Minister give a commitment that ATBs will continue with Government support, even if core funding is changed?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and he is right to make such an inquiry. We have a high opinion of the Agricultural Training Board's work, and seek to explore with the ATB ways of making its operations more efficient and less bureaucratic. We have every intention of ensuring that the board continues its good work.

    Alternative Land Use
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of land are to be taken out of agricultural use in the United Kingdom under the recent reforms of the CAP; and if he will make a statement on the progress made on his alternative land use policy.
    Mr. Gummer: It is not yet possible to say precisely how much land will be fallowed in the first year of the arable area payment scheme. The Commission has estimated that some 634,000 hectares would be set aside in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Steen: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's excellent work for farmers throughout the country and particularly in my area. Am I right in thinking that an area of land five times the size of Devon will have to be taken out of agriculture? If so, will that be done by eating into green-field sites on the edges of towns and smaller market villages; by land being taken by recreational, leisure, and tourist interests; or by increasing the number of gardens that people can have? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is less dangerous to walk across Dartmoor, where the military can fire freely 300 days a year, than in many other parts of my constituency because of the number of golf balls that fly around there?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend knows that fallowing was part of the rotation of crops for many years, but was stopped recently. Land will be taken out in different ways all over the country. My main concern is that the process should be as environmentally friendly as possible and that we should keep the land in good heart, because there may come a time when we shall need it. No student of history could support the idea that surpluses go on for ever. I hope that people will be imaginative. I agree with my hon. Friend that even gardens may be available, and I hope that no one will try to frustrate that.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: The Minister is aware that there are few alternative uses for hill areas in my constituency and in other parts of Britain. Golf is not an option, as nobody has invented a vertical golf course yet. Will he assure me that the GATT negotiations on the common agricultural policy will not further erode hill livestock compensatory amounts and the ewe premium?
    Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be little set-aside in the hillier areas of his constituency. I assure him that the GATT agreement is consonant with the common agricultural policy reform and that the payments that he mentioned will not be disciplined under the GATT because they are not production connected.
    Mr. Lord: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people are deeply concerned about the principle of setting aside fertile agricultural land. Concern is being expressed about the amount of land set aside in Britain and other European countries. Although we do not want

    381
    our farmers to behave like French farmers, will he assure the House that no more than the 15 per cent. already agreed will be set aside in Britain?
    Mr. Gummer: It would be much better if production capacity equalled available land, but it is surely better to set aside land than to have mountains and lakes, which cost a great deal, and surely better to keep the land in good heart and to pay the farmer for looking after it properly so that it is available when the nation needs it than to allow it to be removed from agriculture permanently. I think that my hon. Friend puts the saddest rather than the best aspect of a reasonable policy. I assure him that the CAP reform package that I have negotiated is very much in the United Kingdom's interests, and is very much better than that proposed at the outset.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it clear that the Government's position has changed in the past seven days since the President of the Board of Trade gave his answer at the Dispatch Box? When I asked a similar question last week, we received a different response. If the NFU, European Community officials and his own Back Benchers believe it, why does not the Minister admit that the GATT agreement will lead to a substantial increase in set-aside—optimistic assumptions suggest 20 per cent., but pessimistic assumptions suggest as much as 40 per cent. Why does he persist in denying the truth from the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's intervention—for the second time—suggests a staggering unfamiliarity with the facts. The European Commission has made it clear that GATT is compatible with CAP. If the European Commission says that it is compatible, it cannot mean that there will be an extensive extension of set-aside. The situation is quite clear: set-aside, as part of the programme of CAP reform, will not be radically changed by the GATT agreement. The hon. Gentleman knows that from me, he knows it from the Commission and, indeed, he would know it from what the NFU has said if he read it more carefully.

    Farmers (Planning)
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Department is giving to farmers on planning matters.
    Mr. Soames: This Department works closely with the Department of the Environment to ensure that the planning system enables farmers to carry out developments that are necessary to sustain the rural economy.
    Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency of Cambridgeshire, North-East. But given the prospects of deteriorating farm incomes as a result of common agricultural policy reform and the GATT adjustments, does not my hon. Friend agree that planning authorities should adopt a far more sensitive and flexible approach to the development needs of farmers and landowners?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. Planning authorities should adopt a positive approach, and their role must be to facilitate sensible diversification. My hon. Friend will be aware that that was
    382
    the message of "The Countryside and the Rural Economy"—planning policy guidance note 7—issued by the Department. The document advises planning authorities that the development necessary to sustain the rural economy must be integrated with the protection of what is best in the countryside. Maintaining a healthy rural economy is by far the best way of protecting and enhancing our countryside.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that in Renfrewshire we have been inundated with a flood of applications to build housing on farmland? What type of advice is the Department giving to farmers subjected to such pressure? My constituents in some of my Tory heartlands are sick and tired of spending a fortune to prevent houses from being built on farmland.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful for the fact that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is important that local planning authorities, as well as allowing and encouraging developments involving surplus farm buildings, should allow the construction of other buildings, too, provided that they are suitably landscaped? Does my hon. Friend agree that all too often vociferous minorities have an influence far beyond what they deserve? Will he use his best offices to discuss with the Department of the Environment ways in which the resolve of local planning authorities may be stiffened to resist some of those vociferous minorities—which all too often come from the Liberal Democratic party?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is correct. The countryside cannot be preserved in aspic, and only its enemies would propose that it should be.
    Mr. Tony Banks: If it were you would eat it!
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
    The proper way to create a vigorous and enterprising countryside is to ensure that farmers can diversify in a sensitive and realistic manner.

    GATT
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consistency of the GATT agricultural agreement with the recent CAP reforms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: The recent agreement between the European Community and the United States on GATT agriculture paves the way for wider agreement in the round. The Commission has made it clear that it is compatible with the reforms of CAP regimes agreed earlier this year, as I said in reply to question 4.
    Mr. Barnes: Even with the reforms, the CAP is protectionist and has considerable subsidy equivalents. Although GATT is not a free trade system, it stands for trade liberalisation. Is the only way in which the circle can be squared between the different principles by taking more and more land out of production, at a time when more and more people in the world are starving?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need to protect the countryside of Europe and to ensure that agriculture can continue sensibly there. If that

    383
    protection is not afforded, the countryside on which we depend will not be the sort of countryside that town dwellers and surburban people want to see. Of course we must protect agriculture to enable townsmen to enjoy the countryside. That can be done, but at a lower cost and with less protection than in the past, both through CAP reform and through a GATT agreement. That is why the Government have pioneered the CAP reform and why we have been at the centre of the battle to ensure that there is a GATT agreement.
    Mr. Dykes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his skilful chairmanship of the EC Agriculture Council during our presidency? Is he now confident that the French will accept the GATT deal and that they will not exercise any vetoes?
    Mr. Gummer: The French Government have made it clear that they are unhappy about some of the details of the arrangements made between the European Community and the United States. They have also made it clear that they wish to see the whole GATT deal in the round before they make up their mind. They will then decide what is in the interests of France. It is inconceivable that it could be in the interests of France not to have a GATT deal which, after all, will help Europe to get out of the recession that has led to more than 3 million people being unemployed in France.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Under the GATT agricultural agreement, what are the prospects for cheaper feeding stuffs to give an incentive to our intensive sector in agriculture?
    Mr. Gummer: The main ability to reduce the price of feeding stuffs comes from the CAP reform, which is taken up in the GATT agreement. There will be a reduction of 30 per cent. in the support price of cereals, which will have a direct knock-on effect in the price of feeding stuffs. Those feeding stuffs take up a large proportion of the end price of both pigs and poultry.
    Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware from my previous discussions with him of my concern for the largest mushroom grower in the north of England, which is in my constituency. As part of his work on the continuing CAP reforms, will he pay special attention to the unfair subsidies that are paid to rival mushroom growers in a number of other countries? Will he join me in congratulating Pixie House Mushrooms on combating those unfair subsidies and winning this week the award for business of the year in our area, which was sponsored by First Leisure plc and by the local newspapers?
    Mr. Gummer: After that short break, we come back to the main programme. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are some practices within the Community that fundamentally distort competition and trade. They underline the need for Community action and decisions made across the country so that trade may be fair. I will continue to fight to ensure that British firms have a fair deal in Europe.
    Dr. Strang: I thank the Minister for his earlier congratulations. Is he aware that the Labour party wants international agreement on an overall GATT deal as soon as possible? However, measures will be required to protect the livelihoods of our farmers and farm workers, not least because of the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the food
    384
    and drink industries which are dependent on home agricultural produce. If concessions are made to secure a French agreement on GATT, will the Minister ensure that such concessions do not discriminate against our agriculture and that the British, as consumers and taxpayers, do not bear a disproportionate share of the cost?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a trade deal in GATT is essential. That point has all-party support. I do not see how any agreement under GATT could disproportionately disadvantage the United Kingdom. I am looking closely at the small print of the discussions so far to ensure that that does not happen. I do not believe that the French can object to the agreement under the CAP reform to which they added their vote. It follows that if CAP reform is consonant with GATT and GATT is consonant with CAP reform, there is no place for changes that would benefit one country rather than the others. Any changes that take place over the next few months must, as with any other changes, be fair for all countries, neither disproportionately costing nor disproportionately benefiting countries merely because they have made a lot of noise.

    Food Production Industry
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an official visit to food producers in Basildon to discuss the needs of the food production industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Curry: I would consider an invitation to visit Basildon irresistable.
    Mr. Amess: With that excellent news, will my hon. Friend join me at Basildon Dairy Products and, while tasting the finest yoghurt in the world, listen to the company's concerns about its projected increased cost of raw materials next year and then join me at Faux Brand Products and, while tasting the finest ham in Europe, listen to the company's plans for expansion next year and its concern that while this country honours European directives at increased costs, other member states appear not to do that?
    Mr. Curry: I am looking forward to tasting the products at the plants in my hon. Friend's constituency. Experience tells me that when I am invited to taste products, I am usually required to sing for my supper and I will certainly listen to what those companies have to say.

    EC Surplus Butter
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the arrangements that have been made for the distribution of EC surplus butter.
    Mr. Curry: Three thousand seven hundred tonnes of butter will be distributed by 1,300 voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Gerrard: What does the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do to ensure that there is adequate publicity so that the people who are entitled to the butter know where and when it is going to be distributed? What checks are carried out afterwards to ensure that the butter has gone to the people who are entitled to it and does not end up on market stalls and in shops?
    Mr. Curry: The publicity must be handled by the organisations concerned. We send the butter to voluntary organisations. It would be an enormous task for MAFF to advertise the locations at which 1,300 organisations make the butter available. The arrangements are subjected to very detailed checks. We check about one third of all recipients annually. We check the records of the produce received and the record of the produce that has gone out. We also check the number of recipients, how much each received and how eligibility was established. Organisations that are shown not to have followed the rules will find it extremely difficult to participate in the scheme the following year.

    Group Marketing Grant
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums have been awarded to what groups under the MAFF group marketing grant since 1 April.
    Mr. Curry: The Department has so far issued 11 approvals under the scheme to a total value of just over £180,000 in England.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister aware that that is a very disappointing and pathetic take-up after all the hype about the introduction of the scheme? Will the Minister comment on whether too high a proportion of the cost is laid on the groups or whether it has something to do with the criteria for acceptance within the Ministry? At the end of the financial year, will any unallocated funds be sucked back into the Treasury?
    Mr. Curry: The answer to the last question is no. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the take-up. We have had 39 applications and 18 approvals in the United Kingdom. We deliberately set ourselves to work sensibly to develop schemes and we deliberately decided not to go for a great theatrical send-off for a scheme that might not be well founded. The important point is that we are encouraging people to talk about, discuss and develop schemes with us and we are very encouraged by what is happening. We are now talking to the catering and retail sectors about how they can get hold of the products that they want to help British farmers and to give British consumers the best of British produce.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the coming together of a competitive exchange rate, the CAP reform and the GATT settlement provides the best opportunity for a generation of British food manufacturers to make inroads into our huge trade deficit in food products? The marketing grant scheme is crucial to that. Does he also agree that the labelling directive which is under consideration would help our manufacturers a great deal if we could put on the labels of our food the origin of those food products?
    Mr. Curry: I note my hon. Friend's final point. I agree with him entirely. The whole purpose of the scheme is not to persuade people to do things for patriotic purposes, but to ensure that they can get first-rate products from the United Kingdom for our consumers and for the export market. We have some quite remarkable products and we are not justly represented overseas in many of the markets
    386
    in which we should be. The whole point of the scheme is to ensure that British food acquires a worldwide reputation for quality, reliability and innovation.

    Set-aside
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in introducing the new set-aside proposals.
    Mr. Gummer: A detailed booklet on the arable area payments scheme for 1992–93 was published in early September and copies were placed in the House Library.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that while it may be seen as folly to pay farmers not to produce when millions of people in the world are starving, if we have to have a set-aside policy, we must be sure that the farmers will know the rules of the non-rotational scheme in time to plan for the next growing year?
    Mr. Gummer: I certainly want to make sure that when we have the non-rotational scheme which was inserted at British insistence, it will be early enough for people to make that choice and to include within it the areas which they have set aside under the rotational scheme as the first year of a non-rotational project.
    Mr. Gill: What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the effect of set-aside on tenant values when dilapidations are settled at the end of a farm tenancy?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend raises a point which we have looked at carefully and it is one of the things that are informing our present discussions about the reform of landlord-tenant arrangements. I hope very much to be able to make decisions on that and, when legislative time is available, wholly to reform our landlord-tenant arrangements which are wildly out of date and do not provide enough land for tenants to take up.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister accept that his policy on set-aside is quite unsatisfactory? It applies to no other industry; it has a very dubious effect on the environment and there is the further danger that farmers will increase the productivity of their remaining land to make up what they have lost on set-aside. Would it not be wiser to encourage less intensive agriculture?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member has obviously not read our statements, which show that we are doing precisely that. It is our purpose to encourage less intensive arrangements, but set-aside is a necessary part of the whole policy and he does not do his own farmers any good by perpetuating myths about set-aside which they would disagree with.
    The fact is that we are over-producing and that we cannot use what we over-produce to help the developing countries, as every aid agency would tell us. The hon. Member must not blame us for not doing something for which every aid agency would attack us if we did. Secondly his comments about the environment would be entirely undermined by most of the environmental agencies in this country. Set-aside has been welcomed by a number of them. A mixture of rotational and no-rotational set-aside would have their widespread support. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene when he has not done his homework.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), my right hon. Friend will be aware, having completed his consultation on landlord and tenant reform, that there is a window of goodwill from all organisations that this reform should succeed. May I urge him to come forward with a White Paper or legislative proposals as soon as possible?
    Mr. Gummer: The point about set-aside is that it again underlines the need for the arrangements between landlords and tenants to be left to the landlords and tenants and not to a panoply of legal arrangements. I do not believe that we shall get sufficient land forward, so that tenants who want to come into the industry will be able to take it, unless we ensure that decisions are made between two grown-up people and not interfered with by a lot of people who have arrangements that are based on laws that are long out of date.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister agree that we would be less dependent on set-aside if farmers in this and other countries in the Community were more able to meet their agricultural feedstuff requirements from their own resources? Will he look particularly at the exports of maize gluten and other feedstuffs from America in the context of the GATT round?
    Mr. Gummer: We have been discussing this, not in the context of the GATT round but in the context of the GATT panel finding on two separate occasions that we in Europe have for too long excluded the products of the United States and other countries, having given them tariff-free entry.
    The Commissioner has achieved what I believe to be a good deal for Europe on that issue and we should congratulate him on what he has done, because it has paved the way for a wider GATT agreement.
    Mr. Morley: I am sure that the Minister will agree that without constructive and positive uses for set-aside land, we shall face a new wasteland policy in this country because of land that is left uncultivated. We are looking forward to proper proposals to ensure that land is used constructively, without a negative waste of public funds. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said about the impact of the GATT agreement, can we take it that he is giving the House an assurance that no more than 15 per cent. of agricultural land will be set aside in this country?
    Mr. Gummer: There is no question of the GATT agreement increasing substantially the costs of the common agricultural policy reform for the farmer, and among those is set-aside. I do not change from that position. The hon. Gentleman talks about set-aside as if it were an innovation, when there has been crop rotation throughout the history of agriculture. Large areas of land have always been left to rest, and the hon. Gentleman cannot start some terrible scare about it. Farmers are being paid to look after the land. The rules that I have laid down are tougher than in other European countries because I have environmental support—[Interruption.]—if hon. Gentlemen ask questions and expect answers, they should not interrupt people when they are trying to answer.

    Right to Fish
    Mr. Sproat: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on official procedures for informing fishermen when their right to fish is to be stopped.
    Mr. Curry: Fishermen are informed of fishery closures by means of variations to their licences, wherever possible immediately before a closure.
    Mr. Sproat: While fish quota management is extremely difficult, surely there is something seriously wrong with the system when the fishermen of Harwich and the Thames estuary can be told their quotas for the rest of the year on 27 October, and they plan on that basis, only to be told two weeks later that the quotas have been slashed by three quarters and a week later that they have been abandoned all together, thus wiping out their livelihood for the last six weeks of the year. Can my hon. Friend assure me that he is looking for, and will find, a more fair and effective method of quota control?
    Mr. Curry: If my hon. Friend wishes us to move to individual transferable quotas, where the fisherman is given a clear quota to exploit throughout the year, I shall be happy to examine that, but the fishing industry has shown strong hostility to it. Under the present rules, the one thing that we cannot control is how frequently fishermen go to sea and how much they catch. There is always a delay of a couple of weeks before statistics are available. If we say that we are going to close a fishery in five or six days, every fisherman in creation will set out to sea, stay there for as long as possible, and come back with a large catch, which will represent a significant overfish. I understand the problem, and have told each group of fishermen where problems occur. If there is any justification for reopening I shall do it, and I have already met a significant number of groups of fishermen. If we can improve management we shall be open to doing so.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister is going to have to stop a lot of other fishermen, in the dictatorial way in which he has just stopped the Grimsby producer organisations' cod quota, if the multi-annual guidance programme targets that he has just agreed in Brussels come into effect. How can the Minister justify an agreement which cuts by one fifth the British fishing effort—the nation which provides the majority of the fish stocks in the Common Market pool—and leaves the massive Spanish effort with a 4 per cent. cut only?
    Mr. Curry: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the flag of convenience that he is wearing. As usual, he has got his facts wrong. The multi-annual guidance programme targets are identical for all member states. The effort that they have to apply to each sector depends on how their fleet is divided between various sectors. We shall monitor carefully what the Spanish and everyone else is doing. We have an outstandingly good deal for the British fleet, which I shall explain to him at length and very slowly if he so wishes.
    Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Cornish fishermen, especially those from my constituency, are hopping mad because of what they regard as the premature closure of the hake fishery? Two days ago they were suddenly told, without warning, that the Minister had closed that fishery, even though the Cornish fish

    389
    producers organisation has 20 tonnes of unused quota at its disposal. Surely they are being penalised because they have managed their sector of the quota well, whereas others have managed it badly.
    Mr. Curry: The people who are hopping mad are the quota hoppers, because they are the people who are most affected by this closure. When we have the up-to-date figures, I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that there is no deficiency left on the tonnages which have been taken. I give him an assurance, as I do all fishermen, that if we find that there is so much as one fish left, we will authorise them to go and catch it.
    Mr. Salmond: The Minister claimed in Standing Committee that opinion in the industry was divided on the question of borrowing forward on the haddock quota. Given that the entire Scottish industry was in favour of this proposal, can the Minister name the fishing organisation that was against it?
    Mr. Curry: I can name the organisation that failed to administer its quota effectively this year, and that is the producer organisation that is supposed to be disputing that decision on haddock. Those haddock are on the margin of the minimum landing size. If they are caught next year they will be bigger fish, better fish and worth a great deal more to the industry. The sensible thing is to catch them next year when they have a reasonable and sensible quota.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Congdon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many businesses are finding it difficult enough without the added burden of bureaucratic interference and excessive regulation? Can he assure businesses in my constituency that he will do everything he can to reduce the number of petty rules and regulations emanating both from Whitehall and from Brussels?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that it is time that we stood back again and looked at the whole burden of regulation—that imposed by the House, that imposed by the Community and that imposed by local authorities. That is precisely what I have asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to do. I shall be calling in all Cabinet Ministers in the new year to discuss how we can cut that red tape still further. Today I have announced a new scrutiny involving the private sector, which will look at the way in which EC regulations impact upon business. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce details of this shortly.
    Mr. John Smith: On the day when the Post Office has made a staggering announcement of 15,000 job losses, will the Prime Minister tell the House what action he proposes to take to stern the rising tide of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone, of course, regrets job losses wherever they occur. In the case of the Post Office, I am glad that these are both to be spread and to be sought voluntarily. The only way to create long-term sustainable jobs is to create the right policies that produce long-term sustainable growth. That is precisely what we are putting in place.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not realise that we have heard both these regrets and these excuses in every month of the two years in which he has been Prime Minister? Does he not accept the reality of modern Britain, that there are 52 unemployed people seeking every job vacant in the west midlands and 72 seeking every job vacant in London? What does he propose to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been listening a moment or so ago. If he is really concerned about jobs, why does he not drop his commitment to a payroll tax, the social chapter and the minimum wage? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember what happened last time a Labour Government—of which he was a member—tried to buy its way out of recession: 27 per cent. inflation and no growth.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not pathetic that, after 15 years of Conservative Government and after the Prime Minister has been in office for two years, he is still seeking to blame others for unemployment? Does he not realise that redundancy does not just affect the Post Office; in this week alone, we have the Post Office, Ford and Cammell Laird? Does he not understand that unemployment is now a cancer eating up the fabric of British society? When, at long last, will he take some action against unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman expresses concern about Cammell Laird. The defence policies that his party espouses would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. He conveniently forgets that labour spent the first half of this year calling for swingeing tax increases that would have put many other people out of work. Our priority has been to create the right conditions for growth. We have cut inflation to under 4 per cent., we have cut tax rates for businesses and earners and we have reduced interest rates to 7 per cent., the lowest in the Community and half the level of two years ago.
    Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the latest Community survey in the Financial Times—[Interruption.] I gather that he did. If he had not, perhaps he would be better informed. That showed that British business men are now displaying much more confidence in British prospects than their continental counterparts are showing in their prospects. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman start talking this country up and stop talking it down?
    Mr. King: Against the background of the further attempts by the IRA to mount a bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, did my right hon. Friend note in the recent elections in the Republic of Ireland that Sinn Fein massed the masive total of 1·6 per cent. of support and that of the 42 candidates who stood, 40 lost their deposits? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that any attempt to pretend that there is popular democratic support for the campaign of violence is totally fraudulent?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly noted the statistics to which my right hon. Friend refers. They reflect the disgust that is felt not only in this country but in the Republic of Ireland about the way in which the IRA seeks to bomb, kill and damage people's lives indiscriminately.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister recall that in September 1986 he filled in a questionnaire sent to him by the author Mr. Martin Short agreeing that police officers, magistrates, Members of Parliament, councillors and other public officials who were Freemasons should disclose that fact? If he has forgotten, I have with me a copy of the questionnaire with his signature at the bottom of it. Is that still his position and, if so, may I expect his support for my Secret Societies (Declaration) Bill which comes up for Second Reading on 29 January?
    The Prime Minister: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his ingenuity and research. It remains my personal view, as set out at that time. I shall examine his Bill and my timetable and see what answer I come up with.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last week alone, 17 convoys of British troops have delivered nearly 1,000 tonnes of food to the stricken citizens of Bosnia? Will he reassure the House that it is not the Government's intention to deploy British troops in a combat role, whatever the merits of enforcing a no-fly zone, in what is essentially a civil war?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we already have 2,000 troops in Yugoslavia. They are there to deliver humanitarian aid. They are, as my hon. Friend points out, doing that with great skill, persistence and bravery. We have taken a leading role in many aspects in Yugoslavia, in sanctions monitoring in the Adriatic, and that has now been stepped up. We have, of course, supported the establishment of a no-fly zone. If further action is needed to enforce that no-fly zone, we should wish to consider that with our allies and partners in the United Nations, but we have no immediate plans to go further.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that, despite the best efforts of our troops on the ground, the situation in and around Bosnia is not getting better but worse? Does he not realise that time is running out for saving lives and for stopping the spread of the conflict? Does he further not realise that whether it is in London in August or in Geneva in two weeks' time, peace efforts will continue to fail for so long as agreements on paper are not backed by the will to enforce them on the ground?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the London conference on Yugoslavia, which this country called and which set a new framework for negotiations. He is right in saying that when those negotiations are there it is necessary for those who reach agreements to keep them, and we will certainly do what we can to ensure that.
    The right hon. Member, like everyone else, wants to see an end to the fighting and suffering in the former Yugoslavia. I have to tell him that we are not talking about the invasion of one country by another; we are talking, as
    392
    my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, effectively about a civil war. It is all too easy to be heroic with the lives of other people.
    Those who talk glibly about bombing from the air should consider the risk of retaliation to our troops who are, at present, delivering humanitarian aid. Those who go further and talk about putting ground forces in should realise that, were the circumstances necessary and we and others did so, we would be committing those troops to a very long and bloody fight with the absolute certainty of serious casualties. If we have not put in troops, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly thinks we might have done, it is not out of neglect; it is out of our judgment of what is best, what is feasible and what is responsible.
    Mr. Watts: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our European Community partners understand clearly that any attempt to interfere with the rebate of Britain's excessive contributions to the EC budget would have a dramatic effect on his ability to secure a smooth passage for the Maastricht Bill through the House?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend has just made his own point in an inimitable fashion, and I note it. I am grateful for what he had to say.
    The abatement, which is worth about £12 billion to the United Kingdom so far, ensures that we pay only our fair share to the Community budget. I have to say that there is no justification whatever for reducing that rebate, and we shall not agree to reduce it at Edinburgh. On most issues at Edinburgh, there may be room for negotiation. On this issue, there is no room whatever for negotiation.
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moment ago.
    Mr. Burden: Is the Prime Minister aware that this year more than 2,500 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in my city of Birmingham, and that, every working day that he has been Prime Minister, 750 manufacturing jobs have been lost? Given the virtual vote of no confidence which the Engineering Employers Federation gave to the President of the Board of Trade last week, when will he start listening to what the manufacturing industry is saying?
    The Prime Minister: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the "Autumn Statement". He obviously missed it.
    Mr. Conway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moment ago.
    Mr. Conway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of this country never wanted to celebrate the Marxist anniversay of May day? Given the new spirit of European co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consider replacing the May day bank holiday with a bank holiday to mark the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, the battle of Agincourt or, better still, the battle of Waterloo?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for removing the May day bank holiday in precisely the same way in which are seeing the removal of

    393
    the political system that it supports. Perhaps Trafalgar day would be appropriate; perhaps other days, but certainly not May day.
    Mr. Hattersley: Which does the Prime Minister think would most increase the choices available to a poor family—all the charters that he has announced, some of which he relaunched this morning, or £10 a week more on child benefit?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that many people in this country want to ensure that they get a better quality of public service than they have had in the past. We are determined under the charter programme to ensure that they get that better quality of service. I find it astonishing that the Labour party talks about public service, but does nothing in reality to ensure that people receive it.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that competitive tendering has brought real improvement and value for money where it has been introduced in local authority services? Does he, like me, welcome the fact that compulsory competitive tendering is to be introduced into housing management?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that competitive tendering has produced substantial cost savings so far, and will no doubt continue to do so in future. It has done so with the same or improved standards of performance. I welcome the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management—it is a little overdue, but now it is there, I very much welcome it.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the main underlying message of the churches lobby on housing this week was that, despite the slight change of direction announced in the autumn statement, that has only touched the surface of the many housing problems created as a result of Government policies during the past 14 years? Will the Government make more resources available to tackle the problems, reduce unemployment, improve the market sector and improve the British economy?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know, the plans that the Government have announced enable them to meet the manifesto pledge of 153,000 new homes. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the housing market should benefit significantly from the extra £750 million set aside to reduce the overhang of empty properties. That should provide another 20,000 properties for the public sector. The reduction in interest rates will help both the public and private sectors.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up; we now move to the private notice question—Mr. Ron Davies.
    Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to convey the Government's sympathy to the victims of the bombings in Manchester?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise his point of order later. However, as he knows, I cannot take it now, however sympathetic I might feel.

Flooding (Wales)
3.30 pm
Mr. Ron Davies(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the recent severe flooding in Wales—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly so that we may make progress on the private notice question?
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): In Wales we have experienced severe flooding caused by exceptionally heavy rain since Sunday, following above-average rainfall during the previous four months. Between Sunday afternoon, 29 November, and Wednesday afternoon, 2 December, 244 mm—9·61 in—of rain fell at Treherbert in the Rhondda. That is almost 10 in three days. During the past few days, river levels have been high over a wide area with no fewer than 20 rivers being placed on red alert. I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that the recent flooding has largely abated and we hope that weather conditions will continue to improve. This afternoon, the only river on which a red alert remains in force is the River Wye.
There have been numerous cases of local flooding, although few problems of flooding from major rivers, and the flood defences have performed reasonably well. The problems, in many cases, appear to have been caused by culverts on small side streams becoming blocked. There has also been widespread flooding of flood plains.
One of the worst affected areas has been Pontypridd, where nearly 100 business and private properties have been flooded. Many properties have also been flooded in Treorchy, Tredegar and other parts of Wales. During the early hours of yesterday morning, a slip of material occurred from the face of a coal tip and covered part of a school playground at Tredegar. The cause of the slip is said to have been a blocked culvert, uphill from the tip, which caused water to flow on to and through the tip. Fortunately, there were no injuries or structural damage, but the school was closed and 900 pupils were sent home. The clean-up is continuing and the school will remain closed until next week. The tip is now being carefully monitored. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy with those who have been in any way affected by those recent events.
Since the last major flood in 1979, some £34 million has been spent on flood defences in south Wales. As a result, many communities have been spared flooding on this occasion.
I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to join me in expressing appreciation for the dedicated work of the National Rivers Authority flood defence staff, the police, local authorities and all the other emergency services and voluntary organisations involved.
Mr. Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with the tribute that he has paid to the emergency services, particularly to the local authorities and, of course, the National Rivers Authority. South Wales has been badly hit over recent days and all the emergency services have performed their duties magnificently.
396
There is no doubt that millions of pounds' worth of damage has been done in Wales. Transport has been disrupted; there have been landslides; hundreds, if not thousands, of homes have been flooded; and livestock and farmland have been lost. I understand that, in the opinion of the emergency services in the three south Wales counties of Gwent, Mid Glamorgan and West Glamorgan, most damage was caused by the inability of the outdated water and sewerage infrastructure to cope with higher than normal rainfall. Will the Secretary of State therefore undertake to review the effectiveness of the flood control measures in affected areas and make the necessary capital available to remedy any shortcomings identified by that survey?
Given the tight financial settlement for local authorities this year, does the Secretary of State intend to fund emergency expenditure? In particular, will he guarantee that any overspending in the current year will not result in penalties?
Many of the flood victims will have been under-insured. Does the Secretary of State have in mind any proposals for a compensation scheme? If the Government can find £60 million for the uninsured Windsor castle, can we have equal treatment for the people of Wales?
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the words of praise which he gave to the emergency services. As I pointed out in my initial response, a substantial sum has been spent in Wales since the last major flood in 1979, including £10 million by the Welsh Office. Of course, there have been contributions from other sources as well. I will carefully review all the schemes in the light of the experience of this flood; I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The current flood defences performed well, and in many parts of Wales prevented significant flooding.
I should like to say a special word about Pontrypridd, where there is a need for flood schemes. The flooding was predominantly from complex drainage systems within the town of Pontypridd. Works are going on in Zion street and Hopkinstown. I hope that proposals will be coming forward which we can look at and take action upon.
As to further help, the hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers have power to activate schemes of special financial assistance to local authorities under the Bellwin scheme where storms or flooding cause serious financial problems. I am not aware of any circumstances that would give rise to the use of those powers in this case, but I shall monitor the position carefully.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is the responsibility of individual householders to ensure that they have adequate insurance. I will be visiting many of the affected areas tomorrow and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Roger Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the River Wye, which he told us was still under a state of red alert, is still rising at Hereford, upstream, which normally means that Monmouth town will be affected within 24 hours? Is he aware that the flood alleviation scheme which was carried out in Monmouth town some years ago is widely believed by one school of thought to be ineffective due to the porosity of the ground undermining the effectiveness of the embankments? Will he give us an assurance that the position in Monmouth town will be monitored carefully?
Mr. Hunt: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He has been alerting me to the potential problems in Monmouth, and I have just come from a meeting with my officials at which we were keeping the situation in Monmouth under careful review. We shall continue to do so.
Mr. Alex Carlile: May I join the right hon. Gentleman in his praise for the statutory services, which did a marvellous job? Does he accept, however, that many private householders in Wales are not only under-insured but uninsured, because they simply cannot afford the premiums currently required, particularly if they are unemployed? Will he give an undertaking that he will be prepared to look outside the Bellwin scheme if there are large numbers of private householders who have modest but, to them, important claims which will need to be met in order to put their homes back into a habitable condition? Or are we to take it that they will simply be told that it is bad luck that they were not insured?
Mr. Hunt: Not at all. I thank the hon. and learned Member for his remarks about the emergency services. I am aware of several hundred properties involved, but not the thousands that might have been suspected originally. I will be visiting several of the most severely affected areas tomorrow and I will bear in mind what he says, but I see no reason at present to go outside the Bellwin formula.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the River Wye hydrological basin extends across the border from the Principality into Herefordshire and that the county of Herefordshire has been very adversely affected by the flooding to which he has referred? I reinforce the compliments paid to the emergency services, which, in Herefordshire, have performed with great effectiveness. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what conversations he has had with the National Rivers Authority in respect of a review of the effectiveness of the flood defence arrangements in the lower Wye valley?
Mr. Hunt: I recognise that there are a number of problems in England, particularly in areas adjoining Wales, which have been caused by this enormously severe rainfall; for nearly 10 in to fall in just three days presents a very serious situation. By and large, however, the emergency services have coped magnificently.
I shall seek a meeting with the NRA to have a look at all the lessons that need to be learned from this experience, which I very much hope is now over; we can look back and see what lessons are to he learned. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Peter Hain: Frankly, the Secretary of State has offered us only a flood of crocodile tears. Is he not aware that the people of Neath have suffered a downpour nightmare, that the A465 was under 5 ft of water in some places and yet the Welsh Office has still not offered to reconstruct it, that Pontardawe town centre was flooded, that valley villages were cut off and that many parts of Neath were flooded? Why has he not promised us proper funding under the Bellwin scheme? Why will he not allow the Department of Social Security to restore the entitlement to benefits and payments for household and buildings insurance which were withdrawn, because many people in Neath are on low incomes or on benefits? Why
398
has he not implemented the recommendations of the Welsh Consumer Council after the Towyn tragedy over two and a half years ago? He is being utterly complacent.
Mr. Hunt: Once again the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has gone over the top. I do not know what consultations he has undertaken with his local authority, but it is aware, as he is, of the Bellwin formula. I am not aware that I have received any notification at all from Neath borough council or from West Glamorgan county council that they anticipate the need to activate the Bellwin formula in this case. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman were to keep in close consultation with his own local authority, he might keep me informed.
Mr. Hain: I have been in touch with both Neath and West Glamorgan today.
Mr. Hunt: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is communicating to me the fact that they are asking for the Bellwin formula to be activated. They are aware how it operates; they should get in touch with me if they believe that the moment has arrived.
I recognise the serious nature of the problems and I pay tribute, as I did earlier, to the people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere in Wales who have had to put up with difficult conditions. I shall monitor the situation carefully, but, as I said before, I am not aware of any need to do anything other than follow the normal practices which have been laid down for many years.
Of course I am aware of the situation in Towyn. I visited the area and have done so on many occasions. I have done my best to ensure that we implement many of the recommendations that have been made not only by the Welsh Consumer Council but by the many other bodies, including the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which looked into the circumstances of that tragedy.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread concern in the Principality about the incident to which he has already referred at the school in Tredegar, my home town. That brought back to some of us those terrible images from our childhood of the Aberfan disaster. In light of the further slip of coal refuse, albeit, happily, on this occasion with no injury to life, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is an urgent review off all coal tips that are in any sort of proximity to school or other private premises, in order that nothing like that happens again.
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but the House may recall that, following that tragedy, it passed the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, under part II of which disused colliery spoil tips are inspected regularly by county councils, which are responsible for their safety. But my hon. Friend is right. Before I came into the Chamber I was assured that all tips are inspected regularly, especially those where there are suspected—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Interruptions are most disconcerting for the entire House and particularly for the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. Let us have a little more order now. [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Secretary Hunt.
Mr. Hunt: As I was saying, all tips are inspected regularly, especially those where heavy rain may cause

399
problems. I have asked my officials once again to liaise with the other authorities to ensure that all tips are inspected, particularly in view of what has happened recently. I shall bear heavily the responsibility that my hon. Friend has put on me and which I readily assume.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that landslides are not only a function of coal tips; some of the slides have been coming from the mountainside itself, reviving genuine fears and concerns in more than one valley community. May we have a task force, established by the Welsh Office and county and district authorities, to investigate the stability of our hillsides, not just the coal tips, many of which have been removed?
Mr. Hunt: In view of the hon. Gentleman's experience in these matters, I respect his advice. I shall put in train the inquiries that he has requested. We are aware of all the circumstances of landslides and I shall ensure that they are all inspected. I shall take advice on how best to meet the hon. Gentleman's other points.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: One of the lessons of Towyn was the importance attached to the speed with which insurance companies responded to claims. Will the right hon. Gentleman meet the Association of British Insurers as soon as possible to encourage it to respond to claims quickly so that the damage that has been incurred can be put right as soon as possible?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, I will.
Mr. Allan Rogers: As someone whose own home was affected by the floods, I too pay tribute to the emergency services in the Rhondda area, which is always badly affected by any rains. As the Secretary of State says, we are constantly learning lessons, but when will they be acted upon? The Secretary of State mentioned the 10 in of rain in Treherbert, which led to a disaster all the way down the valley. We have an outdated trunk and rainwater system which badly needs investment. The lessons are there to be learnt from the floods of just a few years ago.
There are disasters waiting to happen in south Wales. A recent survey identified hundreds of potential land slips in the valleys of south Wales. If they do not happen in Blaencwm or Blaenrhondda, they will happen elsewhere. Only last week, the survey said that every coal tip in south Wales was safe, but this Monday one flowed. A disaster will occur and there will be a substantial loss of life unless the Secretary of State gets to grips with the problem.
Mr. Hunt: I treat seriously the hon. Gentleman's comments, but in Wales we have the legacy of the old mine workings, which imposes on us a special responsibility. The Welsh Development Agency is pursuing the largest land clearance programme anywhere in Europe, and the Welsh Office must work together with all agencies to ensure that that work is as effective as possible. I recognise that we must be vigilant and ensure that the necessary mechanisms are in place to deal with the kind of situation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State provide additional help for the National Rivers Authority's flood prevention work? It did some good work in Carmarthen after the 1987 floods, but several villages,
400
such as Abergwili and Whitland, quickly fall victim to flooding. Whitland has flooded for the third time in six years.
Mr. Hunt: I have been watching the situation in and around the hon. Gentleman's constituency with concern. The improved flood defences were adequate, and further works will go ahead as soon as the route for the new eastern bypass is agreed. We are watching the situation carefully, and have reserve emergency plans if it worsens. We hope that the worst is now past. I again pay tribute to the police, who have done a great deal to comfort people through the advertised helpline—the number of which, I repeat, is 0656 766066. That helpline is still open, and if people are concerned about anything they should contact the police.
Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the amount of flooding in Pontypridd? Although it is not my constituency, one third of the borough of Taff Ely is in my constituency of Ogmore. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) cannot be present because he is in Pontypridd trying to solve the problems created by the flooding of the whole town and of 30 commercial properties. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the flooding in 1979. Hon. Members well remember the difficulties and problems that our constituents suffered on that occasion—and some of them have still not yet received compensation. Some of us have been experiencing flooding since we were young schoolboys in Treorchy, and no Government—including the present Government—have made any attempt to protect people against it. Since 1979 there has been privatisation, and it is disgusting that the salary of the chairman of the Welsh water authority has trebled and that people are picking up money from investing in Welsh Water when money should be spent on flood prevention in Wales.
Mr. Hunt: I will confine my reply to the situation in Pontypridd, which I hope to visit tomorrow to see the conditions there for myself. The local Member for Parliament has been in touch with me and my office to ensure that we are aware of the seriousness of the problem. There are complex drainage systems in the town of Pontypridd and I want to investigate how much that contributed to the problem. I understand that propoals to protect the town's commercial area are under review by the relevant authorities. I am impatient for that review to be brought to a speedy conclusion, so that action can be taken.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State said that he believes that the NRA is doing a good job. Is it not self-evident from what he said today that two blocked culverts gave rise to large-scale flooding of the Tredegar slip and in Pontypridd? Is not it self-evident that the NRA is not doing its job properly, and will the Secretary of State undertake to take that up with the authority immediately to ensure that such a disaster does not happen again?
Mr. Hunt: I do not think that I can promise that culverts will never be blocked; nor do I draw the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman. I stressed that the National Rivers Authority performed its duties very effectively by issuing flood warnings promptly and

401
correctly. I shall, of course, examine the points that he has made, because there will be lessons to learn from what has happened.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), said, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontrypridd (Dr. Howells) cannot be here, but may I say on his behalf that as a schoolboy I travelled through Pontypridd for more than 10 years? On at least half a dozen occasions, I was unable to make the journey because of flooding. A proper flood prevention scheme is clearly long overdue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek an early meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd to discuss a flood prevention scheme for the town.
Mr. Hunt: Yes. I hope to have such a meeting after I have seen the situation for myself tomorrow.

Business of the House
3.56 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the forthcoming week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.

TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER—Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Unemployment" on an Opposition Motion.

Motion on the Mink Keeping Order.

WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion.

Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.

THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER—EStimateS Day (1st allotted day, 1st part). There will be a debate on Government support for coastal zone protection and planning. Details of the estimate concerned and the relevant Select. Committee report will be given in the Official Report.

Motion on the Banking Co-ordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations.

Motion on the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations.

At Ten o'clock the House will be asked to agree the outstanding civil and defence votes on account and winter supplementary estimates.

FRIDAY I I DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 14 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 9 December at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Standing Committee A: Document No. 8372/92 relating to Common Market Organisation for Bananas—[Interruption.] A lot of hon. Members have been waiting for that one. Standing Committee B: Document No.6718/92 relating to development co-operation policy in the run up to the year 2,000.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Lord President for that statement. Is he aware of Labour Members' concern that it has been left to us to find time for a debate on an issue of the most pressing concern to the British people—unemployment? We find that particularly extraordinary when the Secretary of State who should be dealing with this is spending her time abolishing May day, which is not the most pressing example of need. May I express the hope, therefore, that it will not be left to us but that the Government will find time to debate the problems that are still arising between small businesses and the banks, which continue to be a major worry?
May we press the Leader of the House for an early statement on the developing situation in Somalia, where there is still anxiety about people working for the aid agencies? Many hon. Members would welcome an account of how the Government see the position.
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to seek a statement reviewing the guidelines for voter registration, which seem to need not only reviewing but strengthening.

403
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarming situation in the Conservative-controlled borough of Brent, in which the number of voters on the register has fallen by 26,000 since last year, and the council has refused to take steps to rectify the situation—steps which have been taken in, for example, the Conservative-controlled borough of Barnet? As the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, will the Leader of the House consider arranging an early statement on the matter?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady's remarks on the economy and the proposed debate on unemployment in Opposition time on Tuesday are a fraction ungenerous, as I have responded to her request last week for some Opposition time, and it is less than two or three weeks since the Government provided two full days for a complete debate on the autumn statement. I do not accept her criticism.
I should have thought that some of what the hon. Lady said about small businesses might prove to be in order during that debate—although that will of course be a matter for you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Bank of England to look into the banks' charging practices, and that he is also discussing those matters directly with the clearing banks.
I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate on Somalia in the near future, although there will be considerable opportunities in the business that I announced towards the end of my reply—the debates on the Christmas Adjournment and on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The hon. Lady may like to note that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is due to be here next Monday to answer questions.
On the subject of voter registration, my understanding is that more than 95·5 per cent. of those eligible are believed to be on the register. Nevertheless, I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider an urgent debate next week in the light of information that has come to me which suggests that facilities of the House are being grossly abused by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), to whom I have given notice.
Mr. Peter Hain: No.
Mr. Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a letter was sent out on House of Commons stationery, using the pre-paid post—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Of course I want to hear the hon. Gentleman, if his point relates to the business statement and next week's business. If he can do that directly, I want to hear him.
Mr. Nicholls: I ask my right hon. Friend——
Mr. Hain rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) make his position clear about next week's business?
Mr. Nicholls: I have given the hon. Member for Neath notice by writing to him and placing a letter on the board of the House. How often he checks the board is not a matter for me.
The matter that I have raised is important, and should be debated as a matter of urgency. If pre-paid stationery is sent out inviting people for
"a full silver service dinner, which will be followed by the evening's political lecture by the Leader of the Labour party, John Smith MP",
and if such matters are being dealt with using the facilities of the House, that urgently requires a debate next week. If it is legitimate to pick over the contents of Ministers' Access statements, it is legitimate to talk about the grotesque waste of public money by Labour Members.
Mr. Hain: I have had no notice of the matter at all.
Mr. Newton: It may not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), if I say that I do not believe that it will be possible for me to fit in a debate on that matter next week. No doubt the hon. Member for Neath and others, including you, Madam Speaker, may feel it right to consider the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Certainly it is my understanding that the use of the free post would not be appropriate for letters of that kind.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Queen has now said that she is willing to pay income tax, and the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls have said that they believe that we should sign up to the European convention on human rights, and implement it as part of the British legal system, and as there is great concern about future legal aid provisions, and widespread interest in how subsidiarity abroad might become subsidiarity at home, could we have a debate either in the remaining part of this year or early next year on the constitutional agenda that the Government consider to be relevant not just for this year but for the decade to come?
Mr. Newton: There have been considerable opportunities in the past two days to raise constitutional matters in various relationships, and I expect that there will be further opportunities after Christmas. I do not promise a further debate specifically on those matters.
Mr. Michael Stephen: I too wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will make time available next week for a debate on the activities of the clearing banks. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the annual report published this week by the banking ombudsman. I readily acknowledge that the banking ombudsman system was set up by the banks themselves and I also acknowledge that the banks are not charitable institutions. However, the report is a depressing litany of negligence, overcharging and failure to pay compensation. We have also recently seen an appalling example of a breach of the duty of confidentiality. Will my right hon. Friend make time available for an early debate on the subject?
Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend has said. In expressing his concern, he speaks for many hon. Members of all parties. I have already made some comment about what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said and done in that respect. To the extent that many people allege that the problems have contributed to unemployment, it may be in order to raise them in the debate on Tuesday.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is there to be a ministerial statement on the terrorist attack this morning on the citizens of Manchester, about which the city's representatives are, of course, utterly appalled and deeply concerned? What is the Government's latest information on the outrage, and are Ministers keeping in close touch with its effects on the life of the city?
Mr. Newton: I assure the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members who are concerned that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is taking a very close interest in the matter. He will, of course, be concerned to do anything that can be done to support the efforts of the police both to track down those who perpetrated the events and to prevent them from recurring.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Will the Home Secretary or, in his absence, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, convey the Government's sympathy to the more than 65 victims of the terrorist bomb blasts in the city of Manchester this morning? Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that the Government will in no way be intimidated by such outrages and that the British people will never give in to terrorism?
Mr. Newton: I wholly endorse the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks, and I assure him that I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, on behalf of all of us in the Government and in the House, conveys to the people who have had their lives damaged in Manchester today the thoughts that my hon. Friend has expressed.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Leader of the House aware that the details of forthcoming public expenditure have not yet been announced for Northern Ireland? I understand that the details are to be announced next week by the Secretary of State, not in the House, but in Belfast, I presume, thereby depriving Northern Ireland Members of a debate on the consequences of the public expenditure proposals which, I understand, will be very drastic. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most frustrating for Northern Ireland Members to know that parties outside the House will be briefed before the announcement is made?
Mr. Newton: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I cannot promise an oral statement next week.
Mr. David Sumberg: May I join my colleagues of all parties in echoing the call for a statement in relation to the awful tragedy that occurred in Manchester this morning? Will my right hon. Friend not only send a message of sympathy to those affected, but express our thanks to those who are helping the injured? Will he send a message to those who perpetrated the action that just as the people of Manchester resisted the Lufwaffe 50 years ago, they will equally resist the terrorists of today?
Mr. Newton: Again, I not only note my hon. Friend's remarks, but very much wish to echo them, not least by paying tribute to the work of those who helped to cope with the incidents and to keep the harm done by them to the lowest possible level.
Ms. Angela Eagle: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 981 which
406
was placed on the Order Paper yesterday following the announcement by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. that it intended to close Cammel Laird shipyard after 60 years of shipbuilding on Merseyside.
[That this House, mindful that Cammell Lairds was bought from taxpayers for £1, by VSEL, calls upon the owners, who have announced that they see no future for Lairds, to hand back this industrial asset so that others with drive and vision can begin planning a successful future for Lairds and so help safeguard the manufacturing base of Britain.]
That disgraceful decision threatens to put 900 people directly out of work and will withdraw £30 million of expenditure from the local economy and affect 5,000 other jobs. In the light of that economic holocaust which is threatened on Merseyside, will the Leader of the House allow time for us to debate the issue next week?
Mr. Newton: It is very clear that the issue raised by the hon. Lady, which manifestly relates to employment problems, could be included in the debate that is to take place on Tuesday. The Government and I personally very much regret the closure of Cammell Laird which reflects the worldwide reduction in the demand for warships. The Government are participating in activities designed to develop a redevelopment strategy for the site with the aim of creating new employment and give very substantial aid to the Merseyside development corporation.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Am I right in thinking that, on the timetable that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given us, we are likely to have only one more day's debate on the Maastricht Bill before the Christmas recess? Given the enormous majorities in the House last night, which must have warmed the cockles of my right hon. Friend's heart and those of the Patronage Secretary and of everyone else on the Government Front Bench, why do we not get on with it rather more quickly? We are aware that there are other things to debate in the House, but surely we can get on with the Maastricht Bill, get it out of the way, and then continue.
Mr. Newton: I would not want to mislead my hon. Friend. In the business that I announced until Monday 14 December, I did not announce another day on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, but there is a substantial amount of important business in the programme that I announced which the House also needs to get through, including the discussions on fisheries matters which are of interest in several quarters of the House. However, I note with approval the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for making progress on the Bill which will certainly be shared in some, if not all, quarters of the House.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The House will share the sympathy that I extend from the people of Northern Ireland to the people of Manchester, especially during a week when the people of Belfast have suffered continuously.
May I ask the Lord President whether we can have an urgent statement next week from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to clarify the situation whereby there seem to be conflicting comments from the Minister of State and the Northern Ireland Office vis-a-vis meetings with councillors from Sinn Fein, the protagonists of the IRA, at a time when councillors in Northern Ireland are asked to

407
sit with them and when Northern Ireland courts are saying that they must be on sub-committees in the city hall when we know that even in this House, minority parties are not necessarily guaranteed places on committees—and they are certainly not guaranteed that in local government throughout the nation? I press for a statement, especially in view of the possibility—the Leader of the House may wish to consult the Attorney-General—that the next court case might oblige Ministers of the Crown to consort with them.
Mr. Newton: In view of the suggestion in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I will certainly have a conversation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and will draw the remarks generally to the attention of the Attorney-General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The whole House—and certainly those hon. Members who represent Manchester and the people of Manchester—will be grateful for the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expressed at the beginning of his remarks.
Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on value added tax? The bloodstock industry and fine arts, antiques and charity shops are staggering under the imposition of VAT. The whole issue must be totally reviewed in the new era of directives on VAT from Brussels.
Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says and I know that the Treasury Ministers are aware of the concerns being expressed, but I cannot promise that we can have a debate on this next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: As part of its inquiry into the unemployment effects of pit closures, the Select Committee on Employment is due tomorrow to go down a pit at Silverdale and the pit at Thentham. As the chairman of British Coal at first refused permission for my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) to descend the pit in her constituency and, I am informed, has today reinforced and restated his ban on the media entering the colliery premises during that visit, could we have a debate, because it is surely important that Select Committees of this House should receive full co-operation from British Coal and from all other employers causing major unemployment by their decisions?
Mr. Newton: I sense from what the hon. and learned Gentleman says—that the chairman of British Coal at first refused permission—that that implies some change.
Mr. Janner: Yes, the hon. Lady will be coming down the pit with us, but there is no change in the banning of the media entering the colliery premises.
Mr Newton: Now I am slightly confused about what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but the basic thrust of his point is clear and it would be the hope and expectation of the Government that proper co-operation would be given to a Select Committee of this House on a visit. On the other hand it must also be acknowledged—this is a problem that sometimes occurs when visits are made to DSS offices, as I well know—that it is necessarily a matter for management to decide whether there should be access by the media and I do not think that it necessarily
408
follows from co-operation with the Select Committee that the media should be allowed access to the site. That has to be a matter for the management.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider the business for next Thursday and would he, instead of that business, arrange a debate on foreign affairs on the Adjournment of the House, so that, before the Edinburgh summit, the House can consider, among other things, the destruction and devastation of an internationally recognised sovereign state and the progressive slaughter of a large number of its people, because many of my hon. Friends were much encouraged by the more positive noises coming from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office yesterday and hope that the Community will be able to adopt a firmer policy towards Serbia, which is undoubtedly the aggressor?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's concern with these matters is very well known and he will have heard what the Prime Minister said during Question Time an hour or so ago. I cannot promise a debate of the kind he seeks next week, but I will ensure that his concern is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Guardian newspaper has special links with Manchester, having been at one time The Manchester Guardian. It is therefore unfortunate that on 23 November it published an article by Ronan Bennett almost eulogising the activities of the IRA which is now seen to be particularly inappropriate to the situation which has developed in Manchester. I am sorry that we are not to have a statement today on Manchester, but perhaps at least the Leader of the House could support those people who intend to hold a vigil against this in Manchester on Saturday. Vigils are now being held persistently in London, Belfast, Manchester and wherever violence takes place, the peace movement is there.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments on a particular newspaper article, which I am sure will be noted by the newspaper as well. On the subject of the vigils, I express my sympathetic support for anything which can contribute to preventing this sort of violence.
Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend please find time in next week's business for either a debate or a statement on the future of the Stoke Mandeville hospital, which is of enormous concern to my constituents in Aylesbury? In particular, will he find an occasion for his colleagues from the Department of Health to assure both the House and my constituents that the £20 million capital programme now in preparation for that hospital will be given urgent and sympathetic consideration when it gets to that Department?
Mr. Newton: Having visited the hospital when I was Minister for Health about four or five years ago, I am conscious of the strong support that it has in the community and of the excellent work done there. Beyond that, I can help my hon. Friend by telling him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and her fellow Ministers are due to be here on Tuesday next week to answer questions.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate next week, because, as numerous organisations and traders have accepted the Home

409
Secretary's decision to allow trading on Sunday and will open on the Sundays before Christmas, shop workers could be compelled to work on Sundays? Can I draw his attention to early-day motion 989, which was put down yesterday and signed by 67 hon. Members, dealing with the sacking of 89 persons who refused to work on Sundays?
[That this House roundly condemns the actions of Middlebrook Mushrooms and its parent company Booker Plc in sacking 89 of its part time staff and replacing them with casual labour at lower rates of pay; congratulates the Transport and General Worker's Union on its attempts to negotiate with both Middlebrook Mushrooms and. ACAS; expresses its grave concern that this situation has developed as a direct result of supermarket chains such as ASDA and Sainsbury's decision to open on Sundays; believes that the 89 sacked are amongst the first casualties of Sunday trading; and urges proper protection of pay and conditions not only for retail workers but for those who supply and transport goods in any new legislation on Sunday trading.]
That is an escalation of what is happening throughout the country, when workers refuse to work in shops and other establishments on Sundays. It is a direct result of the Home Secretary's failure to ensure that the Shops Act 1950 is complied with by all the people in this country. I ask for an early debate next week, so that the matter can be resolved.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has tabled a private Member's Bill on the subject, which we are due to see and to hear more of in the new year. He is very well informed about the matter and knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a full statement on the position and the Government's intentions last week. The Government have outlined how they will proceed, once the uncertainty caused by the present European Court of Justice hearing is resolved.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I press my right hon. Friend on the same matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) mentioned—for a debate next week on the banks? It is required not merely because of the shocking report from the banking ombudsman, which showed a 62 per cent. increase in complaints received this year, on top of a 60 per cent. rise last year, but also following the creation of the Banking Action Group—an organisation looking after the interests of small businesses, which have faced high interest charges, over-charging and high commission charges, as well as the short term approach of some banks in their lending policies towards small businesses.
Mr. Newton: I appreciate why my hon. Friend has thought it right to press me further on that matter, but perhaps he will understand that I cannot add to the answers that I have given on two previous occasions. I do not think that it would be beyond his ingenuity to devise a speech in next Tuesday's debate which could relate to some of those matters.
Mr. Hain: First, is it in order, Madam Speaker, to ask for an apology from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who gave me no notice of his statement?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Teignbridge said that he had put a letter on the board. I am
410
afraid that the hon. Member for Neath cannot seek an apology through me. He must find some other method. I ask him to respond to the business statement.
Mr. Hain: Could we have a Government statement next week on the massive job cuts announced today in the Post Office? More than 16,000 jobs are due to go in Post Office Counters and the Royal Mail letters divisions. Why has the President of the Board of Trade sanctioned those job cuts, and the wholesale reorganisation of the Post Office involved without first getting Parliament's approval? In July, he announced a review of the Post Office, but he has pre-empted it before reporting back to Parliament, by allowing the cuts together. Surely they are a dress rehearsal for Post Office privatisation.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is here and will have heard what he said, although he is present to deal with other business. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, the decisions are primarily operational matters for Post Office management and are certainly not directly related to the review of its structure and ownership, nor do they require my right hon. Friend's permission.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I wonder whether time could be allocated for a debate on the new rules for the Register of Members' Interests. It has been outstanding for many months. Indeed, the report was presented in the last Parliament, not this. If the debate had been undertaken and conclusions reached, it would have helped answer the question raised in early-day motion 988, tabled by my hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), in which a question is raised as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have registered the £19,000 which had been given to him as a gift, because that would have clarified the rules.
[That this House urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to register through the Register of Members' Interests the source of the £19,000 paid on his behalf in settlement of the balance of a personal legal bill and to indicate if, under section 153 of the Income and Corporate Taxes Act 1988, he has paid income tax on the total amount involved.]
I realise that the Chancellor is confused about the economy, about his position and about this gift, but he is setting a very bad example of non-registration of business interests by failing to declare a huge gift such as that.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend would not have been in a position to declare the source of this payment because he had no knowledge of the source, as he made clear earlier in the week.
On the principal point of the hon. Gentleman's question—the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) I know has a close interest in these matters—I said last week that we have now achieved the setting up of the new Select Committee on Members' Interests, which I think has now had its first meeting. That should pave the way for publishing the Register for the new Parliament. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee will not mind my saying that I have already had an informal discussion with him with a view to identifying the appropriate way to proceed on the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Leader of the House focus on the debate on fishing next

411
Wednesday? I accept that it is probably correct to have the common fisheries policy debate and the Lords amendments to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill on the same day, but will he ensure that the timetabling for the CFP debate will be such as to allow the huge numbers of hon. Members with fishing interests to contribute to that debate on what is an absolutely vital change in a fundamental policy affecting many tens of thousands of people?
When it comes to the conservation Bill, will he consider the possibility of a free vote on the Lords amendments, because he will be aware that many of his hon. Friends have had to choose between their constituents and their party on that issue. It would be nice, just for a change, to allow hon. Gentlemen representing fishing communities to vote with their consciences rather than for their careers.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he will get a very cautious answer to the latter part of that question, since among the things that are certainly not my responsibility is the advice that is offered to my hon. Friends about how they should approach these or any other votes. There may be somebody else in the Chamber who has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, however. With regard to the timing of the debate, the Common Fisheries Policy debate allocation is a full day. I cannot, of course, promise at this stage that there will not be any statements or anything else that may eat into the time a bit, but it is a full day's debate and there should be ample opportunity for all those who wish to speak, provided that they do so reasonably succinctly.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement early next week on what steps are being taken by the Government to draw the attention of other European countries and, in particular, the United States to the death and destruction committed by the Provisional IRA, so that they may understand the terror campaign being waged on the mainland and, as we saw again tragically during the week, the destruction of much of a centre in Belfast, with many severe injuries? Should not people abroad, therefore, understand that we are dealing with murderers—people who, as was demonstrated in the recent Irish general election, have no electoral support whatsoever among the Irish people? That is the message that we should get across internationally, and as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: It is very clear that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will warmly welcome those remarks by the hon. Gentleman. I will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends concerned, because they make persistent efforts to ensure that the nature of the incidents that happen here is properly understood abroad.
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on. Before I call the Secretary of State——
Mr. Ken Eastham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to take points of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows, after——
Mr. Eastham: I am a Manchester Member and I would like to say something about what happened in Manchester.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry. It was most remiss of me. I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity. I call Mr. Ken Eastham.
Mr. Eastham: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I am sure that I speak for all the people of Manchester when I say that, following the atrocity that occurred there, we are grateful for the sympathy that has been expressed in the House.
Is the Leader of the House aware that, within the last 10 days, I have passed to the Home Office a petition signed by a good number of Manchester citizens complaining about inadequate police provision? Yesterday I received a letter from Lord Ferris saying that there would be no extra funding this year or next year to allow for the provision of more police. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that instead of just sympathy, the people should be offered more protection through the police?
Mr. Newton: I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman felt it right to make that point, and I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend is made aware of it. But I think it has been right to put the main emphasis this afternoon on expressing our distaste for what has happened. Indeed, that is a very mild word to use. It is right to express distress and offer our sympathy to the people involved, including the police, and at the same time congratulate the police on their work in that connection.

Consolidated Fund Bill
4.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 14 December.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to m y office not later than 10 pm on Wednesday 9 December. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day.
Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion and allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list.
As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it will, of course, be the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

One-stop Shops
4.31 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, I should like to make a statement about a major new strategy to establish one-stop shops for the delivery of business advisory services.
I have been reviewing Government support services for business, in conjunction with a steering group consisting of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, my noble Friend Baroness Denton, the Small Firms Minister, and representatives of chambers of commerce, training and enterprise councils, the Confederation of British Industry, local authorities, the National Training Task Force and Business in the Community.
We have looked particularly at the needs of established small and medium firms. We all wish to ensure that those firms have access to world class support in the areas of information, advice, counselling, development of business skills, exporting, technology transfer, innovation, design and other services.
There are already numerous schemes to help business provided by Government and other organisations. Those schemes are run by a wide variety of bodies. Some are excellent, others less good, but they all suffer from three main weaknesses: first, the profusion of advice of varying quality makes it difficult for business to know what is available and where; secondly, many schemes are narrowly defined and more supplier than customer driven; and thirdly, many businesses which could benefit from the help available are not even aware of its existence. We need to tackle all those problems.
That is why I have decided to establish a number of pilot one-stop shops for business. I have today published a prospectus seeking competitive bids to establish up to 15 such shops in England. I have arranged for a copy to be sent to all hon. Members. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office.
A key aim of the one-stop shops is to simplify the present confusing array of support services. To win, a bid must demonstrate a real and effective partnership to which all the main local providers of business support services are committed. I am asking the training and enterprise councils to draw together bids, but it is a requirement that other key providers, such as the chambers of commerce, enterprise agencies and the local authorities where they are active in support activities, should be fully involved. I am confident that private sector companies will wish to demonstrate their support.
Each bid for a one-stop shop must show how it will provide a wide range of high quality services, both those available locally and, using modern technology, those provided in other parts of the country or even outside this country.
My Department is committed to playing its full part in the one-stop shops. The shops will be the main local point of access to and promotion of all DTI services. I am ready to consider imaginative ideas about how that might be achieved, including proposals for co-location and, subject to any legal constraints, sub-contracting of services.
I cannot anticipate the nature of the bids I shall receive or the scale of the resources that local organisations will offer to put behind them. I can, however, say that I have

415
made provision within my own budget for an initial sum of up to £3·5 million to fund the winning bids in the first year. I look to local contributions to augment that figure. I hope to see a move to a position of self-sufficiency as rapidly as possible.
My Department will also be working with the pilot one-stop shops to develop a new diagnostic service, as promised in our manifesto. That will help businesses to analyse in depth their strengths and weaknesses, and the options open to them, and to identify the help that they need. That will be a new and important service to be provided by one-stop shops.
Bids must be submitted by 29 January. Winners will be announced in mid-March, and the pilots will get under way as soon as possible thereafter. If the pilots are as successful as I expect, it is my intention to develop a national network of one-stop shops across England.
The publication of the one-stop shop prospectus marks an important further step in our long-term strategy to improve the support that we provide to business in this country. We must have a single point of access to services which must be of the highest calibre. One-stop shops will achieve that and pave the way for a radical overhaul of business support arrangements in each area of the country. That will improve the competitiveness of our companies and provide a springboard for the development of our local and national economies.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: In the past 24 hours, Cammell Laird has made 900 people redundant, the Post Office has announced redundancies for 16,000 people, Royal Ordnance have announced redundancies for more than 1,000 people, and Ford is talking about further job losses. The House will be surprised that the President of the Board of Trade made no statement on that further decline in the British manufacturing industry.
There is a widespread recognition of the need to provide more co-ordinated advice to small businesses which frequently, as the President of the Board of Trade rightly said, do not have the time or resources to deal with the range of departments and schemes available from the Government. However, there will be disappointment among business people about the size of the Government's contribution.
Can the President of the Board of Trade clarify his comments that his nationwide scheme will apply only to England? Is it not the intention at a later stage to cover Wales and Scotland? Why are Wales and Scotland excluded at an early stage? Can the President acknowledge that his statement today will offer little immediate help to those small businesses that are faced with punitive interest rates imposed by the banks or to those businesses that face severe cash flow problems because of late payment? Can the President confirm that his statement will offer no help at all to the tens of thousands of small and medium businesses which have already gone to the wall during the recession caused by the Government, and the 120 small businesses which today alone will go bankrupt?
Above all, does the President of the Board of Trade understand that the economic policies of his Government are the root cause of the problems faced by small businesses in Britain? Does he recognise that, when a shipyard such as Cammell Laird on Merseyside or a plant such as British Aerospace in Hatfield closes, or when the
416
Post Office announces 16,000 redundancies, the effects are felt by not only the workers who lose their jobs but by the local small firms which supply those plants and the corner shops which sell to the local families?
Although we welcome today's statement, Labour Members, together with organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation and many other people outside the House, including the thousands who have lost their jobs today, will wonder why the Government have not made a statement on industrial policy for the manufacturing future of Great Britain. After seven months as President of the Board of Trade, all that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today is a pilot scheme, not an industrial strategy for Britain's future.
Mr. Heseltine: I am sad that the hon. Gentleman should seek to widen the subject of the statement in order to hide what is an overdue Government proposal that will be widely welcomed—but his attitude is characteristic of the Labour party. Of course the news from Cammell Laird is deeply disappointing after so much has been done to try to help that company. I also recognise the concern that has been expressed about the redundancies in the Post Office. However, it is important to state that 170,000 people work for the Post Office. It has been announced today that, over five years, there will be 15,000 fewer jobs—about 3,000 a year, when about 7,000 a year go through natural wastage. The Post Office has made it clear that it expects the redundancies to be voluntary and to come from a process of natural wastage.
To return to the issues in the statement, I do not think that there will be disappointment about the size of the Government's contribution. I think that the figure of 15 shops announced today is of the order of magnitude expected by those with whom I have discussed the matter. It forms the basis to which others, locally, will add the resources at their command and make imaginative bids within the process that I have outlined.
The hon. Gentleman's question about Scotland and Wales is properly a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, who are interested in and fully informed about today's announcement. However, they have a different—some would argue, a more co-ordinated—set of arrangements, originally based on the proposals of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. Therefore, they have not had to deal with the problem that I faced due to the unco-ordinated approach that had been taken to the issues.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the small industrial sector. He failed to say that Barclays bank estimates that, in the first three quarters of 1992, there were more than 300,000 new starts in that sector.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people, listening to today's statement in a less jaundiced way than the Opposition, will welcome it as a progressive move that will improve the flow of information that is so vital for the success of small and medium firms, which are expanding rapidly despite the recession? As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, the provision of export information is important. About 70 per cent. of smaller firms do not export, and with the arrival of the internal market, it is vital that more small firms should be able to export. The

417
provision of proper information near the place of work, perhaps through computer terminals, could be useful and improve the number of exports.
Mr. Heseltine: No one knows more about the problems of small firms than my hon. Friend. He has drawn our attention to important aspects of our proposals. Of course it is important to improve the quality of export advice available, which is certainly at the forefront of our intentions. We hope to do so by improving the quality of staff available and the access to databases nationally and internationally.
I understand my hon. Friend's view that not enough small firms export. A significant number of small firms are not, perhaps, aware of how many of their products find their way into the export market through the clients to whom they provide the products. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I have invited 100 of our largest companies to second to my Department a member of staff with experience in exports in order significantly to enhance our export drive, which is so timely in view of the competitive value of our currency.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the President aware that Liberal Democrats genuinely congratulate him on the initiative, not least because it contains the idea of one-stop advice shops, which featured in our manifesto, but not the Conservative party's? However, we are concerned that the limited number of pilots may not lead on to the necessary network throughout the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the pilots are geographically spread to represent regions of high unemployment and high business failures, such as the south-west, particularly Cornwall? In what sort of areas does he anticipate placing the pilots—regions with assisted area status or shire counties? Will they necessarily be the same size as the districts covered by the training and enterprise councils?
The timing is important, as a review of the assisted area status and geography is currently under way, and local government reorganisation is under review. Can we be assured in the House that, as soon as the evidence of the hoped-for success of the pilots is available, it will be fed into the processes of the assisted area and local government reorganisation reviews?
Mr. Heseltine: I am very aware that a proposal along similar lines to the one that I announced today featured in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, a copy of which I have in front of me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the initiative, and glad that it will make it easier for him to vote for the Conservative party in the next election.
The hon. Gentleman asked interesting questions about how the judgments will be made. The choice of pilot schemes will be made as a result of competitive bids, and the test will be one of quality, not regional policy or high unemployment. It is critical that the 15 are seen as pace setters, even if that results in districts that might have the most immediate need having to wait for a period in order to follow the quality. We do not want to take inadequate standards from districts with pressing needs and so debase the process. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the competition is to show the standards that can be achieved and to initiate one-stop shops where people come
418
forward with the most impressive schemes. That is our intention, which we hope to fulfil in the early part of next year.
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and I think that the rather mean welcome from the Opposition does them no credit, and it seems odd, as they say that they want to help small businesses. My right hon. Friend will realise that small businesses in the south-west have probably been more adversely affected than those anywhere else. My right hon. Friend spoke of the siting of the pilots based purely on quality. Will he ensure that his Department sets out ideal specifications so that those tendering bids have an idea of the quality required to enable them to ensure that Plymouth, Exeter and Bristol or wherever are able to obtain the quality necessary? It is important that we do not consider that Bristol is able to cope with the south-west, when it is further away from most of the south-west than it is from London. There is a need for geographical consideration when making judgments.
Mr. Heseltine: I very much respect the voice that my hon. Friend brings to the cause of small businesses generally, and particularly in the south-west. The House will appreciate that, whenever one launches a scheme designed to reflect local needs, there is always a temptation for people to say, "Lay down centrally what you think should happen." We very much want to avoid taking a prescriptive approach, see what local people want, and allow them to set standards and come forward with ideas.
I have tried to avoid taking an over-centralist approach, which means that I am reliant on the quality of local initiative. Therefore, once the process is under way, I must not become too institutionalised about the way in which the results are spread, as that might mean that we make choices not based on quality but to suit a pattern of regional disposition.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that I have never heard so much flannel in my life? The Government are capable of trotting out a load of baloney, day in and day out. There are 4 million people on the dole according to the real figures, when the kids on slave labour schemes are added. There is a £14 billion balance of payments deficit. Manufacturing industry is going down the pan. He comes here talking about setting up advice shops. I have some advice for the Government—"Shut up your shop and let somebody else take it over."
Mr. Heseltine: I just have this to say to the hon. Gentleman: if he has never heard so much flannel, it would be simple for him to go to the Library of the House and get recordings of his endless, repetitive and tedious interventions day after day after day.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), many hon. Members will thank my right hon. Friend for what he has announced. Nine years ago, in my area of Kingston upon Thames, I was involved in setting up exactly the sort of thing that he is talking about; it was called the Kingston small business advice service. It has prospered and grown and has worked with the local authority and with our TEC, AZTEC, which covers Kingston, Merton and Wandsworth. Recently, it has done excellent work at the British Aerospace works in Richmond road, Kingston, which closed down. May I recommend it to him as one of

419
the pilots? May I suggest that he involves the academic and university world too? We involved the former Kingston polytechnic, now Kingston university, and the regional management centre. We found that they have a great deal to offer.
Mr. Heseltine: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in the whole subject. It sounds as though we may have a competitive bid, based on considerable experience, from Kingston. I heard what my hon. Friend said about the involvement of the academic world. It is up to local initiative to determine the extent to which it draws together the academic opportunities and advice that are available. That is very much up to those who are formulating competitive bids.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Had they been in existence, what assistance would one-stop shops have been to the three directors of Matrix Churchill who faced a prison sentence? Would the management of one-stop shops have been knowledgeable enough about the facts that were known to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his department, to the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in the Foreign Office and to the Minister of State who is sitting beside him, the right hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)?
What advice will one-stop shops dealing with some of the firms that export the most sensitive armaments and armament-making machinery give to anybody exporting arms, for example, to Iran? Will they be briefed in such a way that never again can there be a repetition of the disgraceful episode involving many civil servants and ministers who had read the papers and who knew that those three directors of Matrix Churchill were not themselves responsible for that for which they faced trial?
Mr. Heseltine: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I will make it my personal responsibility to see that Lord Justice Scott is fully apprised of the interest which the hon. Gentleman expressed in linking the initiative of one-stop shops with the Matrix Churchill affair. If the whole concept is as improbable to Lord Justice Scott as it is to me, I will give the hon. Gentleman a further assurance: I will refer the whole matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether he can find some equally improbable link with the sinking of the Belgrano.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of my constituency, Southampton, in the export trade. For a long time, the local chamber of commerce, which is very active, has been co-operating not only with the local council but with the local newspaper and various people in the area who deal with the accountancy work of export. No doubt, a proposition for funding will be put forward from my area. I hope that the golden opportunity to make an application will be taken up because the geographical position of Southampton would no doubt entitle it to be one of the 15 pilots.
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend will use his considerable endeavours to persuade his local industrial and commercial community to respond to the initiative. I hope that he will make the point that it will not be the
420
regional location of Southampton which will play a role in the judgment that we reach but the quality of the bid that is put forward. I look forward to seeing a bid.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have looked forward to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, and I support the proposition that he has put before the House. In a small way it is an important initiative. Cumbria TEC will bid for a one-stop shop. We intend to win and we will make it successful in exactly the same way as we made the enterprise zone successful in the early 1980s. All we have to do is win the competition.
Mr. Heseltine: I thank the hon. Gentleman for a wholly constructive view. I make no secret of the fact that it was precisely because he approached the issue of an enterprise zone in Cumbria in that manner, and with enthusiastic endorsement, in the early 1980s that he helped persuade me that there should be an enterprise zone in that part of the world. I believe that it has been a great success. Without wishing to be partisan, I would only say that if his hon. Friends were to adopt as constructive a view to the policies on offer, they might find that their areas gained a great deal more than they do as a result of the somewhat daunting interventions of his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend, particularly on behalf of the businesses and people of my constituency. Does he recall that there was recently a successful DTI one-day export initiative, arranged in conjunction with the local chamber of commerce, to which DTI officials had to come from outside the county, thereby demonstrating the need for our own one-stop shop? Will my right hon. Friend enlarge on the criteria which will be used to assess quality so that we may submit a bid for a pilot scheme?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He raises an important point which is of concern to us in government—that, so often with these initiatives, civil servants from regional offices or from central Government have to go to local areas to promote activities which it would be far more desirable to see initiated, promoted and managed by local people.
As to the precise ideas that are involved, they are obviously substantial. Large numbers of organisations provide many and varied services. It is precisely because I want all hon. Members to understand the nature of the opportunity that I have taken the liberty of sending them directly their own personal copy of the prospectus that I have announced today.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State accept that the initiative will not stop the haemorrhage of jobs and that small firms in the main depend on large firms which under the Government are going bust in considerable numbers? Will he accept that the Labour Government, which experienced unemployment of one third the current level of nearly 4 million, established one-stop shops for small businesses—the small firms information centres, which had a common logo and identity throughout the country?
That Government also established small firms counselling schemes, which used experienced business men and women to advise businesses on how to develop. In his scheme, surely there should be some regard to unemployment and to the areas which need most

421
assistance. Is it true that he could award three or four contracts to the same area, which would be absurd when another area in much greater need failed the competition?
May I ask the Secretary of State about self-sufficiency? Under the Labour Government, the first counselling session was free, and there was free access to the service of the Small Firms Advisory Bureau. Will that be the case under his scheme, or will the charges which produce self-sufficiency mean that small businesses will be unable to afford to use them?
Mr. Heseltine: I am interested to hear the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) say that the things that I have announced this afternoon were already in practice under the last Labour Government. I find that mildly surprising, as the last Labour party manifesto included a commitment to do many of the things that I have announced this afternoon, making it quite apparent to me that they did not exist on the scale and with the degree of coherence that I have announced. They were never one-stop shops on the basis that I have announced this afternoon.
The loss of jobs, the recession that we face and the consequences for large and small companies are not things that have flowed from the policies of this Government; they are a consequence of the most severe and prolonged world recession that we have seen, one which is affecting the capitalist world across the globe. It serves no purpose, in trying to understand how we cope with the problems, to try to pretend that somehow or other the solution of these problems is in the hands of any one government.
I will not be persuaded to try to adopt a process of allocating these schemes as a result of the competition in a way that reflects what is called broadly fairness across the country, because the consequences of doing so is to decide the winners, not on the basis of the quality of the scheme but on other factors. When the hon. Gentleman says, "But shouldn't it be done on the basis of need?", I very much agree with the thinking behind that, but one may well address the need more urgently and realistically by waiting a little and allowing the quality that can be achieved to be demonstrated elsewhere before one addresses the need in the areas where it is greatest. That is why I am preoccupied with ensuring that it is the quality of the scheme that is the determining factor and not other issues of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to our attention.
Mr. Cryer: What about cost?
Mr. Heseltine: As to cost, we have found that, where charges are made for services, they have not been a deterrent for companies taking them up. Companies are used to buying a service that is of quality, and the test is often not whether it is free, but whether it is good. If it is good, companies will pay for it. As for helping companies, as hon. Members know, we have a consultancy scheme which has been a significant success and to which companies contribute. I am looking at whether we can continue with that scheme and, if so, on what terms. The fact is, however, that payment has not been a deterrent to the success of the scheme but its desirable quality which has made the scheme a success.
Mr. Richard Spring: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his most welcome announcement today? The Suffolk TEC will be submitting
422
a bid on behalf of the community of Bury St. Edmunds. The local business community is very much behind the scheme and very supportive. Will my right hon. Friend, however, give an assurance that, in the provision of the database, there will be adequate information, particularly on the availability of British goods and services?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is reflecting the clear indication which has developed in the course of questions on my statement that we will have a significant number of bids, and I am delighted to hear that the Suffolk TEC is helping to co-ordinate that from Bury St. Edmunds.
An attempt now to demarcate British goods is out of keeping with the fact that as from 1 January 1993 we are moving to a single market. It is very important, as I am sure both my hon. Friend and the whole House will agree, that we persuade British industry very rapidly to adjust its thinking to that of a manufacturer or a provider of service in the whole of the single market and not just in the British sector of it.
Mr. Peter Hain: I welcome the President's statement, but I ask him to refer to the Secretary of State for Wales consideration of the Neath Development Partnership as a pilot project in Wales.
May I also remind the President that over 19,000 small businesses are small post offices? Why, in addition to making his statement on one-stop shops, did he not have the courage to come to the House and say that he supported the colossal loss of jobs in the Post Office, which will directly limit the ability of local post offices and the small businesses running them to do their jobs properly? Is this not a precursor of privatisation? Why has he flouted the authority of the House by allowing this announcement to be made before he has completed the review that he announced in July?
Mr. Heseltine: I have long admired the work that has been done in Wales in providing a more co-ordinated approach to many of the policies discussed this afternoon. It is because my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales have, within their overall responsibilities, a much more flexible way of handling many of these policies that they have not felt it necessary to move in the way that I have with my announcement this afternoon. That is not to say that they are not interested in what has happened. They have looked very carefully at the proposals, and I have no doubt that if they see advantage in them they will themselves seek to adapt them to the interests of their territorial responsibilities.
I have, I think, dealt with the issue of the Post Office. The Post Office has not announced that a significant number of people will be made redundant: it has announced its employment profile over the next five years and has clearly indicated that it does not expect to see compulsory redundancies; it simply expects that, of those who naturally leave the Post Office, some 7,000 a year, not all will be replaced. The reason is that the Post Office is seeking to maintain its reputation for excellence and is mechanising its services, as it is now able to do, in order to improve and maintain them. This means that, on average, over the five years 3,000 jobs will not be replaced. That is very different from suggesting that the Post Office has announced 15,000 redundancies——
Mr. Hain: Nineteen thousand.
Mr. Heseltine: Nineteen thousand.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement, which will be widely welcomed by the business community in Plymouth. I would like to encourage him not to listen too carefully to some of the moaning minnies on the Opposition Benches who rejoice in bad news and cannot stomach good news. Can he confirm that the coming of the single market on 1 January 1993, to which he has already referred, will be a significant boost to our own businesses to enable them to compete with our rivals, both in Europe and elsewhere in the world?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I know very well the area that he represents today. I believe that what we have announced is designed to improve the quality of service to British companies, companies operating in this country. The services that they now receive are often good, but one of the issues that emerged from the research that I did on taking this job was that only 40 per cent. of companies took advantage of the services provided by the chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and the Department of Trade and Industry. That means that some 60 per cent., albeit many of them smaller companies, do not take advantage of them, either because they do not know of the services or because they do not believe them to be any good.
There is therefore a considerable responsibility on all of us who are responsible for these services to ensure that the customer—in this case, the customer who is not taking advantage of our services—is listened to and consulted, and we must tailor our services to meet his needs. That we intend to do in a much more proactive way, with a much higher quality and better co-ordination of our services.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: This is a very worthwhile initiative, and it will take someone who is uniquely ignorant of the needs of small businesses to dismiss it as an irrelevance. A number of local authorities, of which Teignbridge district council is one, have a very good track record in promoting particular initiatives to increase employment. Will my right hon. Friend say what role local authorities like that will have? Much of the expertise in knowing what is available to small businesses will lie in Departments of State and, in particular, in my right hon. Friend's own Department of Trade and Industry. How will pilots be able to bring forward proposals which might incorporate civil servants who have that particular expertise?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising two very important issues.
I am fully aware that there are local authorities which have been drawing very much closer to the wealth-creating sector. A principal reason for this is that Government policy has given them every incentive to do so; with the use of schemes such as city grant and city challenge, a partnership has been been fused between local wealth-creating and local bureaucratic services, greatly to the benefit of both.
The scheme is based on exactly the same philosophical approach to try to give local authorities and the wealth-creating sector every incentive to come together to prepare the best services possible to meet local needs. It is for them to decide how the services that they provide can be fitted into the concept of a one-stop shop.
424
My Department provides many services on a regional basis, which may therefore be too remote from the customer's immediate needs. I intend to leave the initiative to explore how the departmental services can best be tailored into the competition to those participating in the competition. As can be seen from the prospectus, I have instructed officials in my Department that they are to be constructive and co-operative and must allow the private sector and local authorities to explore how they can sub-contract, provide locally or collocate the services of the DTI wherever legally possible. We are in an exploratory stage, in which there is a great deal of opportunity and from which we all have much to learn.
Mr. Jim Cousins: The President of the Board of Trade has pledged a universal and comprehensive service, but he has committed the resources and cash for only a single year's experiment. How fast does he expect the scheme to expand? Where will the money come from, apart from charges on small businesses, as he made clear in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?
Mr. Heseltine: I can give an indication to the House and share my preliminary views—it is important that I do so—but this is an experiment. Within my budget, I have significant resources available for the support of small and medium enterprise. I expect an increasing part of that to be used year by year to extend the range of small one-stop shops if they are successful. The rate at which we do that can be explored in the light of the response.
All hon. Members will have been impressed by a clear theme that has emerged from this afternoon's statement, which is the number of bids that we shall get from all round the country. The training and enterprise councils are now hard at work in mobilising resources locally. hope—I can but express it as a hope—that, when the first 15 have been chosen and the first tranche of public money is available to support them, a significant number of other bidders will say, "We don't wish to wait for the second or third competition: this is an idea whose time has come," and they will then make progress. It is well within their ability to do so, because revenues are available to the chambers, local authorities have the capacity to support them if necessary, and private companies can contribute additional cash.
All those opportunities exist. We shall see how it goes, but my present intention is to announce 15 pilot schemes by the early part of next year and then extend the opportunity on a second and third-year basis, provided that there is support from within my Department.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, Etc.) (Amendment) Act 1922

Car Tax (Abolition) Act 1992

Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Act 1992 Durham Markets Company Act 1992

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Act 1992

Orders of the Day

  Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This important Bill has passed its stages in another place and now comes to this House for our consideration. It makes new arrangements for judicial pensions and amends the law relating to the date on which certain judicial office holders are required to retire.
  It may help to inform our discussion if I say a little about the Bill's history and describe some of its main provisions. Let me start with pensions. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said in another place, the occasion for the Bill was the change in the tax position of pension schemes brought about by the Finance Acts of 1987 and 1989.
  The Finance Act 1987 established 20 years as the minimum accrual period for a tax-approved pension scheme to provide maximum pension benefits. The Finance Act 1989 requires the salary on which benefits from tax-approved schemes are calculated to be capped at a specific level. That level increases annually in line with price inflation. The level for this tax year is £75,000. All private sector schemes were automatically capped by the 1989 Finance Act for new entrants from the time that Act came into force—for most people that was on or after 1 June 1989. The same result was achieved for members of public sector pension schemes by amending regulations.
  By July 1989, the only group of pension scheme members who were excluded from the cap was the judiciary. The judicial pension schemes can be changed only by legislation, because the judicial schemes are statutory in recognition of the need to safeguard judicial independence. We are making the necessary legislative changes in the Bill.
  The Bill, however, does much more than simply bring the judicial schemes more into line with the standards that now apply to all other pension schemes in the public and private sectors if they are to benefit from the privileges of a tax-approved scheme. The Government have taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to make some much-needed changes to the current judicial pension arrangements. Those changes were trailed in consultation papers published by my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in December 1990. The Government announced in July 1991 how they intended to proceed; this Bill, introduced in another place on 4 June this year, is the result.
  I said that changes were needed for the simple reason that the existing judicial schemes are rife with anomalies and inflexibilities. They are extremely complicated and carry a good number of difficulties for those who have to try to make out their rights under them. That is hardly
  426
  surprising, given that each class of the judiciary has its own scheme. The result is some half a dozen different judicial pension schemes, all with different accrual rates.
  For instance, in England and Wales, High Court judges, circuit judges and chairmen of industrial tribunals have 15-year accrual periods; stipendiary magistrates, district judges and members of the Lands Tribunal, on the other hand, have a 20-year accrual period; and for the immigration adjudicators, the accrual period is 40 years. Those disparities are perhaps even more marked when one looks north of the border and across the Irish sea.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Is it in the slightest bit surprising that there are different accrual periods when High Court judges are normally appointed in their 50s and immigration appeals adjudicators are normally young boys who have undertaken a qualification period of three years' practice at the Bar? It does not follow as a matter of reason or consistency.
  Mr. Taylor: We are making progress in the name of reason and consistency and I shall have more to say later about the age of appointment of High Court judges. Although my hon. Friend has already shown, not only by his text but by his tone, that he has a dispute with the measures currently on offer, I may be able to engage his sympathy in an alternative suggestion.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: I would not bet on it.
  Mr. Taylor: The book is not open.
  There must be something to be said for having much greater homogeneity in the various classes of judges' pension arrangements, not least to assist the most able in gaining promotion. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), perhaps with a measure of exaggeration, suggested that some adjudicators started as mere boys. Be that the case or not, I should like to see, and my hon. Friend might too, a more homogeneous overall pension structure that enabled people to be promoted and take greater responsibility without facing hideous actuarial decisions in middle life when they should be going forward without pressure or obstacle and taking greater responsibility.
  I was seeking to describe the further range of differences that apply if one looks north of the border or across the Irish sea. For example, Scottish sheriffs have a 20-year accrual span compared with the 15-year span enjoyed by their English and Welsh counterparts, the circuit judges. District judges and supreme court masters in Northern Ireland have a 30-year span compared with the 20-year span of their English counterparts.
  Those differences are the result of history and cannot be justified today. Apart from the glaring anomalies that exist between the different judicial offices, the different schemes can make it disadvantageous for a judge to move, on promotion, to a different office. I do not think that this is the right time to go into the technicalities of the aggregation rules, but their general effect is that a judge who wishes to take the pension of the second office loses the benefit of his years of service in his first office. A judge who wishes to aggregate his service in both offices may do so, but only on retirement and only on the basis of the salary and the pension scheme of the lower office. This is not only unfair, it can act as a disincentive—not merely an obstacle—to promotion.

  427
  There are other anomalies. For instance, certain judicial officers in schemes with a 20-year accrual span have to serve for two years before qualifying for a pension on the ground of ill-health. No minimum period of service is, however, required of office-holders in 15-year schemes.
  It seemed to the Government that the obvious way to cure the existing anomalies and inconsistencies was to create a unified pension scheme in which service throughout a judge's career would count towards his or her final pension. The new scheme should cater equally for all members of the judiciary. So far as the public are concerned, a judge is a judge, regardless of the level of judiciary to which he or she belongs. The Bill meets those objectives and it does so on the basis that in general the new arrangements do not prejudice the pension position of those already holding judicial office.
  By virtue of clause 1, the new scheme will apply to new entrants to the judiciary, to those in the existing schemes who elect to go into the new scheme and to those serving under the present arrangements who are promoted to an office with a different pension scheme after the new arrangements come into force. Clause 3 provides for a single accrual span of 20 years for all the judicial officers holding on a salaried basis an office listed in schedule 1. As I have already explained, the reason for the 20 years is that it is now the minimum period allowed for a tax-approved pension scheme.
  Much time was spent in another place debating whether that period was appropriate for members of the higher judiciary. It was argued that those judges tended to take up appointment relatively late in life and that, with the reduction in the retirement age to 70, many of them would not be able to qualify for a full pension. It was said that that was contrary to the public interest because it would discourage those best qualified to accept judicial office. Furthermore—this was said with a particular reference to the circuit judges who currently have a 15-year scheme and can retire with a full pension at 65 provided that they have served for 15 years—it would encourage some judges to stay on the Bench for longer than perhaps they would otherwise wish, simply to accrue their maximum pension entitlement before their 70th birthday. That too was said not to be in the public interest.
  The Government's answer, given many times in another place by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, is this: the quality of our judiciary is, and must always be, paramount. The pension arrangements for all members of the judiciary must be as generous as the public purse will allow. However, there can be no reason, so far as the 20-year accrual is concerned, for treating the judiciary any differently from other members of society. What the Government can do—and have done—is to recognise the special position of the judges, who come to this career relatively late in life, by ensuring that they can keep in full the benefits of any pension arrangements that they have made prior to taking up judicial office. In other words, they can keep those, and are entitled also to whatever pension benefits they have accrued under the statutory judicial scheme.
  The judiciary are in a unique position here. Revenue rules would normally require those in pension schemes with an accrual period as short as 20 years, to bring into account for pension purposes any retained benefits—that
  428
  is, previous pension arrangements—in assessing at the end of the day whether their pension was within the Revenue's overall limit of two thirds of final remuneration. The judges do not have to do that—a significant benefit to those judges who have taken advantage of the tax rules to build up personal pension provision during practice. It is the position under the present pension arrangements. It is retained by clause 18.
  It was argued in another place that that was all very well, but that that special concession was of no help to those judges who had no retained benefits. The Government's answer to that is this: the Revenue recently agreed that, provided retained benefits are brought into account, the judiciary may, if they wish, buy added years or make additional voluntary contributions to increase the value of their judicial pensions. As the scheme will be recognised as a tax-approved scheme, judges will qualify, in the same way as anyone else, for tax relief on their contributions. Clause 10 provides the means for establishing the voluntary contribution schemes for the new arrangements. Schedule 3 amends the existing legislation so that voluntary contribution schemes may now be established for those covered by the present arrangements.
  Let me tell the House briefly what will be the pension position of those covered by the Bill. The full pension after 20 years' service will be half the salary paid to the judge in whatever period of 12 months during the previous three years gives him the best result. For service of less than 20 years, the pension will be one fortieth of the salary paid to the judge—in whatever period of 12 months during the previous three years gives him the best result—multiplied by the whole length of the judge's service, calculated in years and days. In addition, judges will be entitled to a lump sum of two and a quarter times the annual rate of their pension. At present, the lump sum is twice the rate of the pension. There will be provision for a death gratuity of twice pensionable pay. That was raised from one and a half times pensionable pay by a Government amendment in another place. As now, there will be provision for spouse's and children's pensions.
  Any judge who has served for five years will be entitled to an immediate pension at the age of 65. Judges between the ages of 60 and 65, who have served for five years, will be able to take early retirement with an immediate pension that is actuarially reduced. Those limits do not apply to ill-health retirement, the payment of a death gratuity, or the payment of spouses' and children's pensions. As a result of amendments by the Government in another place, the Bill now provides for enhancement of service in respect of ill-health pensions and for an increase in the lump sum payable following early death after retirement. Again as a result of Government amendment in another place, the scope of those eligible to receive a children's pension was considerably extended.
  The Government believe that the new pension arrangements set out in the Bill are fair and reasonable to not only the judiciary but the public purse from which the pensions are paid. On 10 November, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor placed in the Libraries of both Houses, tables prepared by the Government Actuary comparing a range of pension benefits for stipendiary magistrates and district, circuit and High Court judges under the existing and new arrangements. I commend these to hon. Members. The tables include the improvements to the derivative benefits that I mentioned

  429
  a moment ago. I believe that the information provided in the tables is sufficiently comprehensive to enable those studying them to form a fair view of the pension position under the existing and new arrangements.
  The retirement provisions of the Bill are covered in clauses 26 and 27, with the accompanying schedules 5, 6 and 7. As with pensions, part of the aim is to introduce consistency. At present, judges and judicial officers have a variety of retirement dates. Not only are the ages different as between different judicial offices, but in addition some provisions relate to the attainment of a particular age, while others relate to the completion of the year of service following a particular birthday.
  For example, the retirement age for circuit judges in England and Wales, sheriffs in Scotland and county court judges in Northern Ireland is at present the end of the year of service in which they reach 72, whereas High Court judges in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, judges of the Court of Session in Scotland and other senior judges retire on their 75th birthday. Furthermore, for some appointments, particularly in tribunals, there is no statutory retirement age, although in general in such circumstances comparable retirement ages have been applied as a matter of administrative arrangement.
  In the light of consultations, the Government consider that a general age is desirable and that a retirement age of 70 is more appropriate to modern conditions. Clause 26 accordingly provides for a general retirement date at the age of 70. This will apply in relation to all the offices included in schedule 5.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend says that retirement at 70 would be more appropriate in modern conditions. Does he share my view that there is a danger in accommodating fashion? We are told that a judge is too old to sit on the Bench but when that argument is used, there is no appreciation of the fact that one is looking for intellectual skill at least as much as physical ability. Does not my hon. Friend feel that in introducing a common retirement age he has been blown off course and made to succumb to the fashion of attacking the judiciary and the establishment, by depriving judges of office on the ground of age?
  Mr. Taylor: I am not unsympathetic to my hon. Friend's point, which he made in his usual reasonable and lucid way. Perhaps he will allow me to reflect on it. If I do not refer to it later in these remarks, I shall return to it later.
  The retirement age of 70 will apply only to those appointed after the legislation comes into force. Clause 26 and schedule 7 accordingly provide that persons holding judicial office when the new retirement provisions come into force will retain their pre-existing compulsory retirement date. Under the transitional provisions in the Bill, that arrangement will also apply if and when someone subsequently moves from one full-time office to another. For example, if a circuit judge is subsequently appointed to the High Court Bench, he will retain his present retirement date of the end of the year of service in which he reaches 72.
  At present, there are powers to extend service in some, but not all, judicial offices beyond the retirement date otherwise applicable. The application of those powers, where they exist, has been helpful in providing flexibility to meet the needs of the courts and in ensuring that the ability
  430
  and expertise of experienced office holders need not be lost prematurely if that is in the public interest. In making that last point, perhaps I laid the foundations for the answer that I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the discretion thereby reserved for the Lord Chancellor to extend the retirement age of members of the judiciary where they can serve a useful purpose and there is a need for them in our judicial system meets the criticism that might be levelled if the arbitrary age limit of 70 had been imposed? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the retention of the Lord Chancellor's discretion will allay fears of premature retirement?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes. My hon. Friend raises a point that was made in another place by Lord Ackner and was comprehensively addressed—I thought, after reading Hansard—by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. During the course of this evening, I shall endeavour to replicate my noble and learned Friend's reply. The questions being the same, there is no reason, in this day and age, why the answer should not be the same—and my hon. Friend shall have it.
  It is considered appropriate to retain that flexibility and, with the introduction of a new retirement age of 70, to provide for the possibility of enabling service to be continued in the public interest. The Bill accordingly provides that service may be continued after the age of 70, but only if the Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, considers that desirable in the public interest, and then only for periods of no more than a year at a time up to, but not beyond, the office-holder's 75th birthday.
  It is expected that that power will be used sparingly and applied only where it is clearly in the public interest to do so, taking careful account of all the relevant considerations, including in particular such things as the health of the judicial office holder in question. Because of the particular constitutional factors which are seen to arise in their case, the power of extension will not apply in respect of High Court judges and above in England and Wales and Northern Ireland or to their Scottish equivalents.
  Under current provisions, judges who have retired from full-time service may be invited from time to time to serve in retirement on a part-time basis. We believe that it is no longer fair to expect them to be available indefinitely in that way, so the Bill provides for the overriding limit of 75 to apply in those circumstances also.
  Clause 26 also provides that certain one-off appointments, to which the concept of retirement as such is not strictly applicable, should not be made beyond the age of 70. Clause 27 provides that a person who has retired or otherwise ceased to hold a judicial office may nevertheless complete unfinished business—for instance, by giving judgment in a case which he had been dealing with.
  Any retirement age is of course a matter for judgment. Conflicting considerations must be balanced to achieve that which the person seeking to make the judgment believes to be right, both in the interests of the judges and in the public interest. On the one hand, the increasing burdens of judicial office must be acknowledged, but on the other, although the current retirement ages for the judiciary are higher than those for most other professional people, we must recognise that judges are appointed

  431
  relatively late in life. They are usually drawn from those who have already established themselves in a successful career in the law and their years of experience are part of the necessary qualifications for the position. Accordingly, they bring with them maturity of judgment, which is essential for judicial office.
  We think that three score years and 10 is an appropriate general age for judicial retirement, and that is, accordingly, the age for which the Bill provides.
  Mr. Sweeney: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend on that point, but does he accept that it is appropriate for the Government to consider ways of attracting younger people to the Bench, of making appointments at a younger age and of broadening the entry so that judges are more representative of the people with whom they deal in court?
  Mr. Taylor: I am glad to be able to respond to that question in exactly the way that my hon. Friend would like. It must be the inescapable conclusion of those who hold the judiciary in high regard and respect that it must be sensible to start considering appointing people rather younger than is the tradition. I was surprised to find—my hon. Friend, too, may be surprised—that the average age of High Court judges is lower than 60, which is not a bad thing. He may be pleased to know that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear many times that, as the reservoir of those competent and qualified for appointment to the Bench increases—this seems inevitable from the statistics—more women and more people from ethnic backgrounds will be appointed. There will be no obstacle to them: their appointment will be encouraged.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I had not intended to give way so many times. My next words were to be, "I commend the Bill to the House," but I want to be fair to my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a man or woman in his or her late thirties or early forties is old enough to be a member of the Cabinet, he or she is old enough to be a part of the judicial system and on the Bench?
  Mr. Taylor rose ——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before the Minister continues, may I invite him not to turn his back on me quite so much?
  Mr. Taylor: I apologise. I am not very experienced in this job, and I find it an unusual experience to be replying to people whom I cannot see. No doubt I shall have to come to terms with that, and I shall address my remarks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as is proper.
  My hon. Friend's thinking may be part of the future, but the thinking of the present is that it is unconventional to make appointments to the High Court Bench at any age younger than 45.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I do not disagree with a number of the important points that my hon. Friend has made, but what is most important is that nothing should deter the best candidates from accepting. appointments. Much concern was expressed by many
  432
  Members of the other place, including many experienced judges, about the best being deterred from doing so, in particular by concerns about pension provisions, early retirement through ill-health and about the possibility of judges becoming stale if they are required to serve for 20 years to qualify for their full pension. Those are the greatest concerns that I and a number of hon. Friends share, to which I shall return later if I am successful in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It would be easier to catch it if interventions were not so long.
  Mr. Taylor: I shall try to respond briefly.
  I am anxious to tell my hon. Friend that there will be no derogation from the selection of the best candidates. It is not incompatible or inconsistent with that to say, on the one hand, that women candidates and candidates from ethnic minorities will be encouraged and, on the other, that selection will be confined to the best candidates. On the 20-year qualifications, I am sorry to have to invite my hon. Friend to come to terms with the Finance Act 1987 and Finance Act 1989, which created an anomaly in respect of judges. The Bill seeks to rectify that anomaly by putting the tax status of judges' pensions on the same footing as everybody else's. I do not think that he is pressing me to let judges have a tax-privileged pension scheme that is not available to anybody else. I remind him that judges are able to buy added years if they wish and retire earlier.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I am following the force of my hon. Friend's reasoning, but why does not the same provision apply to the Lord Chancellor's pension?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend seems to be adopting an aggressive tone. For that and other reasons I shall not oblige him. The Lord Chancellor, as he will know better than me, is in an absolutely unique position under our constitution. He is a contradiction of all the 18th-century nostrums about the separation of power. He is a Minister-judge; there is no other. The job goes back 1,360 years. It is scarcely surprising that he is treated slightly differently.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Taylor: No. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House will agree that I have been generous in taking interventions.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my right hon. Friend finishes his speech.
  Mr. Taylor: Very well.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend: I called him right hon., but I am sure that that is only a matter of time. What did he mean when he said that we should be encouraging women to be judges? Under the Bill, a woman practitioner who has to leave practice to raise a family will not be able to amass sufficient pension before she becomes a judge to make the pension that she gets as a judge worth while. Surely my hon. Friend is being rather optimistic in suggesting that the Bill will do anything to help women to become judges.
  Mr. Taylor: There is little evidence that people accept, or are deterred from accepting, judicial appointment because of the pension arrangements. Most people seem to

  433
  regard the decision about whether to accept appointment as a judge as being altogether more important than pension arrangements, which are considered collaterally to the main decision. My hon. and learned Friend will have to allow me to stand by my earlier position and say that the Lord Chancellor looks forward—I do not think that he is alone in this—to the time when the reservoir of those available for appointment includes more women and more people of ethnic origins. On the same criterion of choosing only the best, many of them will be appointed, and most of us think that that will be a very good thing.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The debate has taken on a rather churlish and acrimonious tone—largely, I fear, as a result of the interventions of the Minister's hon. Friends. That makes one look forward with a certain amount of glee to the Committee stage, should it so please the House, when one fancies that the Minister will have an even rougher ride.
  Mr. John Morris: They will not be selected.
  Mr. Boateng: Quite so. Perhaps Conservative Members who have expressed what I consider to be a welcome interest in the subject have scuppered their chances of ever serving on the Standing Committee. Places on the Committee will no doubt be the subject of much competition, as the attendance in the House this evening signifies.
  The Opposition will attempt to return a certain amount of equilibrium and proper dignity to the debate, which is timely. The judiciary are now required to preside over a system of criminal and civil justice increasingly groaning under the strain of under-resourcing and understaffing. They also, especially the higher judiciary, have imposed on them an increasing burden of duties in serving on various bodies of inquiry established from time to time to deal with the troubles that the Government have got themselves into.
  It is a good time to examine the judiciary, and I hope that in the course of the debate and, if the House wills it, in Committee, we shall take the opportunity to examine the wider issues that provide the context of the Bill, and which have already been raised by several Conservative Members. No doubt they will also be raised in due course by my hon. Friends.
  The public perception of the judiciary at times lapses into caricature. The picture is of a figure such as Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot—elderly, wearing a wig and ermine, and as narrow-minded as he is short-sighted. It is of the sort of judge who inquires, "Who is Cliff Richard?" or "What is Spitting Image?"
  Mr. Nicholls: "Who is Paul Boateng?"
  Mr. Boateng: Quite so, but I shall not succumb to the temptation of responding to that sedentary and entirely unfounded intervention.
  The caricature, the lampoon, contains within it a grain of truth in terms of the public's perception of the judiciary, which has already been referred to in at least one Conservative intervention. It is important that the House should deal with that perception, because there is nothing more important than that the judiciary and the system of justice they serve should command the respect of the whole
  434
  community, and that they should be seen as what, in the main, they are. They are a highly qualified and erudite body, a group of men and women—I shall deal with the composition of the judiciary in due course—whose intellectual ability and total incorruptibility are unmatched anywhere in the world. That must be said, and it is the background against which the debate takes place.
  However, we must not be complacent about the institution of the judiciary, any more than we should be complacent about any other of our great institutions. To some extent, the judiciary stand apart and are unique. They, alone of all our great institutions, have at no time been the subject of any comprehensive reform. The monarchy, the House of Commons and the upper House, and the civil service, have all at some time been the subject of a comprehensive body of reform, after considerable public debate, and, in the case of the monarchy and this House, after civil war. The judiciary have never been subject to such reform.
  Over the years, there has been a series of debates on the judiciary in the House, going back to the glorious revolution. They make interesting reading, and they have always tended to take place around the subject of the emoluments of the judiciary. That was for the good reason that it was important to ensure their independence—in those days, their independence from the Crown and from a variety of vested interests—and also because it was important that the ablest and most highly qualified people were drawn into the judiciary. That matter has already been addressed in interventions in the debate.
  It is interesting to examine a debate held in the Chamber in 1825 which gives some flavour of the concerns which remain with us to this day. One hon. Member, a Mr. Leycester, saw his opportunity. Others may seek to emulate him tonight—who knows? Mr. Leycester took the opportunity to raise several general issues concerning the administration of justice. The Hansard of the time tells us that he thought that the debate presented
  "a favourable opportunity for correcting many evils in the mode of administering justice in this country."
  Mr. Leycester sought to widen the debate, and was also prompted to observe that he did not think that a time when the price of corn was falling was the time to consider any increase in judges' emoluments, salaries and pensions.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day responded. He was clearly a more generous Chancellor than the one who revealed in his autumn statement this year his attitude to the legal aid fund and the criminal and civil justice systems in this country. The Chancellor in 1825 strongly argued that it was important to do nothing that would in any way remove from the office its "just dignity", or anything that would diminish the
  "respectability of the judges,and their weight and character in the eyes of those for whose benefit the laws were administered.—[Official Report, 16 May 1825; Vol. 13, c. 612.]
  Listening to what the Minister has said today, it seems to me that the reason for the Bill is similar—a concern to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is maintained, that the highest quality of persons with the requisite professional skills are drawn to judicial office at every level, and that there is a degree of uniformity in the way in which they are treated.
  Sadly, the Opposition now part company with the Government. The Government have missed a golden opportunity to promote a debate and carry out a broader consultation than that involved with the Bill, in order to

  435
  determine what we seek from our judges today, how they could best be put in a position to deliver what they are called upon to do, how we may ensure that the judiciary are best suited to preside over an institution that, increasingly, is required to deal with a complex and plural society in a state of considerable change and with a system of justice that is increasingly required to deal with a greater volume and a more complex body of law and of litigants than has ever been the case before.
  The Government had an opportunity here, although they have missed it—the Opposition regret that—to bring forward a comprehensive package of reform of the judiciary. The Opposition intend to take the opportunity of this Second Reading debate and, if the House wills it, of the Committee stage to map out a number of areas in which the time has come for comprehensive reform and change. We also intend, here and in Committee, to table a number of amendments that will improve and assist the measure.
  The public perception of the judiciary was recently revealed interestingly in an important survey conducted by the Law Society which was published in the Solicitors' Journal. It was a comprehensive survey across England and Wales, and some of the results were as follows. Some 65 per cent. of those surveyed agreed with the statement:
  "Judges are out of touch with everyday life and everyday people".
  More than 79 per cent. of people questioned said that there should be more women judges. Some 86 per cent. thought that judges should retire earlier than the present judicial retirement age of 75, which shows considerable public support for reducing the retirement age. Interestingly, and significantly for our consideration of the Bill, about 47 per cent. thought that judges should retire at 65 and 23 per cent. thought that they should retire at 60. That is an interesting statistic.
  The overwhelming conclusion about the composition of the bench was that judges were too old, too male, too white and too out of touch. Some 69 per cent. of people agreed that judges should be appointed to reflect the ethnic mix of England and Wales. That is the background against which our debate takes place.
  Mr. Nicholls: To help us to place this useful survey in context and to understand something of the knowledge of the people who answered the questions, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the people surveyed were asked whether they had ever been in court, whether they knew any judges, what the average age of judges was and how many female or black judges there were? If they were not asked those questions, it might suggest that they did not know the answers. That would tend to throw a less favourable gloss on the findings.
  Mr. Boateng: That is an interesting point from an hon. Member who is a member of the Law Society and who has experience of the judiciary at every level in a number of different modes. The importance of the survey is that it deals with public perception. Whether the public are right in that perception is an entirely different case. As it traditionally has been, the House must always be concerned about maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. The House must be aware that the public have those concerns and perceptions.
  436
  It may be of assistance to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) if I describe the public's perception of the make-up of the judiciary. An examination of the figures reveals that the public's perception of the age, gender and race of judges is broadly right. I leave aside the issue of whether judges are out of touch. The reality is that only two High Court judges are women. Only 19 circuit judges, 42 recorders, 31 assistant recorders and three deputy district judges are women. There are no women district judges. Only 18 women are in training for assistant recordership. The figures give no cause for complacency.
  I am prompted by the intervention by the hon. Member for Teignbridge to consider the position of women in the judiciary. The view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, by the Minister and by the Lord Chancellor—that in the fulness of time, women would achieve higher positions in the judiciary in greater numbers—is not borne out by the facts. Many women were called to the Bar in the 1970s. The evidence is that they are not selected as readily as their male colleagues are for the beginnings of high judicial office, but are found in the office of recordership. Men are appointed as recorders from 12 years' call. No woman has been made a recorder at less than 16 years' call. The figure for the past five years for the south-east is 18 years' call.
  Those figures come from another report conducted by the Law Society which was published last year. It should give all hon. Members and all those who want the judiciary broadly to reflect the gender mix of our society cause for concern. There is no room for complacency on that score.
  The same could be said—I do not intend to labour the point—about the ethnic breakdown of the judiciary and about the number of persons drawn to judicial office from the ethnic minority Bar. We cannot afford to be complacent in that area, any more than we can afford to be complacent about the mix of those recruited to be holders of the higher judicial offices in terms of whether they come from the solicitors' profession or from the Bar. There remains a gross under-representation of solicitors as holders of judicial office.
  Those important issues, which need to be addressed, are not addressed in the Bill. That is a missed opportunity and that is why we believe that the time has come for the creation of a judicial appointments commission which would, first and importantly, involve a lay element in the process. In a welcome recognition of the extent of the problem in relation to the public's perception, the Lord Chief Justice made it clear in the Dimbleby lecture that he now accepted the argument for lay observers in the system of judicial appointments.
  The Opposition would argue, and would hope to find allies on the Conservative Benches, that that does not go far enough. There should be an institutionalised lay element within the judicial appointments commission. That would give a clear message to the public that the judiciary provide a public service of the utmost importance, that they should be recruited in circumstances that are open and subject to public advertisement and that the circumstances of recruitment should be transparent in terms of the manner of recruitment and the qualifications required to fill those judicial offices; and, importantly, the lay element should be involved.
  The Opposition are disappointed that, in the consultations on the Bill, the Lord Chancellor did not feel it necessary to consult anyone outside the body of the judiciary. Judicial pensions and judicial appointments are

  437
  not matters solely for the judiciary. They should be matters for the general public and for consumer and professional organisations. The process should be more open and more transparent than it is at the moment.
  The Bill misses another opportunity which has been alluded to in the debate, albeit by a side wind. That missed opportunity relates to judicial careers. There is absolutely no reason why we should not accept that it is perfectly proper and appropriate for the profession—solicitors and barristers—to consider judicial office in career terms.
  There is no reason why we should fail to grasp the opportunity of so structuring our pension arrangements as to encourage the principle that it is proper to appoint people to judicial office at a much earlier age. That should begin with and include the office of stipendiary magistrate and recorder; move through to the circuit court, whether district court or Crown court, to, where appropriate, the High Court and the higher echelons of the judiciary. There is no reason why that path should not be embarked upon at an earlier age—perhaps in one's mid-30s. The pension arrangements that we are considering should reflect that and have a degree of portability.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman is addressing rather constructively the possibilities of advancement within a hierarchy that permitted promotions, does he not concede that the pension arrangements that we have introduced today are homogeneous, without internal boundaries, and conducive to what he has suggested?
  Mr. Boateng: That is why we do not oppose the principle today and why we look forward to the debate on the issue in Committee. However, we would go further.
  There should be a time when those who hold judicial office should have a contributory pension. I noticed that at least one Conservative Member gasped when I said that. However, I do not see why a Conservative mouth should gasp at that concept. After all, is not the Conservative party in the forefront of encouraging contributory pensions? What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Why should this calf be so fatted and we be incapable of appreciating another means of achieving that end and providing a means by which people might be able to contribute to their own pensions?
  Mr. Sweeney: After the hon. Gentleman's farmyard metaphors, does he accept that we are not comparing like with like? I believe that the salary of a High Court judge is about £87,000 a year. While that may sound a vast salary to the great mass of the public, in comparison to the salaries of the most senior and effective members of the Bar, it is relatively low. The fact that the pension arrangements for the judiciary are non-contributory is, in part, a reflection of that. Anyone earning a huge salary is in a far better position to fund his own pension arrangements than a member of the British judiciary.
  Mr. Boateng: Quite so. I do not for a moment call that into question. However, I dare to suggest that there is no reason why the arrangements and their generosity should be immutable and fixed. It is perfectly proper for there to be a broader consideration, within the context of an overall career structure for the judiciary, of a contributory pension and a corresponding increase in salary.
  I raise that matter as an issue for discussion and debate. I understand how the current arrangements have evolved
  438
  and I do not complain about them. However, it is important that there should be a comprehensive review of the appointment of the judiciary, their career structure and place within the overall scheme of the public service. That is a proper exercise which should be engaged upon with alacrity.
  That brings me to the retirement age. It is not automatically obvious to the general public or to many hon. Members why there should be a distinction between a senior judge in the service of the administration of justice and various other servants of the Crown in the civil service. Why should it be thought that it is automatically presumed and required that senior civil servants should retire at 60 and judges at 70?
  Mr. Roger Evans: There is no such rule in respect of hon. Members of this House. Why should we be treated differently?
  Mr. Boateng: There are one or two good reasons. Our emoluments are in no way comparable, in case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed. Our role is in no way comparable. If the hon. Gentleman, as a new Member and no doubt welcome on his own side, thinks that he is as important as a High Court judge, he has another think coming, because I can tell him, with more experience here than he has, that he is not. He will discover otherwise.
  Mr. Roger Evans: As I have more experience than the hon. Gentleman at the Bar, can he tell me why, in private practice as a lawyer, there is no requirement to retire at a particular age and why Crown servants should be shackled in this arbitrary fashion?
  Mr. Boateng: I have clearly stung the hon. Member and become the subject of the wrath that he was reserving for the Parliamentary Secretary. I should have refrained from drawing him in that way.
  The point I make is this: it is not automatically clear why this distinction should be made. I take the view of one Conservative Member that the mere fact that one is old does not mean that one is out of touch or in some way impaired in one's intellectual capacity. That simply is not true.
  It seems to us to be entirely desirable that judges should retire at 65 and that that is a reasonable proposition and one which is in keeping with the requirement. of ensuring that there is maturity and a degree of wisdom that are reflected in age on the Bench and also, importantly, is in keeping with the need to ensure that levels of judicial staffing are maintained. But having said that, 65 as a retirement age is reasonable and it ensures that public perception of the Bench is not one that conforms with caricature and lampoon. It is also important, given the number of years required to acquire a full pension under the provisions of this Bill, that it is an added incentive to earlier appointment. I stress that it is desirable that appointment to high judicial office should take place earlier than at present.
  Several Hon. Members rose ——
  Mr. Boateng: Before giving way to Conservative Members, I would say one thing that goes to the whole issue, sadly untouched in this Bill, of a career structure for judicial office. On reflection, is there any reason why consideration is not given to the appointment of High Court judges on a fixed-term basis? It would be useful to

  439
  know whether the Lord Chancellor's Department has given any thought, in the context of the present shortage of judicial manpower—and manpower it is, with the gender make-up of the judiciary—to the proposal first aired by a Conservative Lord Chancellor as long ago as 1900.
  If eminent lawyers are not prepared to make the real sacrifice of earning capacity or life style that a permanent commitment to the Bench inevitably brings, why should not consideration be given to the appointment of High Court judges for a fixed term of five or eight years so that it is possible for a High Court judge to be drawn from the solicitors' profession, the Bar or academia for that period to serve in judicial office and then to go back to their previous occupation in the law? Why is that not at least considered by the Lord Chancellor? It was considered in 1900; why not now?
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman asks why it has not been considered since 1900, but one could ask the same thing about many Labour Governments since then. However, I rise not to question him on that point but on his earlier interesting points about an enforced retirement age of 65. Can he say a little more about the cost of his proposals in increased pensions and additional salaries for replacement judges, or is this yet another Labour proposal that has not been costed?
  Mr. Boateng: I wish that I had not given way to that intervention. That is not worthy of the contributions the hon. Member made earlier in this debate. Is it to be suggested—I can see it now—in three or four years' time, or probably sooner, given the conduct of some Conservative Members, when we have a general election, that our proposal for a judge's retirement age should be costed and thrown against us at the hustings as an indication of Labour irresponsibility? Not even Conservative Members can sink that low when we are seeking a rational discussion about the shape and role of the judiciary.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, other hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Mr. Boateng: The fact is that in terms of the administration of justice, Conservative Members have been all too ready to be influenced by the Treasury as opposed to the demands of the administration of justice and that is precisely why they have, time and again, ignored the pleas and criticism of successive Lords Chief Justice and other Lords of Appeal and members of the Court of Appeal for an end to the scandal of the repeated use of deputies and part-time judges in the High Court. That is entirely as a result of the sort of quite improper consideration of costing by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is imposed on the Lord Chancellor. It is self-defeating.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has followed the pastoral phase of his speech with some more aggressive comments. I shall respond to his remarks on the availability of part-time judges. It is my opinion that they increase flexibility to cope with peaks and troughs in work
  440
  load, and to cover the absence of full-time appointees due to illness, or caused by the time lag which often occurs between a post becoming available and the appointment of the new post holder. Part-time sitting also builds up an experienced pool of practitioners, from which future appointments to higher judicial office are often made. Those are respectable arguments in favour of part-time officers on the Bench.
  Mr. Boateng: The respectability of that argument can be judged against the views of successive Lord Chief Justices, of the overwhelming majority of both wings of the profession, and of the City of London, the consumer organisations, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the overwhelming weight of informed opinion. They find that the continued use of part-time High Court judges and deputy High Court judges is offensive in terms of the independence of the judiciary—an important constitutional argument—and also self-defeating for the role of London and the Royal Courts of Justice as a centre of international commercial litigation, which earns this country in excess of £500 million a year in invisible earnings. I am afraid that that argument is not respectable, and that view is not shared outside the House by those most intimately concerned with the subject.
  Several Hon. Members rose ——
  Mr. Boateng: I have given way more than enough during this speech. I do not want to be drawn any further down that path, save to say that those issues are worthy of consideration and that they will be considered in Committee, during which we will inevitably seek to amend the Bill constructively so that it is in a state which will merit and warrant the support of the whole House at Third Reading.
  This is a welcome opportunity to debate the role and structure of the judiciary—an opportunity which we shall take—but it is a missed opportunity for the Government. It is an opportunity for the House to contribute to shaping a future for the judiciary, and their role within the civil and criminal justice system, that will strengthen and reinforce public support for that institution, will cause it to represent the skills and excellences which the Bar, the solicitors' profession and academia can bring to the law, and will ensure that it is broadly representative, in race and gender, of a cross-section of our society, so that it can go into the next century strengthened and ready for the challenges that lie ahead. Opposition Members will do all that we can to ensure that that happens.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: In what I shall describe as the pastoral phase of this speech, I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on avoiding almost completely the dreadful invitation that we have just heard for a comprehensive review of the judiciary.
  The judiciary have been the distinguishing great feature of our country since 1688, when Mr. Justice Powell was not overawed by King James at the trial of seven bishops. There have been successive serious reforms of the judiciary since then and, until the unhappy events of latter years, they have alway been thought to be of the highest quality, with the highest degree of independence and integrity. I am sorry that anything else should have been said.
  Unhappy recent events, which have undoubtedly, and very sadly, clouded the reputation of justice—faulty police

  441
  evidence, false police evidence, wrong verdicts by juries, or the quaint and eccentric statutory shackles upon the criminal appeals process—are not properly matters of complaint to be laid before the judiciary.
  I would understand the need for a comprehensive reform of the judiciary if it had been directed to a specific cause or to something more serious, and less frivolous, than an opinion poll in the Solicitors' Journal. Frankly, that was just another example of a crude tabloid public opinion poll, of the sort that has disgraced our public life. If one asked people, "Are you satisfied with, or do you think that members of the Labour Front bench are out of touch with the country?", the odds are that a great majority would say yes. The Law Society is to be deplored for the low standards of journalism employed in conducting that poll, and in publishing it.
  Let us consider the substantive arguments of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). A judicial appointments commission has been seen in certain professional quarters as an attractive and plausible possibility. The difficulty with it is simply this: who does the choosing and who chooses who will make the choices? At the moment, a Minister of the Crown makes appointments and, however strange they may sometimes be thought to be, he is responsible to Parliament, and not to a quango containing self-perpetuating oligarchs from the professions.
  An example of a similar amount of plausible pressure, which led to a calamitous state of affairs in another institution of state, is the removal of parliamentary responsibility for the appointment of bishops in the Church of England by the Crown Appointments Commission, which has turned the episcopal Bench into a self-perpetuating oligarchy, which is not accountable to anyone. A judicial apppointments commission is a deplorable idea, which should be rejected on the most elementary principles of parliamentary accountability.
  The second great innovation suggested by the hon. Member for Brent, South was that a judicial career should begin at a much earlier age. My hon. Friend the Minister thought that that was the basis for some friendly across-the-party-divide co-operation, and that the hon. Member for Brent, South was assisting his argument. If he considers the matter more carefully, he will appreciate that there was more danger in what was being proposed than he perhaps understood at first blush.
  Again, it sounds plausible that one should start as a baby judge and work one's way up to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, but that would undermine the independence of the judiciary, because the promotion depends on the Lord Chancellor and not on anyone else. The importance of the existing system is that traditionally in this country we have believed that one gets the best judges by having the best practitioners, who have learnt how to prepare and present cases, and have experience of assessing them. One takes leading practitioners from among the most able and makes them into judges. That is what has singularly distinguished our judiciary and that in certain parts of the Commonwealth, in contrast to the system in continental countries.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend not accept that his view that we need experienced and able judges should not preclude young practitioners, who happen to be experienced and able? We need more of them on the Bench.
  Mr. Evans: People should be appointed to the Bench because they are distinguished by their ability and character. I regard age discrimination as immoral. One should judge people purely on their talents and abilities and not on whether they happen to be born in one year rather than another, in so far as that can properly be avoided.
  Whereas in the House one can work one's way up from the lowest form of life to the Cabinet, with a judicial career it has never been the case that the lowest judicial appointee can proceed all the way up the ladder. I think that the immigration appeals adjudicator is the lowest judicial appointment—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but he dared to mention it—for which the minimum qualification is three years' practical experience at the Bar or as a solicitor. I do not think that an immigration appeals adjudicator has ever proceeded up the judicial ladder, let alone to the circuit Bench, let alone to the High Court Bench, let alone to a Lord of Appealship in Ordinary. The way in which the system has always operated is that certain practitioners at certain levels go into the judiciary at certain levels simply because they have experience of doing that sort of case properly. That has been the tradition and it should be defended.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I may not, from instant resource, be able to satisfy my hon. Friend in the matter of an adjudicator achieving such instant elevation. However, we have an existing case of a district judge, whom practitioners as old as I used to call a registrar, who has become an Appeal Court judge—and she a lady, too.
  Mr. Evans: I am well aware that there have been from time to time, and I welcome them, promotions from both the district Bench and what I, too, would call district registrars, to the circuit Bench and upwards, but that is a very different thing. I expressed to my hon. Friend earlier—admittedly slightly aggressively—the sheer outrageousness of his suggestion that immigration appeals adjudicators are part of this process; that is simply nonsense.
  The third suggestion made by the hon. Member for Brent, South regarding his comprehensive reform of the judiciary was to dredge up an idea put forward by Lord Halsbury, who might be described as belonging to a rather opposite school of legal patronage thinking. The objection, again, to fixed-term High Court judge or other judicial appointments, is that they undermine the independence of the office, because in the last year either one is wondering what will have happened to one's practice when one goes back to it or one is hoping for further preferment from the state. The whole point about judges since our glorious revolution is that they are appointed for so long as they conduct themselves properly, and seldom have they had to be removed. That is the basis of our rule of law and our constitutional liberty.
  It may well be that the civil servants, in particular, who sit not so far from my hon. Friend, find it very difficult to comphrehend the traditions of the British legal profession and of the British Bench. Those traditions have been based upon sturdy independence and a total rejection of any idea that people should be beholden to the powers that be who appoint them. Judges are appointees, not creatures of any politician or any Lord Chancellor. That is the basis of our constitutional liberty that we must defend.

  443
  I turn now to my hon. Friend and, first, to part I of the Bill. He has, I respectfully submit, a very much better case in certain regards than the one that he put to us. Yes, I entirely endorse the view that arrangements whereby circuit judges get promoted to the High Court Bench and run into difficulties over their pension scheme are anomalous. There is a need to sort this out and the Bill is welcome in so far as it tries to sort it out. What my hon. Friend is really doing, however, is following the dictates—which I, as a Conservative, welcome—of the Treasury that the Bill is intended to be fiscally neutral. It is not intended to increase public expenditure and, as a good Conservative, I find that a very attractive proposition. But this means that he has to balance the books; he has to balance the benefits and the disbenefits. If that had been stated rather more clearly, it would have been, I respectfully say to him, a more attractive argument.
  The argument that was put was, first, that somehow a 15-year accrual period for a judicial pension could no longer be tolerated because the Finance Act 1987 had given certain taxation privileges to pensions of more than 20 years' accrual period. It is all very well to say that the Lord Chancellor is a noble ornament of our constitution and should still be exempt from this new arrangement, but it rather weakens his case when one reflects that the Prime Minister, former Speakers of the House and field marshals, for example, are equally privileged in this regard in respect of pensions, and the 20-year accrual period does not apply to them. It is extraordinary members of the higher judiciary should suddenly find that they are to be treated on any different basis and why that should be used as the reason to do so. By all means balance fiscally the benefits and the debenefits in this Bill, but the argument which my hon. Friend uttered was, in my submission, wholly mistaken.
  The second point that my hon. Friend made concerned the benefits of unifying all the various judicial pension arrangements. I can see the force of that in terms of practicality and justice, provided that there is no attempt to oversell it on the basis that there is a judicial career and a pattern of judicial promotion. Judicial promotion remains, and ought to remain, very much the exception. I think that it is the general professional view that individuals who are promoted are singular examples of the failure of patronage in the first place. In other words, they are singularly distinguished and able persons, who amply and quickly demonstrate that they ought to have been preferred to a higher level in the judicial hierarchy in the first place. They are examples not of the success of the present system but of the failure of the decision-making process in the first place.
  There are a number of odd points in part I which are important in principle. I note, for example, that it appears that in 1990 widowers' pensions were first introduced for judges. I ask my hon. Friend if that is indeed the case under the present Bill as it is drafted.
  The second point on which I ask for elucidation is the situation in respect of children in further education. On the Queen's Printers' copy of the Bill, in clause 7(1)(a), an "or" has been missed out which is certainly there in section 21 of the Judicial Pensions Act 1981. The effect of this would be to stop any pension to a judicial child if he or she underwent further education beyond the age of 16. I
  444
  cannot believe that that is what the Government intended; I am sure that it is a slip-up, and I should be grateful for clarification by my hon. Friend.
  The totality of part I is welcome. It is not generous compared with arrangements in Australia or Canada, for example, and I can understand why this portion of the Bill was attacked with such vigour and enthusiasm in another place. But the fact remains that we must balance the books and make sure that the fiscal effect of this is neutral.
  However, I must say this to my hon. Friend. I did not drop my jaw with such surprise as the hon. Member for Brent, South thought. What I find extraordinarily anomalous is that in 1992 we should be discussing judicial pensions, or indeed civil service pensions, at all. I believe that the whole thing should be privatised and that individual practitioners, individual judges, should be paid enough to enable them to make individual arrangements which suit their individual circumstances.
  We have got ourselves involved and enmeshed in the genius of the British civil service at thinking up complex rules which are wholly inconsistent and produce obvious anomalies. They then have to be thought through again and reworked, and the same process goes on and on. The time has surely come for an end to it. If my hon. Friend had come to the House and said that he was proposing to increase official pay by some modest amount to allow for the fact that there would be no further judicial pensions, I for one would have welcomed that.
  It is on part II, in particular, that I must part company with my hon. Friend. I do not know what modern world he lives in when he quotes the Old Testament figure of three score years and ten and says that it is in accordance with the modern climate that one should retire at 70. The hon. Member for Brent, South was at least a little bolder and said 65.
  This has two consequences. First, unnecessarily and unhappily, my hon. Friend has talked about the discretion given to his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland to allow people, after this upper ceiling is reached, to sit from time to time—a power which, he has assured us, is to be used only sparingly. Unhappily, it is the practice, which has been commented upon adversely by several distinguished judges, that the existing powers to use deputies have been grossly over-indulged in. I would respect that argument if it were put more brutally in terms of Treasury needs to contain public expenditure, but there is something here which has given rise, unnecessarily in my submission, to public concern and criticism.
  What sticks in my gullet about this proposed piece of legislation is the idea that at age 65 or 70 a person should be stopped from working and using his talents, in an arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair fashion. It is immoral. The moral basis on which we have founded legislation against race and sex discrimination is simply that one cannot be blamed and should not be penalised for what one is born. In like fashion, one should not be discriminated against simply by the year of one's birth. That is anomalous and unfair and wrong in principle.
  That such an idea would casually emerge, no doubt without any malice, from the British civil service is eminently probable and plausible, because the civil service is the classic example of a statist system in which everything works according to age and cut-off by particular date. That is deplorable, and the Government's policies for reducing the civil service, creating next steps

  445
  agencies and private arrangements and so on must be the future course against obsolete and increasingly odious privileges which the civil service enjoys.
  Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps my hon. Friend will also shed a tear for the civil service, given that it too suffers from the maladies he is pointing out. There is no logic in forcing a talented permanent secretary to leave his office on his 60th birthday. The idea that he was capable of doing the job the night before and that, at the witching hour of midnight, he is not, is complete nonsense. So we lose not only the talent of judges in certain cases, but of civil servants as well.
  Mr. Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is wicked, irresponsible and wasteful. Why should we carry that model, which undoubtedly does no good for the civil service, into the sphere of the judiciary?
  It is easy to say that one should be compelled to cease exercising one's talents at a particular age. For my constituents who are, say, small business men or farmers, there is no simple or easy retirement age. They make their own provision and choice, depending on their ability, health and resources.
  What is being proposed is deeply deplorable, and it goes back to the tabloid opinion polls. The hon. Member for Brent, South was extremely careful—I admire and respect him for it—not actually to accuse but to say that what he was alleging was a matter of public perception. If the public are to make assessments of that degree of crudeness, then that degree of crude response is wrong, and we should say so.
  I suspect—I trust that the Minister will give a categorical assurance on this—that the whole arrangement of a fixed retirement age of 70 is some scheme to balance the judiciary's gender or racial composition so as to make it more politically acceptable and more in touch with what is supposed to be popular opinion. We are talking about judges who are 69 or 68. It is hardly surprising that they do not reflect the gender or race composition of the population a generation younger than them.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I can provide the reassurance for which my hon. Friend just asked.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although the hon. Member for Brent, South did not actually say so, he seemed to derive some apocalyptic joy at the prospect of making judges younger, both by appointment and by their upper retirement age. Ageism as a form of immoral discrimination remains wicked, but it is worse than that. Law is not like politics. Nor is it like medicine, in the sense that where there is a scientific discipline, science moves on and one must become up to date, or, for a politician, one must become in tune with what one's electors say.
  Being a judge, particularly at the higher parts of the judiciary, is a hard matter of intellectual expertise and accumulated knowledge. That expertise and knowledge have made the judiciary in particular so much an ornament of our constitution. It would undermine standards to force able judges to retire at an earlier age.
  When I was a law student in the 1960s, Lord Denning, then the Master of the Rolls, had been appointed to the High Court Bench in the year I was born—[Interruption.] I think I heard the hon. Member for Brent, South say from a sedentary position that he was too old. That was such an ignorant, prejudiced and erroneous comment as to be most uncharitable and unfair. Every law student in the 1960s
  446
  read Lord Denning's judgments for the joy of their prose and the fact that they could be understood, unlike the judgments of certain other distinguished members of the judiciary. They could be understood very easily and appreciated for their sense and prudence. As we get older and become more conservative, I have no doubt that we sometimes think that intellectually Lord Denning cheated a little, but that is a different issue.
  The Minister should have come before us with detailed proposals to give a college of judges the power to compel members of the judiciary over a certain age to submit to a medical examination, if their condition was physically deteriorating or if their mental faculties were publicly obviously failing. In such an event, some judgment should be available to require them to retire. But to suggest that, say, a permanent secretary or a member of the high judiciary should be cut off from exercising the talents that God has given him, at an arbitrary date selected purely on grounds of political prejudice, is obviously wrong.
  Mr. Barry Porter: As my hon. Friend is speaking of God-given gifts, may I ask him to agree that God, in his wisdom, has given certain gifts to members of the solicitors' branch of the profession? Does he agree that, whatever their gender, age or race, they should be part of the new judiciary?
  Mr. Evans: Yes, I do not disagree with a word of that, though what I am saying is more fundamental. It is that from whatever part of the legal profession one may come, provided one is in good health and able to discharge one's duties to the best of one's ability, one should not arbitrarily be cut off and prevented from doing that. It cannot be right or moral to do otherwise, and I urge that the whole matter be reconsidered.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: Many members of the public watching the debate will wonder what priority the House gives to important issues of the day. We heard during the autumn statement that low-paid public sector workers would receive no more than a 1·5 per cent. increase in their pay next year. Today we are talking about the pensions—which are really just deferred pay—of judges earning in some cases more than £87,000 a year.
  The House has not yet had the opportunity of discussing the public sector pay policy that is being imposed by the Government. Nor has it had the opportunity of looking at the effects of the reduction in the availability of legal aid, which will deny justice to many citizens. Even so, tonight we are considering the pensions and retirement age of judges.
  Despite that, this is an important time to consider those issues because retirement and pensions are the framework within which the judicial structure will operate. They are the fixed points that will determine much of what goes below it, and the House must recognise—not in terms of the complacent language used by Conservative Members—that there is a crisis of confidence in our legal system today. There is prolonged delay, escalating costs and, as we know, a series of miscarriages of justices, and the judiciary has a heavy responsibility to bear in that respect.
  It is not good enough to blame the police or juries. The judges have a responsibility, and public perception generally cannot be ignored. It is arrogance in the extreme to say that the public perception of how the judges operate

  447
  can be ignored. The House has a responsibility to recognise the deep feelings that members of the public have about the way in which judges conduct themselves and their business. Judges must bear a heavy responsibility.
  Reference has already been made this evening to the occasional quirkiness of some members of the Bench. Odd comments often make for a good after-dinner speech. We have heard about the judge who does not know about Cliff Richard or a launderette. Such comments are faintly amusing, but they show how judges are often out of touch with modern living. That degree of being out of touch does not concern me as much as the way in which that being out of touch has an effect on the sentencing policy, which often occurs.
  There is a responsibility on judges to acknowledge the depth of public feeling on certain issues when they come to pass sentence. The House lays down a maximum sentence which can be imposed in many cases. There are many cases in which judges, because they are out of touch, fail to reflect the way in which the public feels about some serious crimes. Let me give a few illustrations. We all know of the many cases of men being violent towards women. We know that lenient sentences are often imposed on people who are convicted of such crimes. If the roles are reversed and the woman, who has often been subjected to many years of violent beating from a husband or partner, commits a crime, often in a moment of passion, a heavy and harsh sentence is imposed on her. Such decisions lead to a lack of confidence in the judiciary.
  The age of the judiciary is an important factor. There must be a cut-off point at which judges need to retire. They cannot sit on the Bench for ever, as the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) said, subject to an occasional medical check-up. There must be more to it. The Bill takes a small step towards reducing the retirement age of members of the Bench from 75 to 70 years. That small step is welcome, but I feel that it goes nowhere near far enough. I agree with the Bar Council suggestion that there should be a fixed retirement age of 65 for the Bench. That would be wholly appropriate.
  The Bill not only reduces the age of retirement from 75 to 70; it gives the Lord Chancellor a discretion to extend annually the services of members of the judiciary who are aged from 70 to 75. I do not feel that that is appropriate. There must be a clear cut-off point. We must not put ourselves in the position in which the Lord Chancellor has the power to renew annually a judge's term of office on the Bench. We have been told that that degree of power is essential to fill the gaps in the judiciary that may be caused by sickness or by a call to lead an important national inquiry.
  Retired judges will be brought back annually to fill the gaps. That is an absurd way of proceeding with an important part of public life. If Manchester United has a long injury list, the call does not go out to Bobby Charlton, Denis Law or Nobby Stiles to get their kit and turn up at Old Trafford. The same should apply to members of the judiciary. When the Prime Minister is unable to attend Question Time because of his trips around Europe, the call does not go out to Baroness Thatcher.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Can I take it from the hon. Member's remarks about recruiting from the cadre of the promising young players rather than yesterday's men—I
  448
  followed his word picture, which was good and vivid—that he supports my earlier arguments in favour of the rationality and the sense that often lie behind part-time appointees sitting on the Bench in the higher courts? My argument is that one is training a cadre of younger people, who will be ready for promotion later, and addressing peaks and troughs in the availability of judicial officers. Does the hon. Gentleman favour that argument?
  Mr. Byers: The Minister's problem is that he does not go far enough. Many Labour Members will argue that there must be a radical reform of the way in which we treat the judiciary in the United Kingdom. Half measures simply will not be enough.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I will give way when I have finished advancing my argument. Under the present system there is a reluctance to recruit younger members to the Bench.
  Mr. Barry Porter: One hears some funny things in this place over the years. To use the images of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), he might remember that, as I recall, Stanley Matthews played for Stoke City at the age of 50 and that a man called Peter Shilton both manages and keeps goal for some remote southern team at present.
  It is absolute nonsense to say that, because a man or a lady reaches a certain age, they are no longer any use. Good Lord! If that were the case, it would help the House to get rid of one or two hon. Members who I think should go. However, those hon. Members and many other people think that they can add something. The matter of age is sheer nonsense.
  The Lord Chancellor of the day can examine the age of judges who are 70, 65 or whatever and decide whether to extend their service. That appears to be correct. All this stuff about gender, age and so on is nonsense.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That was a very long intervention.
  Mr. Porter: It was meant to be.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might like to rephrase that.
  Mr. Porter: I apologise. I was trying to make my point.
  Mr. Byers: I had the misfortune to see Stanley Matthews play for Stoke City against Norwich when he was 50 years old. It was a sad occasion. I remember Stanley Matthews when he was much younger. He was a much better player than he was when he was 50. It was a sad sight to see. I would not want to see the same thing happen to members of the Bench.
  The scale of the use of retired judges cannot be underestimated. Let me give some illustrations. In 1990, 500 judge days in the High Court and the Court of Appeal were dealt with by retired judges aged 75 years or older. More detailed figures show that in 1991, in the Court of Appeal alone, 100 judge days were covered by judges aged 80 years or older. I do not believe that such statistics will instil confidence in the judicial system.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman gives a homely metaphor about Stanley Matthews playing at the age of 50. The point is that arthritis may stop people playing football, but it does not stop them judging cases. In a civil

  449
  case of great complexity, it is possible that an 80-year-old judge will retain the expertise to understand the intellectual aspects of the case. The mere fact that he might have arthritic knees may stop him from playing football at the weekend, but it will not stop him doing a decent job. It is all about aptitude, not age.
  Mr. Byers: The Minister will certainly have an interesting time with some of his hon. Friends in Committee.
  I believe—I think that I am supported by my hon. Friends—that there must be a sensible cut-off point. Our view is that the cut-off point should be 65. The debate about where the cut-off should be will continue, although I hope that we will agree that there must be a cut-off point.
  We should not endorse the principle in the Bill that the Lord Chancellor should have the power to renew annually the services of judges aged between 70 and 75. I know that it will be argued that we need that power and should maintain the retirement age beyond 65 as there are insufficient numbers of recruits of adequate ability to come to the Bench. That says more about the current method of appointment, and a careful scrutiny of the ability of those available might be helpful.
  The chairman of the Bar Council, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has described the present system of appointing members to the Bench as "bizarre and farcical". The files may have been removed from the Kremlin, but they are still held in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Files are kept on individual barristers to determine whether they are suitable for service in the Bench. That cannot be acceptable in the 1990s, and has more to do with George Orwell's thought police of "1984". Behind the scenes consultations take place to decide whether an individual is appropriate to serve on the Bench.
  It is little wonder that such a system creates a self-perpetuating elite and potential membership of the Bench. Human nature means that people appoint those in their own image—at the Bar they are male, middle-aged and middle class. The Bill does nothing to promote women in the judiciary. In many respects, the pension arrangements will make it more difficult for women who have had a break in their career at the Bar to bring up a family to obtain the pension entitlements normally due to them.
  It is particularly disappointing that, when giving the Dimbleby lecture, the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, took a complacent attitude towards the issue of appointments to the Bench. He refused to consider significant changes in the method of appointment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the new Lord Chief Justice suggested that there would be an opportunity for lay involvement in the consultation process. However, that does not go nearly far enough. Such cosmetic changes—like the removal of the wig—do not address the fundamental issue that the House should be considering this evening. Such cosmetic changes are more like moving the chairs on the deck of the Titanic and do nothing to address the real problem—the lack of confidence in the judiciary and our public legal system.
  We must have a judicial appointments commission where posts are openly advertised and applicants can apply. We can learn lessons from the way in which the recent vacancy for the Director of Public Prosecutions was filled. It was advertised nationally and proper interviews were held. Applicants were invited to apply. If that process
  450
  was good enough for the Director of Public Prosecutions, why was it not good enough for appointments to the Bench?
  Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Gentleman's proposals were carried to their logical conclusion, those considering such appointments, even were they to be advertised, would face a dilemma. He is suggesting that there could never be any confidential consultations. When making public judicial appointments, it is essential for those who know the candidates best to have some confidential consultations. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should have a system of positive discrimination—which is what he is doing—will create such a dilemma.
  Mr. Byers: Many hon. Members will be aware of the way in which most appointments take place. I see nothing wrong in the normal procedure whereby confidential references are provided for applicants. There is no reason why that process, which applies to many other parts of public life, should not apply to the Bench. People involved in the world of personnel management say that the present system of appointments to the Bench is, effectively, indefensible.
  I was hoping that the comments that I have just made would be seen as constructive, not controversial. I shall now turn to the contentious part of my speech. I hope that the House will consider whether we should continue with the traditional Anglo-Saxon method of appointing judges from the pool of existing practitioners, advocates or legal advisors. We are always told that we should move closer to Europe, so perhaps we should look at the continental system, where graduates go straight into judicial training. Advocates' confrontational skills—often demonstrated in the Chamber—are not best suited to members of the Bench, who should be able to defuse emotions and listen to what is said. Often, such skills are not to be found in members of the Bar.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to learn how courts work and develop the skills required to serve effectively as a member of the judiciary is through the practical experience of being an advocate, acting either for the plaintiff or the defendant—prosecuting or defending? There is no way in which simply by studying books or anything else one can develop the level of training required to preside over the British legal system.
  Mr. Byers: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is used in favour of the present method of appointing members to the Bench. However, I am not talking about a graduate studying the appropriate books and immediately taking up a place on the Bench. As I understand it, the position throughout the continent is that trainees sit with existing judges for a long period, and it is only when they have been trained effectively and properly that they sit as judges.
  Mr. Boateng: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would not necessarily have to adopt fully the continental approach in order to attract people to the judiciary from academic life? A number of recent appointments to the silk from academic life have shown only too clearly that that sector of legal life and the body of expert lawyers in this country could be a fruitful source of members of the judiciary at various levels. With appropriate judicial

  451
  training, the objections of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney)—which I understand—could readily be overcome.
  Mr. Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend, and such a system could form part of the process of trying to broaden the way in which judges are appointed. I think that all hon. Members are genuinely concerned that judges are recruited from a narrow academic and social background, which is not helpful in promoting public confidence in the legal system—a desire shared by all hon. Members.
  The judiciary are the one remaining sector of public service that has not been reformed, at least in this century; every other sector seems to have undergone reforms of one description or another. The judicial system is based on secret appointments, and there is no monitoring of performance and no appraisal scheme for individual judges. We should welcome initiatives to correct those faults.
  The judiciary are given enormous powers. They are the guardians of our liberty; they should protect us against abuse by the state and defend the weak against the strong. In recent years a number of well-known cases have demonstrated that the judiciary have for one reason or another failed to achieve those objectives. The Bill provides an opportunity for radical reform of the judiciary. That refom is badly needed. If the House fails to seize the opportunity provided by the Bill, it will rightly stand condemned.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I heard what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) said. What came across clear and strong was that he spoke with great sincerity but, as someone who has practised in both the criminal and civil courts, I do not recognise the picture he paints. It is easy to say, as he did a moment ago, that the history of recent times is about the judiciary having made wrong decisons, not standing up for the rights of the weak and not protecting people against an over-mighty state, but no matter how many times one says it, it is not true.
  Any criminal practitioner can tell us what has being going on in recent years. The balance of advantage has moved so much in favour of the defendant from society, in whose name essentially we prosecute, that policemen bend the law. They should not do that. When they are caught doing it, they are rightly prosecuted and condemned, but the House has got the balance wrong.
  One of the most demeaning and unpleasant experiences is having to go down to a cell to represent an incorrigible criminal who knows his trade and knows that all he has to do is keep his mouth shut for 24 hours and he will be away scot free. When we have a system like that, the police will break the rules and there will be miscarriages of justice.
  It is a tribute to the judiciary that, very much against their basic inclinations, they have been able to see the way in which the law has been abused in certain cases, and have been prepared to step in and deal with it. One could expand on that at greater length on other occasions. The hon. Member for Wallsend believes that the present state of affairs has been caused by the fact that the judiciary are drawn from the middle classes. Of course they are. They have professional qualifications. That makes them middle class. It does not make them Conservative. They may be
  452
  barking Marxists, but they are certainly middle class. To say that there are problems because the judiciary are drawn from the middle class is not a contribution of thought but an exercise in sloganisation.
  My hon. Friend the Minister must be getting troubled because of the interjections from myself and from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). I suspect he may be feeling that there is a vote around the corner, or he must be saying to himself, in the light of the contribution from my hon. Friend and the contribution that I intend to make: "How on earth can they with a clear conscience vote for the Bill?" It is inevitable in the nature of these things that one concentrates on the more controversial aspects. In many ways, this is a splendid Bill, which I will have no difficulty in supporting. Having said that, I should perhaps concentrate for a moment on some of the things which, had they been in a Bill in isolation, might have caused one to say to the Lord Commissioner, "I would like the evening off."
  I want to quote what my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said when introducing the measure, which has interesting implications:
  "It is in the interests of all of us in a free society that our judges should be men and women of the highest calibre, able and willing to carry out the heavy public duties which we expect of them. It is right, therefore, that the pension Parliament provides to our judges should be sufficiently substantial to attract, or at least not deter, those candidates best fitted to serve."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1992; Vol. 538, c. 119.]
  He went on to set that in the context of salaries as well as pensions.
  That is an excellent principle for remunerating officers of the state in the person of judges. The Minister might feel sad because the same principle is not applied to ministerial salaries. We have got to the stage when ministerial salaries are not fixed with any relationship to what might be necessary to bring people in. We have achieved a state of affairs in which if someone is prepared to serve as a Minister, it may be because, like my hon. Friend, he is a man of vast but discreet wealth. Because the salary is so niggardly, we are fast approaching the alternative possibility that some people may get a pay rise when elevated to the position of Minister.
  That is a troubling aspect. It is a pity that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not been as successful as the judiciary. Much has been said in the debate about the age at which judges should retire. There seems to have been an assumption that, at a certain point in time, one can look at a person, be he a footballer, a Minister, a permanent under-secretary or a judge, and say that on one day he is capable of performing satisfactorily and the next he is not. I do not understand that.
  Nor do I understand the references made in another place apparently in justification of an automatic cut-off date for the appointment for a judge. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor referred to three score years and ten. Like the devil, I can quote the Bible for my own purposes. I recognised the reference, but in biblical times three score years and ten was a good innings—it was over the top as an innings. These days, people of three score years and ten are capable of running the London marathon. It makes me feel ill even to contemplate them doing it. In biblical times, three score years and ten might have been a great age, but it is no great age today.
  Lord Wigoder also made an interesting contribution in another place when he said that, essentially, we should be

  453
  going along with a common retirement age for judges, because it would be in accordance with the current trend. I am fed up, sick and tired of fashion and current trends. The idea that one can justify a course of action because it is fashionable is ludicrous.
  On a more serious note, one problem with fashion and current trends is that it has obliged Her Majesty the Queen to offer something in terms of taxation which, had she been properly defended in public, would never have happened. It is dangerous to base legislation and social attitudes on what is known in our former colonies as a politically correct attitude.
  I accept that it may be politically correct to support a cut-off age for judges, but my hon. Friend the Minister, in a masterful and elegant contribution, glided around the point beautifully. To his credit, one never heard the justification for judges having to retire at a certain age.
  It may be worth while dealing for a moment with why judges have to be older before they can be recruited to the bench. One could give a competent law graduate or newly qualified solicitor or barrister a pile of papers and say, "That was the evidence. How does the law apply?" That is an ordinary, intellectual exercise that any young law student should be able to do.
  That is not where the skill is involved on the bench. A member of the judiciary needs the ability to weigh up evidence. That means knowing something about human nature. It means having spent years listening to people telling the story in the cells, hearing them give the same evidence in examination-in-chief and cross-examining them. It is all about the evaluation of evidence. Applying the law is the easy bit: that is straightforward.
  What we look for in the judiciary, be it at stipendary magistrate level or in the House of Lords, is the ability to sift, understand and weigh up. The bit at the end where the law is applied is the easiest. It is in the very nature of things that we cannot get that experience unless we have people with years behind them.
  What is the justification for saying that, even if we allow for that, there must be an age cut-off? That is an ism. It is ageism. I have been present at debates in the House when there have been howls of indignation from the Opposition about sexism and ageism. I remember the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) once accusing me of being a sizeist because some of us were urging him to stand up, and it turned out that he was standing. Isms are fashionable, but apparently ageism used to be a crime. It used not to be politically correct, but in some way it is politically correct now for judges.
  It is ridiculous to draw an analogy with sporting occasions. I have already made the point, and I will not labour it, but a person could give judgment in a complicated civil case even if he had an arthritic hip, yet he would not be much good playing for Wolves, Accrington Stanley or the local football club. It is all about aptitude.
  One of the saddest things I ever heard was when I was a Minister in the Department of Employment. I spent a lot of time going round the country, preaching to people that ageism was wrong, that it destroyed a valuable national resource—that it was inhuman and unjust. One chap came to me at a training scheme that I had launched and told me about an application that he had filled in for a job as a van driver. The age limit for the job was 35, and he had lied because his age was 37.
  At the interview, he admitted what he had done and they refused to interview him for the job. He asked why
  454
  they had an age limit and was told that he needed to be fit, and that someone as near 40 as he was could not be fit. He asked them if they knew how he had passed his time recently. He was, he told them, an internationally acclaimed fell runner. Here was a man who had the aptitude for a job and who was sufficiently fit to do it; the fact that his age told against him was completely irrelevant, and it ought to be the same with the judiciary.
  If it is felt that nevertheless one should be able to retire a judge on the ground of extreme age, then in a sense the mechanism is already in the Bill—although, on this part of the Bill, it weakens the justification for it, because it is possible for the Lord Chancellor to extend the period of service in certain circumstances if he feels that there is a particular need for a judge to perform a certain function. It would be straightforward enough—perhaps this point will emerge in Committee—to say that there should be a cut-off at the age of 70 but that the Lord Chancellor may extend that in general terms. But the presumption that, once one reaches that age, one is incapable of doing the job is not borne out by the evidence.
  We know what the problem is and where it comes from. It is very fashionable to attack judges because they are not female or black or disabled or because they are seen to come from a middle-class background. It is very easy to do that, but we should not be giving in to that sort of pressure. I must tell the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) that I am completely underwhelmed by the fact that the Law Society has carried out a survey into people's perceptions. There is a degree to which hon. Members are supposed to lead and not merely follow. I never thought that I would hear from someone who presumably, however unrealistically, aspires to office with the great cry, "I am their leader. I must follow them."
  Yes, the public perception of members of the judiciary is that they are all ancient, creaking creatures from the upper middle class and wearing wigs, but that is because of the sustained assault made on the judiciary for a number of years in popular society, and very often it is from the Opposition Benches that we hear these comments on the judiciary. The hon. Member for Brent, South and I would have been law students at more or less the same time, in the 1960s and early 1970s. I remember the contributions of the then Member for Ebbw Vale, Michael Foot, making slashing attacks on the judiciary; he turned the whole of his considerable oratory on them. If one keeps on telling the public that, every now and again, when there is a miscarriage of justice, it must be the judge's fault because he does not come from a "right on" background, in the end they will accept it.
  How would the hon. Member for Brent, South feel if he were told at some constituency function that a tabloid newspaper had just done a study on the public's perception of the work of hon. Members? I have no doubt that such a study would ask whether people thought that Members of Parliament did not work hard and were overpaid. The people would no doubt reply in the affirmative, adding that hon. Members did not understand what it was like to live in the real world. Such a survey would be completely wrong about the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House carry out their functions.
  Are we supposed just to accept that this is what the public think? Surely we should try to do something about informing the debate. I would have liked to hear the hon. Member, when he produced that survey, make a point of saying that such a perception of the judiciary was not

  455
  correct, that there was a great deal more to it, and that people's image of the judiciary is simply not true, but there was no element of that at all.
  Mr. Boateng: Having failed to find any party political rancour in any of the contributions from the Opposition side of the House, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) decides, quite arbitrarily, to inject some himself, and I resent that. His tone is totally uncalled for.
  Will he respond to this? His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who, after all, stands at the pinnacle of our common profession, has made clear time after time, and sought in a number of his appointments creditably to reflect the importance he attaches to underpinning public confidence in the judiciary, by making sure that it contains suitably qualified women and suitably qualified people drawn from ethnic minorities. He responds positively to what he rightly sees as a public perception, one that threatens to undermine the very institution that we should all be seeking to build up and support. There is absolutely nothing wrong in being concerned about how the public perceive those institutions which we should be in the business not only of protecting but of developing.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member actually makes my point for me. Obviously, people who are suitably qualified should not be barred from being elevated to the Bench because they come from an ethnic minority or because they are female. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that they should be barried barred from going to the Bench if they happen to have been born an inappropriate number of years before the cut-off date he wants. That is the point that I am making to the hon. Gentleman.
  I will say something else to him as well, and if he wants to put it down to party political rancour it is very much a question of wearing the cap if it fits: the sustained attack on the nature and composition of the judiciary has given the public a perception of the way in which our legal system works which is completely untrue. He and I, as members of the legal profession and as hon. Members, have a duty not merely to accept what the public feel but to try to inform them as well.
  I do not for one moment understand the reasoning or logic in saying that, simply because someone is born before a particular date, he is incapable of carrying out his functions.
  When one talks about the public confidence, one must bear in mind that the public are a very complex body of people—young, old, members of different classes, people of particular intelligence and of none. In this country, the population are increasingly elderly, over the state retirement age. It is profoundly unhealthy to be saying to people over the age of 65, as the hon. Gentleman would have us say, that, while they are quite capable of going to court as a defendant or as a litigant, when it comes to people in their age bracket being competent in a judicial capacity, out they must go.
  It is entirely wrong that magistrates are moved on to the reserve list at the age of 65. What we should be looking for is the best person for the job—there, I am with the hon. Member for Brent, South entirely. I do not want to see any member of society who is properly qualified to perform a judicial office being barred from doing it. Speaking personally, however, I find it disturbing that we shall now
  456
  see age as the only criterion. I hear and see no evidence for it. All I hear is this constant, carping cry from the public that they must be too old. It is time we did our job—which is to lead, not simply to follow.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Hearing the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), I wondered whether I had listened to a different debate earlier. What my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said could in no way be regarded as a sustained attack on the judiciary. It was an attempt to address constructively public concern about the judiciary. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge will not recognise that there are those public concerns in today's society, he will not address them and he will not change things. Asserting that everything is wonderful in the judiciary is not true. It simply is the case that there are wide grounds for reform within the judiciary today.
  Let me turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). He said that pensions for judges were not generous. Let him tell that to my constituents, especially the pensioners who have worked hard, many of them having served their country in wartime, many of them professionally qualified, for example, nurses or teachers, who are having to survive on pensions which are much lower than those being given to judges.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I did not say that the provision for judges was not generous but that it was not generous compared to the provision made for US Supreme Court judges, or for judges in Canada and Australia.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but he must accept that the money offered to judges on retirement is generous when compared to the money offered to people who receive state pensions or pensions in almost any other profession.
  On retirement, each High Court judge is likely to receive from the taxpayer a full financial package that is not far off £1 million. That is not my figure but has been calculated by the international lawyers' organisation, Justice, which recently published a report on judges' payments and pensions. Part of the package is a large sum, in excess of £80,000, on retirement, and the pension received yearly after that is in excess of £40,000.
  Inquiries by Justice show that the purchase of an annuity from an insurance company to give a similar yearly pension would cost £839,000, so the value of a judge's salary plus the cost of purchasing his annuity gives him a salary package, in addition to the pension package, of more than £140,000. Given the economic hardships now facing this country, to give judges such large pension and salary packages is a very generous gift and is difficult to justify.
  The Lord Chancellor seeks to justify that high salary and pension package on the basis that those appointed are at the peak of their career and could earn larger incomes outside of the judiciary. That is arguable when it comes to High Court judges, whose average net income in 1992 was some £220,000 per annum for the three years preceding the appointment. However, according to Justice, circuit judges' average net earnings in private practice are often as little as £75,000. The package available is worth less than £1 million but not massively so. Clearly, that is a lucrative incentive for them to seek appointment. That is especially

  457
  so given the fact that advocates' earnings beyond their peak of about 55 or 60 years of age will not necessarily continue to rise.
  I note the provisions in clause 18 and the Minister's comments, but it is now time to move beyond the pension schemes being made available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South said, it is time to look at a fully contributory pension scheme possibly arranged by the judge himself and possibly privately—a privatised pension scheme, if you will.
  Those appointed as judges should be able to continue with pension schemes started, like any other professional person, in their 20s or 30s. Their appointment to the Bench should enable them to receive a salary, with an employer's contribution that is openly stated to the public, commensurate with continued payment into a pension scheme of their own. The idea that a barrister can fail to make any contributions to a scheme, then become a judge and serve 15 or 20 years, and come out of it with a package of almost £1 million is difficult to justify to any hard-working constituent who ends up with a small pension.
  Nobody at any level should be encouraged to be a judge simply to get a pension. I do not accept the Minister's argument that the pension scheme contains no incentive to become a judge. At that level, there is an incentive.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which, as usual, are well thought out, although that does not mean that I agree with them all. May I clarify my earlier comments? Anyone who makes a decision about a major promotion step within his or her career will look at the pension implications. However, I sincerely believe that few decisions are made for or against a promotion on the grounds of inhibition or encouragement by the pension. The main decision on whether to accept a promotion will be made in its own right and the pension will be considered in the margin as a serious and important element, but it will not be decisive.
  Mr. O'Brien: Good judges will not come to their post by reason of seeking a pension, but I know from personal experience in practice that some lawyers believe that being a judge will provide them with a good pension. I doubt whether they will make good judges, but I have heard counsel aspire to that position and comment that the pension was very good if they reached it.
  Furthermore, a judge should not be forced to stay in post beyond his sell-by date to clock up 15 or 20 years simply to get his full pension. When the Bill was being drafted, a much more fundamental look should have been taken at how judges' pensions are dealt with. As Justice says in its report:
  "the pensions arrangements for the Judiciary predate today's sophisticated pension arrangements".
  Barristers who seek to become judges now have far more options on how to proceed.
  As Lord Wigoder said in another place, before going to the Bench many people have been in a position to make some contribution towards their own and their families' future. That should be allowed to continue on a contributory basis, not on the basis now being suggested.
  I question the claim that the Lord Chancellor made in another place that we need those pensions to attract judges. We need judges who are dedicated to the judicial process and the concept of justice, not motivated by a fat and wealthy retirement. Good judges become good judges
  458
  for better reasons than a pension, but bad judges may well become bad judges for shorter hours, status and possibly a pension.
  The Bill should put in place arrangements that allow flexibility and encourage appropriate persons to accept part-time and possibly term appointments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South suggested. Sadly, the Bill does not even attempt to do that.
  Mr. Hawkins: May I suggest that the concern is not so much as the hon. Gentleman described, but rather that some of the most able potential judges might be deterred if the pensions arrangements are not good enough? Many Conservative Members are worried not about people accepting judgeships and judicial appointments because of the pensions, but about the risk of losing the best potential judges.
  Mr. O'Brien: A full contributory pension scheme would avoid all those problems and ensure that, when a person decides whether to be a judge, the question of pensions simply does not arise because he has the option, with a salary that would allow him that option, to decide what sort of pension scheme he wants. It is not a question whether the pension scheme on offer from the state is adequate. An entirely contributory pension scheme would avoid the question of the 20-year rule and it would end any encouragement in the Bill for judges to remain until they are 70 years old. It is broadly accepted in Britain that 65 is an age beyond which retirement is appropriate. A citizen should not be judged by a person who is beyond the age commonly regarded, rightly or wrongly, as an age when the ability to work can become impaired.
  To say that a judge has special skills and knowledge in justification is to demean our constituents—engineers, teachers, civil servants and others—who do intellectual work, all of whom accept the logic of a retirement age of 65. It is arguable that at 70 a judge is more likely than a man of 60 of 65 to be out of touch with a society whose members he has to judge.
  It is also arguable that a later retiring age increases the difficulty of determining which judges are up to the exacting standards of health and mental capacity required of judges who determine serious cases involving civil liberty. At a time when we are looking at equalising retiring ages for men and women, perhaps at an age lower than 65, it cannot be right to distinguish judges as having qualities of endurance not possessed by any other group in society.
  The clause allowing the recall of judges over the age of 70 is offensive. No man should be judged by a person beyond the age at which he should have retired. Litigants are entitled to be judged by a person in whom society has confidence. Many people beyond 70 are fit and mentally agile, but not all are in that happy condition. A judge is too important a figure to allow any question of capacity to be raised.
  We need the attitudes and abilities of a younger, more in-touch judiciary. New blood prevents the judiciary from becoming stale and out of touch. If, instead of trying to encourage new blood, every time we need someone to judge a case we bring back someone who ought not to be sitting any longer, the judiciary will be much more out of touch than they are seen to be, even today.
  Attitudes of members of the public to the judiciary have been revealed in a survey. There are few other surveys of

  459
  that kind of which I am aware. It reflects what most hon. Members win find when talking to their constituents and to other members of the public—that there is in Britain today a concern about the judiciary who are perceived as being out of touch.
  Whether judges are out of touch is not the point. That it the perception and it has to be addressed. Simply asserting that the public have it wrong does not address the central question of that perception and the difficulties that have arisen. That perception has been caused by a number of past injustices that have been mentioned. The public clearly think that too many judges are too old, male, white and out of touch.
  Dr. Liam Fox: As a matter of consistency, would the hon. Gentleman advocate that the maximum age of jurors should also be reduced to 65?
  Mr. O'Brien: I see no reason why someone over 65 should sit on a jury.
  The Lord Chancellor has announced his intention to appoint more judges soon, including six new judges for the Court of Appeal, criminal division, and a number of High Court judges, because, as he said this week, we are short of judges. Yet the cost of judges is a huge drain on public funds. How can we be expected to sanction and tolerate such a large expenditure when those in receipt of public money are appointed by a system shrouded in secrecy with minimal input from the taxpayers' elected representatives? If new judges are to be appointed, the system of appointment must be changed.
  As has already been said, a judicial appointments commission has been proposed by the Law Society, the Bar and Justice in its recent report on the judiciary. They show how that can be implemented in practice. It must include lay members, people who can look beyond the legal profession and its middle-class, middle-age and middle-minded attitudes, bringing a new influence and a wider perspective from other areas of life to the appointment of people who will have such a decisive effect on many people's liberty and lives.
  That commission should set clear criteria for appointments, which should be openly advertised. It should use modern selective methods and tests and open the judiciary not only to solicitors and employed lawyers, but, as has already been said, to academic lawyers, many of whom have a valuable contribution to make. Most importantly, we need to open the judiciary to more women, members of ethnic minorities and younger people.
  The Lord Chancellor's glib observations earlier this week about the lack of women judges is challenged by the Justice report which says that women are available now for appointment, but they are not being appointed. The present system of appointment relies much too heavily on the views of serving judges. The criteria for selection are woolly and imprecise. If the private sector used such criteria to appoint managers, it would be ridiculed.
  What on earth does "having a sound temperament" mean? What does "having standing" mean in practice? It sounds good, but does it not mean to the selectors who meet in secret conclave that the candidate is of a similar style to them—a white, male advocate?
  When Lord Lane was under criticism last year, a judge was asked what made a good judge. His reply was, "He is
  460
  a jolly good chap. We were at Shrewsbury together." That sums up many of the attitudes that the public find worrying. Conservative Members may suggest that such attitudes are wrongly held by the public, but all too often judges substantiate and reinforce those attitudes by such comments.
  My experience of judges, shared by many people of my background, is that they are out of touch with the people with whom they deal. I am not suggesting that today's judges are bad judges. The quality of judges has improved under this Lord Chancellor. Better candidates have come forward and have become judges. But there is much to be done and much that is not being addressed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South has already asked why one has to be an advocate in order to be a judge. Being a good advocate does not mean that a person has suitable judicial standards and independence.
  Mr. Streeter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the real skill of being an advocate is not necessarily being able to string together a fine sentence, but having clarity of thought in discerning the real issues from the peripheral issues, separating the wood from the trees—exactly the same skill that is required to be an effective judge?
  Mr. O'Brien: Exactly the same skill that is required to be an effective university law professor—to be able to put forward a clear argument and be able to say what the law and the facts of the case should lead to. Therefore, a university law professor, with proper training—no one disputes that that is necessary--could be an entirely appropriate person to become a judge. The same applies to an employed lawyer, many of whom are excluded from the judiciary.
  Many secret files contain comments by judges who are now dead and can no longer be questioned about what they said about a barrister who appeared before them many years ago. Such records should not influence decisions about persons who are to be appointed to the judiciary. That smacks of the masonic conclaves of centuries past, rather than of the functioning of a modern, democratic European state. That system also fails to produce judges in whom the public have confidence. A commission has the potential for bringing judicial appointments up to date and for making the system open and understandable. It would ensure a wider range of judges and create a more acceptable judiciary enjoying wider public support.
  There is no point in improving the judiciary's pension arrangements if access to justice is to be damaged by destroying the legal aid system. The autumn statement reduced access to justice for 10 million people. As a solicitor, I know that those affected will include women seeking injunctions in cases of domestic violence and defendants, who, as a consequence of the lack of legal aid, will be unable to prepare an effective defence.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman claims that legal aid will be denied to a rather large number of people. Last year, only 250,000 people litigated with the assistance of legal aid. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman produces a 10 million fall-out from a quarter of a million participants. Furthermore, by the admission of Labour's spokesman in another place, Lord Williams of Mostyn, chairman of the Bar Council,

  461
  "we ought to bear in mind that the provision of legal aid and assistance at public expense is almost unique to this"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 1992, Vol. 540, c. 604.]——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This debate has nothing to do with legal aid.
  Mr. Taylor: If I may say so in the vernacular, Mr. Deputy Speaker—he started it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) will also note my remarks.
  Mr. O'Brien: I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the Minister did not accurately report my remark. I did not make the claim that he ascribed to me but spoke of access to justice being reduced for 10 million people. I reiterate that assertion, and could defend it at great length—but in deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not do so.
  This debate could be effectively continued by the Opposition on another day, but I conclude by observing that the Bill provided an opportunity comprehensively to reform not only pensions but the judiciary. It offered a chance to create the basis of judicial stewardship into the next century, but that chance has been flunked.
  The Bill contains the whiff of a Government in trouble and unwilling to take on the real need for judicial reform—unwilling to take on the judges when they should be taken on, to bring about reform and to establish a proper judiciary for the centuries to follow. My contention and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the Bill is a missed opportunity to provide the House and this country with the opportunity to create a judiciary in which the public could have confidence.
  The Bill does not go far enough in considering areas that it ought to have examined, and its provisions fail to measure up to an adequate presentation of either the pension needs of judges or of the ways of improving their overall quality.
  8.4 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: In deference to the plea for ecumenicalism made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) I will forebear from attacking the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien)—preferring to attack instead my hon. Friend the Minister. I begin by declaring my interest—although no other hon. Member has done so—as a practising barrister, a recorder, a Bencher, the chairman of the all-party barristers group, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which has responsibility for monitoring the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the chairman of the Conservative Back Bench home and legal committees. I apologise. Perhaps I should declare also that I have not the slightest interest in becoming a High Court judge, circuit judge, stipendiary, or anything else. If I had such a desire, probably I would not dare to speak in this debate—and certainly I would not dare to attack my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Lawyers and their complicated pension arrangements are of course of enormous interest to the House. which explains why so many hon. Members are present—although the concentration of quality rather than quantity has allowed us to have a sensible and informed debate, which I am sure will continue. So much so, the Whips actually asked me not to be as hurried with my remarks as
  462
  I am wont to be, but I will confine them to the purport of the Bill and not wander more widely over the attractive fields of legal aid.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South that this is an opportune moment to debate the judges whose judgments, speeches, eating habits and dress are daily paraded before us by the media. There has been much ill-informed criticism of judges tonight, but I understand why the public find it confusing when they see a man dressed in a wig and a crimson dress trimmed with lace and fur, and wearing silk stockings sentencing a transvestite to community service. I myself would prefer to see fewer transvestites and rather more of the judges dressed like that.
  My hon. Friend the Minister made a valiant, eloquent and loyal attempt to present the Bill as a thoroughly splendid measure that will in some way strengthen the judiciary and respect for the integrity of British justice. There was no hint in his speech of it being manifestly another socially structured measure that has the dead and deadly hand of the Treasury all over it.
  There was no hint from my hon. Friend either that nearly all judges, leading barristers, the Lord Chief Justice of England and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor's predecessor deplore the Bill's pension arrangements.
  The Bill is not all bad. It is time that pension arrangements were put on a unified basis so that the same rules apply to all judges—that is sensible. It is time that, as judges climb the ladder to higher office, their pensions have more relevance to their end income at the peak of their judicial career, than to the lower office that they have held—which is not the position with some pensions today.
  It is probably time also that judges were younger. However, we must be careful not to denude the practising Bar of all its best and most experienced middle-aged practitioners. Without them, some of the long and complicated cases that are conducted in our courts might be even greater nightmares. There is something to be said for the skill and experience of the highly practised members of the Bar who conduct cases with such professionalism.
  There is also much that is wrong with the Bill. We need more High Court judges, but how on earth does my hon. Friend the Minister expect to attract the best men and women if they are to lose not only substantial amounts of their earnings as they descend from the higher earnings of the Bar to the lower earnings of the judiciary, but the substantial amount of the money that they would have been able to leave to their families when the pressures of the job finally take their toll, had they not accepted the pensions that will be paid to them as judges when the Bill becomes law? If the retirement age is reduced from 75 to 70, which is probably a good idea, we should not extend the time served before pensions fall due from 15 to 20 years.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I must tell my hon. and learned Friend, who is making his remarks with his usual felicity and force, that lengthening the tax privileged accrual from 15 to 20 years is an inevitable consequence of the Finance Acts of 1987 and 1989. The Lord Chancellor's Department has no option. We should need primary legislation to make judges subject to a separate tax regime from that of

  463
  the citizens over whom they exercise their wisdom. We are merely bringing judges' tax provisions into line with general law.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The Treasury is responsible for the financial legislation that makes the Bill necessary, yet it refuses to allow an exemption whereby judges can have a better pension than is promised in the Bill. No fair comparison can be made between those who accrue an occupational pension over 40 years, which brings them within the purview of the Income Tax Acts, and judges who have only 15 or 20 years' service in which to accrue their pensions. Neither my hon. Friend the Minister nor our noble Friend the Lord Chancellor seems fully to have grasped that distinction.
  Mr. Taylor: In his successful years in practice prior to appointment, a judge can build up substantial pension rights in private schemes, which are not derogated from when he embarks on the 20 years pensionable accrual. That remains a privilege of judges, who can add their private pension to their public pension and can buy added years when in public service. They are in a better position, even with a 20-year accrual, than their fellow citizens.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend is misleading himself. The reality of life at the Bar is different from what he supposes. I shall address that when I come to it in my orderly remarks.
  Five things will happen if this approach to the pensions of judges is allowed. First, barristers and solicitors who want to become judges in their fifties will not want to do so because they will not be able to have enough years to secure the full half-pay-on-retirement pension to which they would otherwise be entitled. Secondly, there will be more judges in their forties who may not have the experience, wisdom or gravitas necessary to command respect, which the judiciary still ought to have in our courts. Thirdly, judges may be pretty tired after 15 years sitting on the Bench, but now they will have to say to themselves, "I had better soldier on for another five years, or I will not get my full pension." From my own experience of judges who have soldiered on past the 20 years, I am not sure that that is likely to add significantly to the quality of justice.
  Fourthly, I was very interested in the confident assertion of my hon. Friend the Minister—as confident as his last assertion—that the Bill will attract more women of quality. Will it? As I understand the Government's defence to the attack on the pensions provisions of the Bill, which the Minister has just advanced again, it is that members of the Bar and the solicitors' profession will be able to augment their modest judicial pension with the pension contributions that they have been able to accrue as practitioners in the good years.
  But how many good years will there have been before the practitioner is appointed to the Bench in his or her forties? We get low earnings at the Bar in our twenties, higher earnings in our thirties, but we have to pay for our children's education at school and university, take out mortgages and look after our elderly parents. Then, just as we enter our forties and are able to save for our futures and our families' futures, my hon. Friend decides that we should be obliged, if we are so inclined, to take judicial appointment.
  464
  In practice, it does not happen. These days, there is not the wealth available in the pockets of 30-year-old solicitors and barristers that allows them to increase their pension contributions. The Bill ensures that, if they want to get a 20-year pension accrual and retire at 70, they must be a judge by the time they are 50.
  What chance has the professional woman of building up a respectable top-up capability when she has to take more time off than a man to bear, nurture and bring up children? How many more women would want to become judges if it would deliver low financial prospects for the family? My hon. Friend has it the wrong way round. The Bill will deter and therefore reduce the number of women who might otherwise go to the Bench, not increase it.
  Fifthly, at the other end of the judicial scale, there will be fewer permanent judges, and so more need to bring back in a temporary capacity those who are over 70 but not yet 75. They will be paid less, of course, which will please the Treasury. Those five reasons show why the pension provisions of the Bill will go entirely in the wrong direction.
  In his Second Reading speech in another place, my noble friend the Lord Chancellor said:
  "the pension Parliament provides to our judges should be sufficiently substantial to attract, or at least not deter, those candidates best fitted to serve."
  That was a very wise and sensible pronouncement. Let us consider what some of the leading judges and lawyers in the land had to say about the Bill.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: In England.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not sure whether there are any Scotsmen, I say with deference to my hon. and learned Friend, in the list to which I am about to refer.
  Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor's very eminent and distinguished predecessor, said:
  "if one is to recruit adequate judges on a sufficient scale to meet the vastly increasing demands of the courts and tribunals and is limited to a pool that was created 20 years ago, one has to be a little careful before one starts messing about with the retirement age, the employment of retired judges, and the accrual of pension."
  The former Master of the Rolls said:
  "The major vice of this Bill is the combination of a reduction in the retiring age to 70 and the increase in the full term of office to 20 years. The message must be that if you accept judicial office, you are expected to serve for 20 years. That is far too long if the judge is not promoted or given different work."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1992; Vol. 538, cc. 119, 146–47, 149.]
  Lord Ackner, one of the great Lords of Appeal, who knows what he is talking about——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that he is not supposed to quote from debates in another place unless he is quoting the Minister.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am referring to what was said. I am not directly quoting; I am paraphrasing, or attempting to do so—perhaps not very well. Lord Ackner told us that there was
  "an element of wholly unacceptable hypocrisy"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1992; Vol. 538, c. 157.]
  those were his words—in proposing what appeared at first to be radical and sensible legislation and then, by a species of back-door mechanism, undermining its very purpose.
  Finally, the Lord Chief Justice of England said that he was concerned that, if the 15-year period were extended to 20 years, not only would the policy of having a younger

  465
  judiciary, at which parts of the Bill are aimed and which he applauded, be undermined; there would be serious problems of recruitment, judicial staleness and injustice. He then invited the Government to reconsider that provision.
  Those are the great men who know what they are talking about. They are great men upon whom the dead hand of the Treasury does not fall, and they take issue with my hon. Friend the Minister.
  The pensions issue may be marginal, but added to the fact that judges receive lower pay than practitioners, that issue becomes crucially marginal. For many people the deciding point is the pension—that is what their Lordships are all saying, and I invite my hon. Friend to take it seriously.
  If one steps back and takes a good long look at the Bill, one realises that the combined effect of the retirement and pension proposals will achieve the opposite of what is claimed for them. Fewer of the best and most skilful practitioners will want to serve as judges. Fewer women will want to become judges. Judges will tend to be either younger when they come into the judiciary, or too old when they are called back to serve in a temporary capacity.
  If there is trouble in recruiting judges, delays in the legal system will increase. Dissatisfaction and discontent will grow among judges, and thereby public respect for the judiciary will decline. I fear that, as with so many social reforms which are Treasury led, such as the so-called reforms of legal aid and of the legal profession, and the so-called reform of the brewing industry, it will all end in tears.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I endorse what has just been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I wish to follow up the matter that he raised at the beginning of his speech, by declaring not so much an interest as a background, as a member of the Bar Council and of the all-party barristers group chaired by my hon. and learned Friend, and as the vice-chairman for the coming year of the employed barristers organisation, the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry.
  Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned the position inter alia of the employed Bar as regards any possible appointments that might be made to the Bench in coming years, and I agree that it is important to consider the whole of the legal profession. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have done so, and I endorse what has been said by many of them—that the most important aspect of our consideration of the Bill will be to ensure that the best candidates are available for selection for judicial appointment.
  I reject the suggestion by some Labour Members that there should be positive discrimination to ensure that a wider range of backgrounds is represented on the Bench. I argue strongly that it is essential to concentrate on one aspect alone when choosing between potential judges, and that is their ability. As someone who has shared chambers with colleagues from ethnic minorities, and with several distinguished lady members of the Bar, I am the first to recognise that there are many good judges and, I hope, potential judges among people from ethnic minority backgrounds, lady members of the Bar and solicitors, but
  466
  it is entirely wrong to suggest that such people should be appointed simply because they come from such backgrounds, rather than according to the single test of ability. I stick to that belief.
  I hope that what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said in praise of the quality of the judiciary will be taken to heart by many of his hon. Friends who have not had the advantage of listening to the debate. I propose to keep a copy of the Official Report of those remarks about Her Majesty's judges. I welcomed those remarks and I shall keep them by me in order to refer to them when some of his hon. Friends indulge in what I can describe only as a knee-jerk reaction, or the reaction of Pavlovian dogs, on occasions when it suits them to criticise judges. I shall point out to them that their hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South does not agree with them.
  It is important to recognise, as the hon. Member for Brent, South does, that one of the main reasons why the British judiciary is so highly respected, and why the parties to many important commercial disputes choose this country for their cases to be tried is the record of integrity and independence so obviously shown by Her Majesty's judges. In considering the Bill, we must realise that it is crucial that nothing should be done to detract from that record.
  Many of us who have been interested in the passage of the Bill through the other place have welcomed the fact that the Government have made some concessions and brought forward several amendments there. In particular, they have made more generous provision for judges who retire early through ill health. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that question again and improve the position still further. If a judge, who may have been one of the most distinguished members of the Bar, takes a judicial appointment but, sadly, suffers ill health early in his judicial life and has to retire, he should get the full pension rather than, as has now been conceded by the Government, the lump sum and the pension being calculated on the basis of the length of actual service plus half the time remaining before he reaches the age of 65.
  Like me, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and others of my hon. Friends will be able to think of particular examples from the recent past. Sadly, the health of several people who gave distinguished service both as members of the Bar and, having taken judicial appointments, after serving in connection with especially important public inquiries, suffered as a result of the great public services that they had rendered in those positions. Early in their subsequent judicial appointments they found themselves unable, through no fault of their own, to carry on. I welcome the concessions made in another place, but I urge the Minister to consider that aspect again and to go further than the Government have so far gone.
  I also welcome the provision for tax-free additional voluntary contributions to be made to pensions. However, I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said—that it is not good enough to say, "Of course, members of the Bar will always have made provision during their early years at the Bar." As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, many members of the junior Bar cannot do so, because of their low earnings, especially those who concentrate on legal aid work, to which many hon. Members have referred. At a time when their family obligations are heaviest, they are not in a

  467
  position to concentrate on making pension contributions, especially not with thought to a future judicial appointment.
  It is of special concern that members of the junior Bar who are concerned to do their best for their clients are frequently so busy every weekday evening preparing the next day's case, the cross-examinations and the examinations in chief that they have no time to think about their pension provision. They certainly have no time to think about the pension which may be available should they ever be lucky enough to benefit from a judicial appointment.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend's point is especially true because lawyers have to wait a long time before they are paid by the legal aid fund.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making that valuable point, which I entirely endorse.
  I agree with several of my hon. Friends that it would be wrong for a decision to be made by the Government, either on this or any other Bill, simply as a result of surveys of the public's perception of judges. I strongly believe that it is the responsibility of the Government and of all hon. Members to try to lead and to influence public opinion. Surveys of public perception are almost invariably wrong. They record prejudices, so it would be inappropriate for the Government to tailor their position as a result of surveys of public opinion, which are bound to be partial. It is crucial that the right decision, rather than the public's perception of the right decision, is made.
  I stress that the great difference between Conservative and Opposition Members is that we seek to present a judgment of what is in the country's interests. Too many Opposition Members take the view that whatever is the fashionable nostrum of the moment must influence public policy. That is wrong. I am sorry that so few Opposition Members are able to listen to the valuable points made by my hon. Friends along the same lines.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The jury opposite consists of only two hon. Members. Even in England a jury has 12 members. The remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice of England, which were broadcast to the nation, were hardly helpful to the cause he was advancing. Thank God they did not apply to Scotland.
  Mr. Hawkins: I return to the subject of the concessions made by my hon. Friend the Minister, which were welcomed in another place. I urge him to go further. The Government conceded that the benefits payable to close relatives in the event of the untimely death shortly after retirement of someone who had held a judicial appointment should be improved from one and a half times pensionable pay to five times the annual rate of pension at the time of death. I urge my hon. Friend to look again at the provisions made for judicial spouses, whether widows or widowers, and to recognise that telling points were made by many distinguished judges in another place who will not benefit from any changes that may be introduced.
  I especially urge my hon. Friend to pay heed to Lord Ackner's contribution to the debate and to the comments of Lord Donaldson in another place. I urge my hon.
  468
  Friend to consider carefully the entirely objective views, based on considerable experience, of those who no longer have a vested interest in benefiting from the changes that they advocate.
  I endorse what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton about the dangers of requiring, as the Bill does, that people should have to serve a full 20 years to qualify for a full pension. Hon. Members of all parties who have practised in the criminal courts will be aware of the tendency referred to as "judgeitis". There are those who, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, soldier on when they might be wiser not to do so and who become case-hardened and out of touch.
  I strongly urge the Minister to bear in mind the fact that it would be entirely right to recognise that there is a great deal of common sense in the provision that 15 years should be the right period of accrual for a full pension. He should recognise especially that 15 years period has been the period for accrual since as long ago as 1799. There are many occasions in the House when we should recognise that our forefathers knew what they were doing and that a system that has been tried and tested for almost 200 years should not be abandoned without careful thought. It should certainly not be abandoned at the behest of the Treasury.
  The Minister argues a difficult case to sustain. He says that the judges' position was unique, but he also says that the provision for pension must be brought into line with the general pension law which applies to people who have a complete working life in another kind of job. I urge my hon. Friend to take note of the fact that the judges' position is absolutely unique because of the late stage in life at which they take judicial appointment. It is precisely because of those special considerations that my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleague the Lord Chancellor should bear in mind that unique position.
  The fact that the exception has continued ever since the pension law for other occupations was changed is a reason for continuing it and for recognising the special and unique position of the judges. Nothing that my hon. Friend does in the Bill should detract from the special and unique qualities of judicial appointment.
  I very much recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's case when he talks about the importance of preserving the discretion to recall judges past the new retirement age of 70. Opposition Members were entirely wrong to suggest that there must be a specific cut-off date. Different judges retain their mental faculties to different ages. Reference was made to especially distinguished judges who have made an enormous contribution to the development of English law well beyond their 70th birthdays. English law would have been the poorer without that contribution.
  Opposition Members should recognise that many of the decisions that they have applauded—the hon. Member for Brent, South would have regretted those decisions not being part of English law—and especially the contributions towards social legislation made by distinguished judges of the past such as Lord Reid would not have been made if the noble Lords in question had had to retire at the date that many Opposition Members suggest or at the age of 70.
  I invite the Minister to reflect on Opposition Members' comments about footballers, including Sir Stanley Matthews, the distinguished former player for Blackpool in my constituency. The suggestion that he should not have played at the age of 50 should not be a reflection on

  469
  his great contribution and the contribution of many other distinguished footballers to coaching players. It was their experience as players which enabled them to be such good coaches in various parts of the world. They especially helped young players.
  The true parallel is the opposite of the parallel drawn by Opposition Members. The important point is not that those footballers were unable to play beyond the age of 50, but that they retained their footballing experience which they were able to pass on. There is an exact parallel with members of the Bar who benefit from their experience at the Bar when they become judges. We should concentrate on that parallel and not suggest that that experience should go to waste at any particular cut-off date. A judge may be a good judge at 71 or 72, so I welcome the provision for the recall of judges.
  I recognise that the Bill has many strengths and I welcome it in many ways. I urge the Minister to consider especially some of the respects that I have mentioned in which the Bill could be further improved. The greatest flaw of the Bill is that it suggests that the accrual period should be extended from 15 to 20 years. If that provision is enacted, it will be seen to have been a grave mistake. I urge my hon. Friend to think again about that aspect.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: At the risk of being clubbed to death by my colleagues who are banisters, I welcome the Bill and, in particular, the reduction in retirement age to 70, together with the discretion for judges to remain on the Bench until a cut-off point of 75. I also welcome the long overdue reforms of the pension measures applicable to the judiciary to bring them into line with other sectors in society and to eradicate some of the anomalies between different members of the Bench. That is a much-needed rationalisation, and it is welcome.
  It is interesting that people outside the House have also welcomed the Bill. In a recent newspaper article, Gareth Williams QC, the chairman of the Bar Council, said:
  "This is a welcome step by the Lord Chancellor, and one for which the Bar has campaigned very strongly this year. I am very glad the Lord Chancellor has accepted our argument."
  I am not alone in welcoming the measure.
  I want to make three points in my contribution to this very interesting and wide-ranging debate. First, I wholeheartedly support the need for members of the Bench to have an attractive financial package, including pension rights. Secondly, as I have already said, I welcome the retirement age of 70. Thirdly, I want to express concern that the reduction in the retirement age should not be allowed to aggravate the existing iculties of access to justice through the shortage of judges. I urge the Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider further urgent measures to speed up the judicial process by making more time available for members of the Bench, so that members of the legal profession can have access to them and members of the public are not prejudiced.
  I am disappointed that no member of the Liberal Democrat party has been present during this debate. I have no doubt that that will not prevent the Liberal Democrats from rushing off a press release tomorrow morning stating that they were largely responsible for the measure being introduced. It is worth pointing out to the
  470
  public that the measure of their concern and commitment to justice in the national is reflected in their absence from the Chamber tonight.
  It is absolutely critical that members of the Bench have an attractive remuneration package. It has already been said that, in a free society, it is in all our interests that we attract on to the Bench men and women of the highest calibre and with the finest legal minds to try the issues that come before them.
  We often take for granted in this country some of the things that are good about our society. We often take for granted the excellence of our judiciary and the fact that, while from time to time there is the occasional controversy about something that a member of the Bench may say, we rarely hear about corruption or impropriety from any member of the Bench. That is to be broadly welcomed. We would certainly miss that if it were otherwise.
  It is therefore important that a substantial financial package is available for judges. That would help to ensure that corruption and temptation do not arise and that the judges remain as fiercely independent and impartial as they are today. We can be proud of our justice system, which is envied elsewhere in the world. We should not attack it too fiercely, as some hon. Members have done this evening.
  If we are to attract the men and women of high quality on to the Bench, we must be able to compete with other sectors, notably with those who remain at the Bar—those who, like myself, indulge in the perhaps more demanding side of the legal professsion and practise as solicitors, and those who are engaged in industry. It is important to attract members from those sectors to the Bench.
  The pension scheme that the Government propose in the Bill is attractive. It has been criticised and analysed in this debate. After an accrual period of 20 years, which is common to many other sectors in society, a pension of 50 per cent. of final salary is available. That is not an ungenerous provision, but we can go further than that. In addition to the 50 per cent., there is an additional lump sum of two and a quarter times the annual rate of pension. That lump sum is not obtained by commuting part of the annual pension payment—it is in addition, and that is attractive.
  The pension is also index-linked, and is paid for the rest of the retiring judge's life. It is also non-contributory. That adds up to a very handsome package, and rightly so. As I have said, it is very important to attract the right sort of people on to the Bench. I therefore welcome the Government's proposals.
  I also welcome the fact that the 20-year accrual ruling removes an anomaly that has existed for many years between various members of the judiciary—between High Court judges and district judges, and between circuit judges and stipendiary magistrates. There was no justification for a difference in the accrual period, and I welcome the fact that the Bill addresses that issue.
  I also welcome the reduction of retirement age to 70. I want to quote from Aristotle who, as far as I know, was never a Member of Parliament, but a fine fellow none the less:
  "That judges of important causes should hold office for life is not a good thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body."
  I agree with those sentiments. We should understand that being a judge is a very demanding and onerous task. In saying that, I speak as someone who, while not a court lawyer, has been in court on several occasions sitting

  471
  behind various eminent barristers watching them do their stuff. I was extremely impressed with the way in which judges conduct themselves and carry out their business.
  Being a judge requires concentrating for hours on end. A judge must take copious notes on what is said in court. A judge must see through the arguments from various sides to get to the heart of the matter. The judge must weigh the issues, as has already been said, to make a judgment. Being a judge involves scrutinising witnesses and discerning whether what is said in court is true. It involves deciding the honesty of witnesses and seeing the wider implications of judgments. It is a demanding job, which requires great mental agility; we should not lose sight of that.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I am concerned about the provision for extending to 20 years, because at the moment, given the demanding nature of the job, many judges reach 65 and feel that that is the proper retirement age. Under the proposal, any judge who is appointed at 50 will have to soldier on until he is 70, perhaps against that judge's better judgment, but for purely financial reasons. Is not that a fault in the provision?
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend has made a very interesting and helpful point. However, I believe that it is important that we are beginning to recruit younger judges. The perception point that was raised this evening has some validity. It is not just a matter of the perception of society, it is also my perception that some of our judges stay on too long. However, we must also recruit judges at a younger age.
  I must point out that the pension is non-contributory. Although we must take account of the salaries of other members who carry on at the Bar or the salaries that are available in industry, if a judge is concerned about the final pension, that judge can make additional voluntary contributions. There are not many professions in the country in which a pension of 50 per cent. of one's end year salary is available on a non-contributory basis.
  Taking one thing with another, it is an attractive package and should not deter anyone from becoming a member of the Bench. It has been said that 70 is an arbitrary age, but any line drawn at any age is of necessity arbitrary, and there are always anomalies. There are always people who could go on for an extra year or two but are hit by a rule.
  Of course the Bill gives discretion to the Lord Chancellor up to the age of 75. It is right to reduce the age to 70, and that will be broadly welcome, but it is also right to allow the discretion to the Lord Chancellor to allow some judges to continue until they are 75. We have heard of the example of Lord Denning who went on late into his eighties and made many excellent judgments and made a great impact on the legal affairs of this country over many years.
  I had the experience of a long-running High Court case in which a judge was brought back from retirement to sit; he was there for a number of weeks. In my opinion, he did an excellent job, not just because he found for our side wholeheartedly and awarded us costs, but because he was on top of the arguments throughout the proceedings. That gives strength to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor to
  472
  bring people back, provided that they are not over 75, to take part in the judicial process when the pressure requires it.
  I have already said that it is important to deal with public perception—an issue which we avoid at our peril. The perception of judges going on too long, being out of touch and remote, is sometimes justified. It is not just an issue of age: increasingly, as the pace of modern society changes, it is necessary for most people who go through the judicial process to feel that the wise person on the judicial bench has some idea of what life is about.
  This modest step to bring down the age of retirement will be widely welcomed. It is important to recall the expression that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. That is about perception. There is difficulty in how some judges are perceived, and the Bill seeks to address that in an acceptable manner.
  We have to recognise that the new rules apply only to new members of the judiciary. I look to the Minister for confirmation of that. It does not include judges who are at present on the Bench.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Anyone who is promoted after this Bill comes into place will be bound by the new rules. Anybody first appointed after the Bill will be bound by the new rules. The only persons who will have the option to stick by their historic rights are those who are promoted within the envelope of the same pension scheme, such as from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, at present covered by the same scheme. That would be seen as promotion which did not cross the boundary, and the option would not have to be taken.
  Mr. Streeter: I am glad that that point was taken, and I now come to my final and most important point.
  I hope that the Government will not believe that they have done enough to address the difficulties facing the judicial system. There is a need to review access to justice. I welcome the courts charter introduced last week setting time limits and standards for access to justice. This is timely and right, and it is urgent that the Government should respond to that difficulty. One way do so is to recruit at an earlier age and from a wider background, and it is certainly important to recruit more women judges.
  A recent newspaper article said:
  "Legal history was made yesterday when Lord Mackay announced the appointment of Ann Marian Ebsworth as a high court judge. Judge Ebsworth, aged 54 will be the first high court woman judge not to be assigned to family law cases. She will sit in the Queen's bench division dealing with accident cases, libel and claims for money owing. Her appointment brings the number of women on the high court bench to three out of 84."
  I believe that that is intolerable in 1992. Why should a woman judge be automatically assigned to the family law division? It is a condescending attitude that we have to shake ourselves out of.
  I would therefore like to see a far broader spectrum of people becoming judges, and at an earlier age. If people are fit to run the country at 47 in the excellent way our Prime Minister does, surely one is fit to be a High Court judge. If one is ready to be a member of Her Majesty's Cabinet at the age of 40, surely one is ready to be a High Court judge. It is time we revised some of our traditional attitudes and caught up with modern thinking.
  We need to recruit from a wider background and to recruit more judges, because there is often a waiting list for people to come to trial and the only stumbling block or

  473
  sticking point—the only reason for a waiting list—is the absence of a judge to try the issue. Many lawyers often find when they get to court that there are innumerable delays and witnesses and lawyers can be standing idle, including expert witnesses called at great expense, all waiting for judges to become available. That is something that we have to address urgently.
  I welcome the Bill and I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced it. The sooner it becomes law the better.
  Several Hon. Members rose ——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are three hon. Gentlemen wishing to catch my eye. I understand that the winding-up speeches will start at about half past 9 so if they bear that in mind, it will be possible for me to call all three.
  8.56 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I shall indeed try to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a task made simpler by the great common sense shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) with whose words I agree in great measure.
  I do not have a professional interest in the debate, nor do I have a great knowledge of Stanley Matthews, which some hon. Members may be grateful to hear. As a medical man and a politician talking about the legal profession, I can at least claim to unite three of the four oldest professions. Any hon. Members who can unite all four are welcome to send me a postcard or leave it in the Members' Lobby.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton was right to point out that hon. Members have not emphasised—nor do the population in general appreciate—the excellent standard of our judges, and I take that matter seriously. We take their excellent qualities too much for granted. However, it is important to recognise that there is a great deal of public disquiet about our judiciary. The public perception, which is important and which the Government would be complacent to ignore, is that there is too great a gap between natural justice and the application of law. We must take into account public disquiet about the ages of our judges.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) mentioned crude tabloid journalism, which undoubtedly strikes a chord with the general public and echoes some public disquiet. The public are worried about inconsistencies in sentencing. Why should someone in Bath get a different sentence for the same crime, under many of the same circumstances, as someone in Bristol?
  The public worry about the failure to utilise sentences that have been made available by Parliament, and they worry about elderly judges. I have never been a lawyer, but I have been in court—as a medical witness, I hasten to add, before anyone rushes to the News of the World. I know that it can be difficult to communicate in a modern vocabulary with a judge who is a touch out of date, and that cannot be good for the public's perception of justice.
  There are too few young judges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said, if one can be a Cabinet Minister in one's thirties and a hospital consultant at 40, why can there not be more younger judges? Surely that would benefit our entire legal system and not least lawyers?
  Mr. Harold Elletson: Is my hon. Friend aware that 60 is the average age of High Court judges? The oldest High Court judge is 75, and the youngest is 47, which is the same age as the Prime Minister.
  Dr. Fox: Yes, but the Prime Minister was younger than that when he became leader of the party and Prime Minister. Even if the average age has decreased, it would be desirable for it to fall further. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has no objection to the fact that the average age of Members of Parliament has fallen far below what it was in the previous Parliament.
  There will always be difficulties with fixed retirement ages. It is interesting to note that the age of retirement was first fixed, 33 years ago, at 75 for the senior judiciary and 72 for the circuit benches. Given average life expectancy then, that would equal a retirement age of more than 80 for the senior judciary now. There has been a change in the way society views justice.
  I congratulate the Government on the fact that the Bill provides a balance between judges' experience and what one might charitably call their potential cerebral vitality. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said that the provision was arbitrary and ageist, but he was unable to tell us how to define judges who are—to paraphrase him—of sound mind. He said that the law, unlike science or medicine, was only a matter of accumulated knowledge. If medicine and science are not matters of accumulated knowledge, then I do not know what they are. It worries me that my hon. Friend does not think that it is necessary for judges to have that quality.
  There must be some flexibility. I welcome the provisions in the Bill, but I caution against too much flexibility in allowing judges to return to work under exceptional circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton also mentioned that, and I wonder whether the Minister could give us some guidelines later on how many members of the judiciary might be invited to return and what percentage he would expect to do so. If too many return, it makes the provision pointless.
  I take issue with some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). He quite rightly mentioned the demands of the administration of justice, and the use of part-time and deputy judges. He also mentioned establishing a fixed retirement age of 65. I am sorry that we got on to the subject of costing that proposal, but—more importantly—he did not tell us how that would reduce the number of available judges, as we already have long waiting lists. Will the Opposition tell us how many judges would be affected if the age were fixed at 65, and who would fill those places if not the very part-time judges that he does not wish to see in courts?
  By the same token, I ask the Minister what effect the proposals in the Bill will have—although I regard them as reasonable—on the work load of the courts, and what shortfall the Government envisage during the next two or three years as a result of the present problems.
  I shall make only a couple of comments on pensions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton that the package is not ungenerous, and may be looked on by other professions as rather generous. It seems strange that those who administer the law should find themselves in such confusion over their pension schemes.
  I regard some aspects of the present system with scepticism, such as the inequality in treatment on pensions.

  475
  A registrar can take 20 years to reach maximum pension, as can a Scottish sheriff, but a circuit judge—his English equivalent—takes only 15 years. I am very sorry not only that there are almost no Opposition Members here, but that the very vocal Scottish lobby that we often see championing the Scottish legal system seems notable again by its absence tonight.
  There is also the question of the rigidity of the current treatment. If a judge retires on his birthday, he stands to lose a full year's pension, as it depends on fully completed years. That is too rigid a system, and it needs to be addressed.
  Then there is the problem of elevation. The Bill is to be commended for simplifying the current rules, which may be a disincentive to promotion. At present, acceptance of higher office can mean that a judicial officer may not be able to retire with immediate pension at the same age as in a lower scheme.
  All these are areas of legitimate concern. I believe that in this measure the Government are addressing the public concern and the need to reassure the public about justice. They are taking on board the fact that there are changes in society and that we do not need more women judges or more black judges, necessarily; we need more good judges. That, ultimately, is the guarantee of quality in our legal system.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am extremely sorry not to have been here at the beginning of this debate to hear what I suspect were some very erudite and learned comments from both sides of the House. I was otherwise occupied on a Standing Committee.
  To be one of Her Majesty's judges is to hold one of the highest offices of this land. It is an office that carries with it the highest esteem, integrity and probity. Indeed, high judicial office is a coveted appointment even among learned counsel, who frequently take a substantial reduction in earnings to be appointed to such high office. In an increasingly money-conscious world, such financial sacrifices are indeed a salutary pointer to the high esteem in which judicial office is still held in this country.
  It is therefore a bounden duty, an imperative of the public interest, that those holding high judicial office should be treated fairly and equitably and have the same opportunity as those who are employed or occupied elsewhere.
  This Bill is intended to rectify a number of anomalies in the current arrangement on judicial pensions, but it is my contention that it does not go far enough. I know that a number of my hon. Friends have mentioned this, so I will not go into it in great detail.
  Our judges come from the finest ranks of the legal profession. If we are to attract the best, their pension arrangements must also be of the best that we as a nation can afford. It is an incontestable fact that those now appointed to judicial office from the ranks of counsel or learned counsel are expected to earn as judges far less than they would otherwise have earned as counsel or learned counsel. Having made one financial sacrifice by being appointed to judicial office, they are then expected to make a second in their pension arrangements under existing provisions.
  476
  This has come about because judges are appointed in mid-life, in their 40s or early 50s; thus, their pensionable period is no more than 20 years at best. While others in different professions can look forward to pensionable careers of 40 to 45 years, in the case of the judiciary the pensionable career is reduced by one half in most cases. Since pensions are calculated on the number of years in service, judges incur a double penalty, first in the reduction of their income on appointment——
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I know that he is keeping to the tightness of the time schedule, but I want him to know that, alongside the 20 years of the judicial pension, it is entirely possible for successful practitioners at the Bar to have accumulated private pension rights beforehand in that phase of their careers, which are in no sense subsumed into the judicial pension. So they end up with two pensions.
  Mr. Deva: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  The second penalty is in the pension that they receive at the end of their careers. I welcome the steps taken in the Bill to correct a number of anomalies which have been with us for a number of years. In particular, I welcome the intention of the Bill to create a single pension scheme for all members of the judiciary throughout the United Kingdom. That will end the proliferation of schemes for different judges, some based on 15 years' accrual of service and other on 20 or more years' service. Instead, all pensions will be calculated on a 20-year accrual rate.
  I listened with interest to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I have also noted with some concern the Bar Council's objection to the 20-year accrual period, based on the contention that such a period would reduce the prospect of gradually reducing judicial retiring ages into the 63 to 68 band, which is what the Bar Council wants. If we say that all judicial officers must serve 20 years before being entitled to a full pension, we shall be building in problems for the future. The Bar Council would prefer a 15-year accrual period, and I have some sympathy with that point of view.
  The general thrust of the Bill is to be welcomed. Its key points are that it brings the current haphazard system into line through the introduction of a single pension scheme; by ensuring that judicial pensions comply with financial legislation, it enables pensions to attract tax relief, in common with other pension schemes; and it will enable the standardisation of retirement age, currently 75 years for most judges, to 70 years. We have heard much in the debate about whether that will be a good move.
  I welcome amendments made in another place designed to make more generous provision for judges who retire early through ill health, with provision for tax-free additional voluntary contributions. They also provide for benefits to be payable to close relatives in the event of death shortly after retirement. Those benefits will be improved from 1·5 times pensionable pay to five times the annual rate of pension at the time of death.
  The Bill will help to attract some of the best legal minds to the judiciary from the ranks of the legal profession. It will make the judiciary more in tune with contemporary life by attracting younger people. It will also go a long way to redressing the balance in the nation in favour of the judiciary.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I must at the outset declare an interest as yet another lawyer, albeit only a humble solicitor with no aspirations or expectations towards judicial appointment.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made a strong case for more generous pension arrangements for the judiciary, with a full pension available after 15 instead of 20 years. I appreciate the Treasury difficulty in achieving that, given the existing tax relief rules.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) went to the other extreme and argued that judges should provide their own pensions through private pension schemes. I believe that that has much to commend it. The difficulty is that most judges are expected to accept a substantial reduction in income on their appointment to the Bench, and it would be a grave deterrent to potential appointees on realising that they would not only suffer a large decrease in salary but also be deprived of a non-contributory pension.
  I welcome the amendment in another place which ensures that, if a judge is forced to retire early through ill health, the lump sum and pension to which he would be entitled will be calculated on the basis of the length of time actually served, plus half the time remaining before the recipient reaches the age of 65.
  Hon. Members have spoken of the age limit—upper and, effectively, lower. In respect of the upper limit, I recall during my law student days the tremendous admiration I had for Lord Denning. I am reluctant to support any rigid age limit, although I accept that, if there is no limit, there is a danger that judges may fall below their original level of mental prowess. They may not be so fuddy-duddy as to fail a medical examination, but their continued presence on the Bench might become an embarrassment and a disadvantage to the judicial system.
  Therefore, I reluctantly accept that it is necessary to have an age limit, notwithstanding the fact that that may sometimes work harshly and deprive us—as it certainly would have done in the case of Lord Denning—of an outstanding judge. The reduction in the age limit to 70 is appropriate, especially given the discretion provided in the Bill for the Lord Chancellor to extend that age limit to 75 in appropriate cases to fulfil the needs of the judiciary.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that he wanted to see more young people, women, ethnic minorities and solicitors appointed to the Bench. I echo that view, but I do not agree that it is appropriate to widen the scope of the Bill to achieve those objectives. I prefer to rely on the Lord Chancellor's Office to bear in mind the comments that have been made this evening. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will relay our comments to the Lord Chancellor. It is important to have younger people, more women and people from ethnic minorities on the Bench to reflect more accurately the community at large.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth rightly, in his typically rich, robust and even rampant manner, exploded the idea of the hon. Member for Brent, South that appointments should be made to the Bench for six or eight years. To make such short-term appointments would wreck the career development of a successful member of the Bar. Anybody who moved from the Bar to the Bench for a period of six or eight years would fully realise that his
  478
  earning capacity on his ultimate return to the Bar would be severely impaired, certainly temporarily, until he proved his worth in his previous milieu.
  I support the Bill, which has a great deal to commend it.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, it falls to me to wind up what has been an interesting debate for Labour Members.
  In the latter stages, the debate was marked by dissension among Conservative Members which surpassed anything seen since yesterday. We are becoming increasingly accustomed to such dissension. Conservative Members could not seem to make up their minds whether they thought that the Bill was good. Powerful vested interests, which were extremely hostile to the Bill, were represented in no less a person than the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
  Others who wholeheartedly embrace the Bill took strong exception to the bileful speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place for the wind-up speeches. He made it sound as though it was vaguely improper to listen to what the general public—the electorate—have to say in a crucial public debate on what the role of the judiciary should be in the 1990s.
  In a useful contribution, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) took strong exception to what the hon. Member for Teignbridge said. He was not alone among Conservative Members in feeling that it was important for deliberations in the House to be guided by the public perception of the judiciary.
  It has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. The House will expect me to respond to a number of issues raised, and I want to do so. Important speeches were made by a number of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) stressed the importance of our being prepared to take a look at the root and branch reform of the pension scheme for the judiciary. He suggested that it was important that there should be provision, albeit at a future date, for a fully contributory scheme. That must be right, and he made a strong case for it.
  Interestingly, that proposal was touched on by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who called for the wholesale privatisation of the judicial pension scheme. It is important that we should consider that proposal, not simply dismiss it out of hand. No less a person than a former Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Frederick Lawton, said in The Times in July 1992:
  "Money is not the lure of the bench."
  He was right to say that.
  It is important to recognise that it is public service that calls people to the judiciary, particularly its higher reaches. To their credit, people make considerable sacrifices in their earnings in order to serve on the Bench. That is the answer to the argument of the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who denounced the Conservative proposal—albeit of 92 years ago—to introduce fixed-term appointments for the High Court. He rightly said that I floated that; it is entirely proper and healthy to have a public debate on the issues.
  The strength of the proposal is that there may well be senior barristers or solicitors, whether men or women, who

  479
  are satisfied with their careers and unwilling to opt out of them completely, but who have a sufficient sense of public duty to say that they will, for a limited period, forswear the additional earnings that they would otherwise receive in order to make a public service contribution.
  In the various branches of the profession—solicitors, barristers and, I hope, if we win the day and extend access to higher judicial office to those in academic life and in commercial employment in industry—there is a tradition of public service. When we bear in mind the current crisis in the staffing of the higher judiciary, we should consider once again the option of fixed-term appointments.
  Sir Frederick Lawton, or Lord Justice Lawton, as he was, makes the point that not only is money not the lure of the Bench but, importantly, he says:
  "The Government cannot afford, however, to assume that barristers, and in the future solicitors, too, will continue to find the supreme court bench an attraction. The prospect of a pension on retirement is no longer as attractive as it was. Ever since the Finance Act 1956 allowed insurance premiums on pension policies to be set off against income tax, any barrister who has taken full advantage of that Act can now retire with a better pension than a judge receives. It will not, however, be index-linked as a judge's is."
  That is precisely the point. Bearing in mind what Sir Frederick has said, there is no reason why we should not consider actively the introduction at a later date of a wholly contributory pension scheme, provided that, at the same time, the remuneration of the judiciary is made sufficient to fund the contributions. By failing to provide the context in which that could be introduced later, the Bill may be seriously flawed. In Committee we will seek by amendment to make that a possibility.
  The judicial retirement age was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and other hon. Members. Again, the hon. Members for Monmouth and for Teignbridge were reactionary to the last. The hon. Member for Monmouth gives flesh to the concept of reaction; he is reaction incarnate, and it is not a pretty sight. I am sorry that he is not present to hear me say that, but he may read it tomorrow, if he has a mind to.
  Of course, the hon. Member for Monmouth dismissed any notion that we should take into account the age of judges or anyone else. He extended it even to the civil service. Someone ought to point out to him that civil servants at permanent secretary level are only too happy to retire at the age of 60. Within months, they proceed to much more lucrative fields. That may not be the case in the Lord Chancellor's Department where they have a much harder lot but certainly elsewhere I doubt whether there will be any sympathy for the views of the hon. Member for Monmouth.
  Some civil servants are only too happy to retire at 60 for the lucrative chewing fields of the city of London. In a way, the Lord Chancellor spared some thought for them and dismissed out of hand any notion——
  Mr. Heald: Is not one reason why civil servants are so happy to retire at 60 the fact that they have a full pension which is index-linked? If judges were in the same position, they might be just as happy to go at 60, too.
  Mr. Boateng: That is an interesting point and no doubt it will be heard in the Treasury, although I doubt very much whether it will act on it.
  480
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge accused us of ageism for suggesting that judges ought to retire at 65. To be accused of any "ism" by the hon. Member is a bit rich. I can think of a number of "isms" that he has embraced in his time, not all of them particularly attractive. In any event, ageism is what he flung at us. I am happy to say that there were many other, saner voices, even on the Government side, who recognised that it was perfectly reasonable for the Lord Chancellor to propose a retirement age of 70 and who went even further in agreeing with us and with the chairman of the Bar Council, who was quoted with approval by a number of Conservative Members in relation to another matter, that the retirement age should be reduced to 65.
  Dr. Liam Fox: What perplexes me a little, when we are in a time of increased life expectancy and rather better expectations for robust physical and mental health, is why Opposition Members insist on reducing the retiring age to as low as 65.
  Mr. Boateng: I will tell the hon. Member why by reference to the words of an eminent and distinguished American jurist whom he and, no doubt, other hon. Members will know, Oliver Wendell Holmes. He was the beneficiary of a constitution which protected his right to sit in the United States Supreme Court for as long as he wanted, and he sat there until he was 90, so he had some insight into the problems of an elderly jurist. He said:
  "elderly judges are more likely to hate at sight any analysis to which they are not accustomed, and which disturbs repose of mind, than to fall in love with novelties."
  That is a wonderful expression of what I believe to be a profound truth; it is a recognition by a great jurist of the desirability of having a retirement age which would avoid having a judiciary composed predominantly of senior citizens who, by definition, cannot so easily understand contemporary concerns or apply contemporary values.
  That, as the hon. Member for Woodspring ought to recognise, is the overwhelming case for a lower retirement age. It is the case to which we accede, the case which we put and the case which we intend to pursue. Judges should retire at the age of 65.
  There has also been an interesting sharing of views—and, again, there was a certain amount of cross-party support for this notion, although there was also some disagreement—about whether there should be such a thing as a judicial career, whether it should be possible to enter the judicial arena at a lower rung of the ladder and work one's way up. It is rather unfortunate that somebody who does that under the provisions of the Bill will, as the Minister says, lose the privileged position that he or she would otherwise have in being exempt from its provision as someone already sitting in the judiciary, because, again, that militates against promotion rather than encouraging it, and recognising it as being not exceptional, as one hon. Member suggested, but an ordinary part of the process of ensuring that we get the right people for the job.

  We support the notion of some form of judicial career. Although we believe that it is perfectly right and reasonable, we do not embrace the continental model. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend, who is a former distinguished law lecturer, made well the point that, with appropriate judicial training, not least on the issue of sentences, it is perfectly proper and eminently desirable that people should move up the ladder. The pension arrangements must assist and facilitate that process.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people with ability should be able to rise up, irrespective of their age, why is he so keen to deny people between the ages of 60 and 70, who may have something to offer this country, the chance of doing so?
  Mr. Boateng: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here for this part of the debate, although he could not join us earlier, but I do not consider it necessary to repeat the overwhelming case—so ably put by my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North and for Wallsend, as well as several Conservative Members—for the retirement of judges at the age of 65. It is precisely to maintain that flexibility of mind and sense of being in touch with contemporary life, which tends to become less apparent as one grows older.
  The important point that my hon. Friends have made time and again in this debate, and which has again been echoed by several Conservative Members, is that it is vital that we draw on a pool of expertise and talent that runs wide and deep.
  No one is talking about diluting standards when we say that it is important that women and ethnic minorities should be facilitated in joining the ranks of the judiciary, particularly the higher judiciary. It is a matter of concern to those of us who know and love the law and practise in the courts that only three women are High Court judges. We remain totally unconvinced that there are only three women of sufficient ability to occupy that role. Although the steps that the current Lord Chancellor has taken to deal with that issue are welcome—he has done a great deal in that area—they do not give us the luxury of being able to afford any complacency in relation to the nature and breadth from which the higher judiciary are called.
  That is why, throughout this debate, we have made the plea for, and will continue to push for, a judicial appointments commission that would have the brief to ensure that quality, breadth and variety of legal experience and background are represented in the judiciary. I accept that it would sweep away some of the mystique, secrecy and lack of transparency that currently surround judicial appointments made by the Lord Chancellor, but that is one of the things that endear the proposal to us. We shall push it and the other matters that my hon. Friends have addressed this evening to the fullest extent as we give the measure a fair wind in Committee.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor rose——
  Madam Speaker: I take it that the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for his contributions and, through him, his hon. Friends for theirs. I also particularly thank my hon. Friends for keeping me entertained and on my toes.
  The debate has been wide-ranging, so wide-ranging that many matters might, on a strict and mean interpretation, have been thought to be rather outwith the ambit of the Bill, but I make no complaints about that. I am grateful for the thoughtful comments that have been made by many hon. Members.
  I welcome the endorsement of the principle of judicial independence as an essential constitutional safeguard by
  482
  the hon. Member for Brent, South and his endorsement of the quality and integrity of our judiciary which I believe to be shared by all hon. Members.
  The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint to judicial office those best qualified regardless of sex, ethnic origin, political affiliation or religion. Without prejudice to that general principle, the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly stressed that he welcomes application from suitably qualified women and members of the ethnic minorities.
  A major factor has been a relative lack of such candidates in the relevant age groups. For example, some well qualified women have said that they do not wish to be considered for judicial appointment. The composition of the Bench at any one time must reflect the composition of the legal profession within the group of the relevant age and seniority.
  That position will change appreciably as the composition of the professions in those groups changes to reflect the larger number of women and ethnic minority practitioners now represented in the younger age groups at the Bar and among solicitors.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, South will accept in good faith that I do not wish to split hairs with him. I have a marginal correction and no more. The hon. Gentleman's figures for women in the judiciary are a week or two out of date. Four women high court judges are currently in office, not three as the hon. Gentleman said. Two of those, Mrs. Justice Smith and Mrs. Justice Ebsworth, to whom reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), are assigned to the Queen's Bench Division.
  Our figures show that there is no difference between men and women in the length of time between call or admission and appointment as assistant recorders.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) claimed that judges were out of touch. In making appointments, the Lord Chancellor must appoint those with the necessary ability and experience. It is not the function of the professional judiciary to be somehow representative of the community they serve, and it is inevitable that appointments will reflect the profession from which they are drawn.
  The Lord Chancellor has taken steps to broaden the field of selection through the changes in the formal qualifications for appointment made by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and by other means such as encouraging solicitors to apply. A solicitor judge is now eligible for appointment to the High Court and there are many solicitors on the circuit Bench and serving as recorders and assistant recorders.
  In making or recommending appointments to the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor looks for evidence that a candidate has, apart from anything else, the necessary human qualities of understanding and tolerance. The proposal for a judicial appointments commission is nothing new, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has gone on record as opposing one. Judicial appointments are very much the Lord Chancellor's own responsibility, and he makes all appointments personally. If they are to continue to be made on merit alone, it is difficult to imagine how a commission could reach different decisions—but such a body could undermine the Lord Chancellor's personal and direct accountability to Parliament, increase bureaucracy and delay, and risk introducing external pressures for lobbying into the appointments process.

  483
  It is the striking that, despite the claims of those who want to change the system, the appointments made under the present arrangements are generally recognised as being of very high quality. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Brent, South argue for a career judiciary. It is a fundamental tenet of the Lord Chancellor's policy for judicial appointments that candidates should serve first part-time, as assistant recorders and recorders or in other categories, before being appointed to full-time posts. There is also the opportunity for the advancement of circuit judges to the High Court Bench, and a number of such appointments have been made recently.
  The new pension scheme will facilitate those avenues of promotion by doing away with the severe pension penalties that such judges currently experience. There are of course statutory requirements for appointees, and that necessarily has a bearing on the age at which judges can be appointed for the first time.
  As to the Bill's choice of 70 as the retiring age for all members of the judiciary, in the course of this debate the full range of possible retirement dates has been suggested. The hon. Member for Brent, South chose 65, and some of my hon. Friends thought that any restriction would be likely to rob the Bench of vital talent. As I said in my opening remarks, that question is one of balancing conflicting considerations. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, there is no one age at which every single judge suddenly loses touch overnight.
  It is reasonable, however, to take account of the fact that, in general, we all diminish in our effectiveness as we grow older and the burdens of office appear heavier. It is ultimately a question of judgment, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I believe that 70 is a reasonable age at which judges should retire. In the Dimbleby lecture to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred, the Lord Chief Justice strongly endorsed that proposal.
  As to the power of extension, the Bill provides that service may continue after the age of 70 for periods of no more than one year at a time up to, but not beyond, the age of 75. That power may be exercised only in the public interest and is applicable only to judicial officers below the rank of High Court judge and the equivalent in Scotland—and it is expected to be used sparingly.
  Provision for the extension of service beyond the maximum retirement age otherwise applicable in relation to circuit judges, district judges and others has been enshrined in statute for many years, and has not attracted criticism as being in any way untoward or inappropriate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked about the likely use of that power of extension. As I said in my opening speech, it is expected that it will be used sparingly and applied only where it is clearly in the public interest, taking accout of all relevant considerations. It is not feasible to make a more precise estimate of the number of future occasions on which that power may be applied.
  On the question whether there are too many sittings by part-time judges, it is important to draw a distinction between deputy High Court judges who are part-timers and circuit judges who sit as judges of the High Court by virtue of section 9(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The latter are not part-timers. Indeed, the Beeching
  484
  commission recognised the benefits of the flexible use of circuit judges to assist in the disposal of High Court business.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) commented on the pensions provisions of the Bill, to which I now turn. He said that they disadvantaged women and that a longer accrual span will mean that they will be unable to earn maximum pension benefits due to family commitments. I direct his attention to clause 10, which provides for the purchase of added years and the making of additional voluntary contributions. This will benefit not only women in the circumstances that he described but any officer who would otherwise be unable to complete the full 20 years service required to obtain maximum benefits.
  I cannot let the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) about the Lord Chancellor's pension go unanswered. In response to his intervention, I pointed out that the office of Lord Chancellor is unique. With the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, he has statutory arrangements governing his pension peculiar to himself. His pension is governed by the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act 1832. A day's service in the Lord Chancellor's office entitles him to a full pension under that Act. If he were to seek to make use of his service in other capacities as a judge to enhance that pension, he would be subject to the same rules that apply to the judiciary in general.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asked why the word "or" is missing from clause 7(1)(a) when it was included in the Judicial Pensions Act 1981. The answer is that the word "or" in clause 7(1)(b) covers paragraph (a). It is merely a matter of drafting style. The fact that the draftsmen included it in section 21(1) of the 1981 act but chose not to do so in the Bill has no bearing on the substance of the clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge asked whether widowers' pensions, introduced by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, were covered by the Bill. The answer is yes. We have, however, recognised in the Bill that female judges are entitled to be granted a pension in respect of their husbands. The Bill adopts the neutral term, "surviving spouse". I refer my hon. Friend to clause 5.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who is in his place, suggested that the tax privilege of retained benefits for judges, which the Lord Chancellor has succeeded in preserving in the Bill, is of little value because few manage to make pension provision for themselves and their families in the years before their appointment. That may be true in some cases. However, many of those appointed to the most senior judicial offices have made considerable private pension provision. Those at the more junior levels are also often able to make such arrangements.
  For example, the district judges, who no one would claim to be drawn from the highest earning levels of private practice, said in their response to the consultation paper:
  "we accept that continuing to leave retained benefits out of account confers an advantage on those joining a judicial pension scheme which may be of significant value to those who have actually made personal pension contributions before appointment to judicial office. We consider that any alteration in the current treatment of retained benefits could have a seriously adverse effect upon recruitment. We therefore welcome the proposal not to alter the existing position."
  Mr. Lawrence: District judges, almost by definition, do not come from the high-earning Bar. High-earning barristers become High Court or senior judges. We need to appoint more High Court judges rather than district judges.
  Mr. Taylor: I thought that my hon. and learned Friend was making a point about pensions. I am saying that a lower earning category have expressed themselves grateful for the protected position of the pensions that they build up privately before accepting public appointment.
  I have already mentioned the facility of added years and additional voluntary contributions, which will help those who, for whatever reason, have been unable to make private provision.
  It has been suggested by various hon. Members that the Bill is solely motivated by the Treasury's desire to save money. That is not correct. The Bill seeks to bring the judicial pension arrangements into line with modern tax law, which already applies to the rest of us. It is not expected that the introduction of the new pension scheme will greatly affect public expenditure on judicial pensions.
  I shall say a last word on the extension on the accrual span from 15 to 20 years. The matter has been: raised several times, but I spoke about it at some length 'in my opening speech and, with respect to the House, I need not go through the same arguments again. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, who rightly pointed to the significant benefits that judges will derive from the new pension scheme. I agree wholeheartedly with his suggestion that the package will attract candidates for judicial office rather than discourage them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth asked about the age of immigration appeal adjudicators. He will not have failed to note my written answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) of 12 November which at column 862 of Hansard, gives precise details of the age of serving officers, among other things. My hon. Friend will find that that answer reveals that his assertions are misplaced, although I am sure that they were made in good faith.
  Mr. Roger Evans: What is the minimum period of professional qualification for a barrister or a solicitor to be appointed an immigration appeals adjudicator?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend will have to accept from me in good faith that I am not seized of that information in the middle of my closing speech, but I will find it out and convey it to him within 24 hours.
  Mr. Evans: I suggested to my hon. Friend that the period was three years.
  Mr. Taylor: I have said that I do not know the answer, and I am not ready simply to swallow a suggestion, either. Before I put my hon. Friend wise I shall find out for myself.
  It is often forgotten that the various tribunal and other judicial appointments are equally part of our judiciary. The Bill aims to cover the range of appointments of a judicial nature. It therefore extends both pension and retirement arrangements to officers such as the masters of the Queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions of the High Court, taxing masters and registrars in bankruptcy. Those judicial officers, along with others, make a vital contribution to the work of the High Court by relieving pressure on judge time. Likewise, the work of district
  486
  judges in the county courts is essential to the disposal of cases in those courts. Stipendiary magistrates ensure that the volume of work in the magistrates courts is processed speedily.
  There are far too many tribunals for me to mention them all individually and to give them the credit which they deserve. Much of the adjudications process for social security benefits generally falls not to judges but to tribunals. Social security tribunal appeals chairmen fulfil the important role of presiding over the appeals of those who are dissatisfied with the decisions on their claims for social security benefits. Similar tribunals operate in relation to medical and disability appeals. There is a further appeal in limited circumstances to a social security commissioner who is also appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Those tribunals, which come under the umbrella of the independent tribunals service, are shortly to receive the addition to their number of the new child support appeal tribunals.
  I have ranged as widely as I reasonably can over the matters mentioned this evening. I am sorry that I have not been able to mention by name and individually all the excellent contributors—not only Conservative Members, but Opposition Members. Rather surprisingly, the debate has turned, in an interesting and unpredictable week, into a rather valuable Thursday debate. I add my personal thanks for the quality of the contributions. We can look forward to a very interesting, if not long, Committee.
  I quote the leading article in The Independent. It says:
  "There is little doubt that in Lord Mackay and Lord Taylor, the legal system has its best leadership for at least a generation."
  So be it, Madam Speaker.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly red a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords]

    JUDICIAL PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT BILL [Lords] I Money]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the charging on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of such pensions and other benefits (including additional benefits attributable to the payment of voluntary contributions under or by virtue of the Act) as may be specified in that behalf under or by virtue of the Act;

    (b) the payment of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of any transfer under or by virtue of the Act of a person's rights in respect of pensions or other benefits charged on, and payable out of, that Fund, whether under or by virtue of the Act or any other enactment;

    (c) the charging on, or payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums charged on, or payable out of, that Fund under or by virtue of any other enactment;

    (d) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (i) such pensions and other benefits provided under or by virtue of the Act (including additional benefits attributable to the payment of voluntary contributions under or by virtue of the Act) as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund:

    (ii) any sums required for the purposes of any transfer under or by virtue of the Act of a

    487
    person's rights in respect of pensions or other benefits payable under or by virtue of the Act or any other enactment, to the extent that those sums do not fall to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund;

    (iii) any sums required in connection with the operation or administration of any scheme for the provision of such additional benefits as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or subparagraph (i) above;

    (iv) any administrative expenses incurred under the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department; and

    (v) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and

    (e) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wood.]

PETITION

  Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation
  9.59 pm
  Mr. David Martin: I present a petition on behalf of Portsmouth city council concerning the fleet maintenance and repair organisation in Portsmouth dockyard. It is a significant local employer, which is vital to the economic well-being of many of my constituents. The petition reads:
  Wherefore your humble Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge Her Majesty's Government to sustain the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation at an operationally cost-effective level and review the need for job losses, phase any unavoidable job losses, support the bid for the area to become an Assisted Area and recognise the need for a programme of economic adjustment to support the changeover from defence to other industries in a planned way, co-ordinate counselling and redeployment measures and assist in the rapid release of unused Ministry of Defence land to make this available for redevelopment.
  And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Rolls-Royce, Leavesden
  10 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I present a petition on behalf of the workers of Rolls-Royce at Leavesden. In essence, it asks the House whether it considers that those workers, who are responsible and technically skilled, and who have provided support for the Ministry of Defence in servicing helicopter engines year after year, should be allowed to quote for that business. It asks the House not to allow the work to be handed to a French company on a plate without competition. It is the subject of an Adjournment debate which I shall have the privilege to present tomorrow afternoon. The petition reads:
  Wherefore the Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Defence, Trade and Industry in the light of forthcoming committed industrial participation to retain the job skills and workforce to support the Aerospace industry within the United Kingdom.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Urban Programme Funding
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I wish the House to consider the urban programme and its termination by the Government for reasons that are so far unexplained to the House. The urban programme began in its present form with the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. That was preceded by a White Paper which is the only in-depth review of the needs of inner urban areas for the past 20 years.
  Under this Government in the 1980s, there was a shift in emphasis from social and revenue-based programmes to economic and capital schemes. There was stricter monitoring of the schemes and programmes introduced in the 1980s. Detailed guidelines were introduced in 1985, and further management controls were introduced in 1990.
  I take Sheffield, my city, as an example of what has been achieved under the urban programme, although I know that my remarks will be applicable to many other urban programme authorities. Sheffield happens to be the largest recipient this year, with £5·894 million under the urban programme. The programme is an important source of Government funding, especially in view of the reductions that local authorities have suffered.
  The Government, when reviewing urban programme spending in Sheffield, found high-quality schemes which were precisely targeted, well developed formal assessment and appraisal arrangements, clearly defined and precisely stated objectives and an outturn performance that was delivered significantly well against allocations. That is not the normal picture of Sheffield city council which the Government like to paint.
  In particular, I want to deal with the schemes that address and assist the problems of the unemployed and which come within the economic category of the programme. There has been a switch of emphasis during the 1980s, and I want to deal with the issue on the Government's terms. However, the social, housing and environmental aspects of the scheme are also important. The purpose of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 and the White Paper that preceded it was to highlight the issue of multiple deprivation in our inner cities and to produce new initiatives to tackle that problem.
  The problems of unemployment have worsened since the urban programme began. While the programme has done much to assist the fight against unemployment, because of the wider economic difficulties we can see the horror of unemployment becoming worse in our urban areas.
  The essential question must be: if the programme was designed to remove deprivation in inner cities; if unemployment is a key part of that deprivation—no one would challenge that—if, despite some successes, because of the wider issues, the problem of unemployment has grown worse, why should the urban programme be abandoned at this stage? If anything, the case is more obvious for an expansion of the urban programme to deal with those growing problems.
  In the 1970s in Sheffield, unemployment varied between 10,000 and 15,000. By 1986, it had risen to more than
  490
  45,000. It had increased threefold. There was a slight recovery in 1990, but in the past two years it has risen by 44 per cent.
  In Darnall in my constituency, one third of the people are out of work. Job losses have been greatest among the less skilled, the ethnic minorities and manual workers. They are the very groups that comprise large parts of the population in inner urban areas. In Sheffield in 1992, it is interesting to note that the unemployment levels in the most prosperous parts of the city have almost returned to the levels of the 1970s.
  However, unemployment in the inner city is three times as high as it was in the 1970s. In other words, relative deprivation has grown. There must therefore be a need for more targeted resources. The logical view is that we need more schemes like the urban programme, not fewer.
  No doubt the Government will respond by saying that other schemes have been introduced. Sheffield has no city challenge, despite an obvious need and despite, in our view,'the quality of the bid. The Minister will probably say that the rejection letters become more pleasant each year, but that still does not give us the money.
  We have an urban development corporation; we did not necessarily want it in the form given, but we accepted it. We asked for certain assurances, one of which was that there would not be a reduction in the urban programme to reflect the increased money through the urban development corporation. That assurance was given by the then Minister of State. To take a wider view of the problems of inner-city Sheffield, the people who live in the area have a life expectancy six to eight years less than those who live in the outer parts of the city.
  I want now to consider some of the schemes that we have undertaken. Some £2 million from the urban development programme in addition to funding from the European regional development fund was devoted to a technology park. Some £4 million was spent on improving the appalling environment after the collapse of the steel industry in the lower Don valley to make it attractive for inward investment.
  In addition, £1·5 million was devoted to the cultural industries quarter, which helped to create 300 to 400 jobs. There is on-going funding in relation to the black economic development fund and improvement grants to firms in improvement areas. There are business support schemes and a wide variety of schemes concentrating on the economy, regeneration, training and development. Partnership between the private and voluntary sectors is very much a feature of Sheffield life.
  In Tinsley, schemes involving housing action money and transport supplementary grants have been used with urban programme funding to improve the environment of an area which had been neglected. That area has been improved and assisted by urban programme funding.
  I will not quote from the city council or its officers to prove the scheme's success. However, particular credit should be paid to Phil Nuttall, the urban programme co-ordinator in Sheffield. Much of the success is due to him. Instead, I will quote from the audit review:
  "The Council's allocation for 1990–91 was £6 million. About 55 per cent. of the programme is for economic development. Officers from the DoE's regional office in Leeds were very positive about the Council's approach. Their opinions were that the Council's programmes are of excellent quality, are submitted promptly and are monitored well by the Council. Also, the Council has more projects planned than

  491
  resources are available from the DoE. Hence, more resources can be taken easily by the Council at short notice, which DoE officers thought to be very good practice."
  Looking forward to next year, officers and councillors were planning as usual. In February 1992 came 44 pages of DoE guidance for the 1993–94 programme. In June 1992, a letter came inviting bids, with seven further pages of guidance. There were 51 pages of guidance in all for a programme which was to become non-existent.
  Following this, the council produced an action statement for 1993–94, which was submitted to the Department of Environment in August and approved formally by that Department in September. The only information that the council had was that funding was likely to be 7 per cent. lower because of top-slicing of city challenge.
  The implication was clear that the schemes would continue next year, including new schemes which had been submitted. In October, the submission was made with the scheduling of projects with regional officers of the DoE.
  More important than all the work of the councillors and the council officers is the fact that the people of Sheffield in the urban areas have been actively involved in consultation about the projects and have had their hopes and expectations raised.
  Then came the autumn statement, with the Government's emphasis on unemployment. Apparently it was no longer to be the price worth paying to ensure lower inflation. Capital investment was top of the agenda for spending. Some of us might have questioned whether that was just talk, or whether the Government were about positive action.
  Some of us even welcomed some of the initiatives on private investment alongside public investment but also recognised that, in inner urban areas, it is much more difficult, because of their nature, to attract private sector funding unless public sector pump priming is there as well, but to us the urban programme criteria seemed to fit exactly with Government objectives: targeted spending on Government priorities; Government monitoring of performance; partnership with the private and voluntary sectors, Government and local authorities; increasingly economy-related, dealing with training and jobs; assistance to the poorest areas; new initiatives and innovations; successful projects approved by the Government's own monitoring; and infrastructure development. They were all key issues.
  Shortly after the autumn statement, however, a letter arrived on the doorsteps of leaders of local authorities. It began by saying:
  "we have been able to maintain the Urban Programme at £176 million for 1993/4".
  In itself, that was a misleading statement, as maintaining it would have meant £250 million, not £176 million.
  "This will allow some £20 million for new projects which we have decided will form the urban element of Capital Partnership."
  That is a minuscule and inadequate response to the real needs of urban areas.
  "These arrangements will therefore supersede the Urban programme guidance issued in February, although we will continue to meet UP commitments arising from approvals in. this and previous financial years."
  492
  The urban programme has been terminated by the back door without reference to this House in mealy-mouthed words. They did not even have the honesty to admit what they meant.
  To say it was an unexpected letter would be an understatement: it was received with amazement and incredulity. In my view, it was contrary to the autumn statement. It is a disaster for the poorest communities—a hidden cut which the Government was trying to sneak through the back door in an effort to keep within the public spending total, while allowing high-profile projects like the Jubilee line to proceed. This means that the poorest of my constituents are being asked to pay for a train ride to docklands which they do not want to take. The Government make no attempt at explanation.
  To say that existing projects will be honoured is not true. Capital schemes which are committed to spend beyond March 1995, councillors and council officers have been told, will not be supported or funded after that date. Even commitments which have already been entered into will not be funded after March next year, even though commitments. I look to the Minister for a response on those important points. There has been no explanation for this fundamental change of policy.
  In the meantime, the problems of our inner-city areas remain. Local authorities will be left to pick up the pieces. The same local authorities which have just been rigidly capped by the Government, and which will have to make cuts in their expenditure because of that capping regime, will have to curtail expenditure in areas that need it most. Councils cannot possibly redirect the main thrust of their mainstream programmes when they are under attack because of Government actions. It is impossible for councils and councillors to cope with the situation, and those same councillors are continually denigrated by Ministers for failing to cope with the impossible task that the Government have set them.
  The other day, someone asked me the difference between being an Opposition Member in Westminster and the leader of a city council in the current climate. I replied that it was essentially the difference between throwing the hand grenades and having to catch them. Many councillors feel that way, given the present situation.
  The need still exists, and people in inner-city areas should be our main interest and our main commitment in terms of assistance. There is still bad housing, a poor environment, poverty, unemployment and the multiple deprivation which the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 was meant to help remove.
  The urban programme has had some successes. It has not solved all the problems of inner-city areas, but it has improved on a desperate situation for many people. Are the Government serious about tackling unemployment? If they are, they have to be serious about tackling it where it is greatest—or is it still a price worth paying for those who live in our inner cities?
  The urban programme will not remove the tragedy, waste and hopelessness of unemployment in the inner urban areas, but its removal will only make unemployment that much worse. I hope that the Government will accept their mistake in abolishing the programme, will accept that they have got it wrong, and—for the sake of £80 million in the next financial year—will restore it immediately and commit themselves to a major review of the needs of such areas. That review would prove the need for a significant expansion of schemes like the urban programme.

  493
  Yesterday evening, Sheffield city council unanimously, with all-party support, expressed its concern over the termination of the urban programme. It considered the action unacceptable and called on the Secretary of State to review the situation and to meet a delegation from the city. I hope that he will meet that delegation, to give it the good news that the programme is to continue.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has raised a subject which I know is of concern and interest to many. I want to get to the issues of policy eventually, but I must respond to his account of the way in which we introduced changes to the urban programme and introduced the urban partnership fund.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the new capital partnership initiative on Friday 13 November—there is no significance in that date—and on the same day I wrote to all 57 urban programme authority leaders, to tell them about the implications of my right hon. Friend's announcement for the programme and our proposals for the urban partnership fund. That letter was copied to each and every local Member of Parliament. We followed that up with further guidance from Department of the Environment regional directors on 20 November, and my officials met about 50 local authority representatives including someone from Sheffield council, at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities headquarters on 26 November.
  I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that that was a rather public way of "sliding an announcement out through the back door", to quote his earlier comments. I am also very aware of the work which local authorities and their partners have put into working up their urban programmes. The timing of the autumn statement and the decisions on relaxing the rules on useable capital receipts inevitably meant that work on urban programmes for 1993–94 was well advanced before we announced changes. I repeat that we took the first opportunity to let local authorities know the position.
  Outside this Chamber, I was criticised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Opposition spokesman on local government matters, because the letters were not signed by me. I was in a provincial town at the time and was anxious for the information to go to all the councils affected as quickly as possible.
  I would also like to scotch the rumour that all urban programme expenditure is ceasing as of now. I know that some voluntary organisations have been uncertain about this and I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position. I must make it quite clear that we have made provision to meet in 1993–94 and 1994–95 urban programme commitments which have already been entered into in 1992–93 or earlier.
  With regard to the point which the hon. Member made about years after 1995–96, there is certainly provision to meet revenue commitments for that year. Individual projects commitments should be discussed with regional offices. I know that there has already been some discussion between council officers and my regional office officials on this point, and I would expect that to continue.
  Where projects have already been given a three-year approval, or four-year approval in the case of some
  494
  voluntary sector projects, provision has been made for these commitments to be met. There is no question of our having cut off funding to existing approved projects. Indeed, some projects, because of the nature of their approvals, will continue to receive funding into 1995–96.
  The hon. Gentleman naturally concentrated his remarks on the urban programme. The UP was for a long time the mainstay of urban policy. Originally conceived as a social programme in 1968, it has been steadily adapted and developed over the years. It assumed roughly its current shape after the 1977 inner cities White Paper. It has therefore had a very long run, and over its life tens of thousands of projects have been supported in urban areas. I fully recognise the contribution which the programme has made to urban regeneration over the years.
  It would be unrealistic, however, to think that the urban programme is the sole answer to urban problems. Since 1979, we have developed a range of instruments alongside the UP to improve the competitiveness of our cities and the lives of local people. Urban development corporations, including the very active one in Sheffield, have attracted some £12 billion in private sector investment and created or attracted over 69,000 jobs. City grant and direct land grant have also levered in substantial private investment, and their approaches will be incorporated and carried forward in the Urban Regeneration Agency. On the housing side, initiatives such as estate action have made a tremendous impact on inner city and peripheral areas of problem housing.
  I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman took a rather selective view of the resources which we are putting into urban areas. He did not mention, for instance, that we have secured an extra £93 million for the urban block as a whole for 1993–94 over the previously published plan. Taken together, total urban programme and city challenge resources will increase from £319 million in 1992–93 to £408 million in 1993–94. I would have thought this maintained commitment to urban areas in a tough economic climate would receive at least a flicker of acknowledgement from the hon. Gentleman.
  On top of this, local authorities will have extra spending power in 1993–94 as a result of the changes in the capital receipts rules that I have mentioned. If authorities continue to realise capital receipts at the same level as they are forecasting for 1992–93, we estimate that the 57 urban authorities will have extra spending power of around £500 million as a result of the change in the capital receipts rule.
  It is, of course, for each authority to decide how and when to use this extra spending power, but the urban partnership fund will help make these receipts go even further and directly support urban regeneration. The urban partnership fund will use uncommitted urban programme resources of up to £20 million. As the hon. Gentleman said, details of how the fund will operate have been placed in the Library of the House.
  There is one change to our earlier advice to local authorities which I should mention to the House. In response to representations from the AMA, we have extended the deadline for bids to be submitted from 31 December 1992 to 15 January 1993. This will give authorities more time to prepare bids and to weigh up the use to which they intend to put their capital receipts.
  The point of the urban partnership fund is to work alongside and complement other initiatives in urban areas. Anyone who is involved in the inner cities knows that each city has a different spectrum of problems and

  495
  characteristics which call for a range of measures to tackle them. Hon. Members will be familiar with the combination of problems which come together in many urban areas such as the decline of traditional industries, unemployment, which the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted, low skill base and educational achievement, crime, poor housing. That is why the drive to regenerate our cities calls for an effort across Government Departments and agencies and closely involving the private sector and local communities.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned city challenge. I was closely involved in looking at city challenge bids. What struck me above all else was the diversity of the problems that faced the different areas, matched by an equal diversity in the solutions and initiatives which were developed to address them. There is some force in the argument that we could do more to simplify and streamline urban policy, but the fact remains that we need a flexible and responsive set of instruments to tackle urban needs.
  Even more important than getting the instruments and structure right is engaging the commitment and enthusiasm of local people and local businesses. Here, we have learnt from the urban programme and other initiatives. Partnership was built into city challenge from the word go, not grafted on as an afterthought. Ted Cantle, chief executive of Nottingham, wrote in the Local Government Chronicle of 4 September this year:
  "No other regeneration project has, in my experience, ever created the same spirit of partnership and concentrated determination."
  Ted Cantle also said:
  "attempts by local authorities to involve others in the process of change and to actually devolve power can strengthen, rather than weaken, local government."
  That was a key message. Public money goes a great deal further if it is backed by local effort. Even old urban hands have told me that they have been astonished by the enthusiasm which has been unleashed by city challenge. In many ways, city challenge draws out and applies best practice from the urban programme.
  Of the 57 urban programme authorities, 32 currently benefit from city challenge, and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, his city is not yet among them. We are fully committed to the approach embodied by city challenge of a locally devised and applied strategy, partnership with the private sector and the local community and effective management.
  Even in areas which have not yet been successful with their city challenge bids, the whole process of bidding and putting together partnerships has yielded some valuable results. In Plymouth, for example, the local partnership responsible for the bid will, as "Plymouth 2000", seek to take forward major investment proposals. Burnley is exploring with my Department and other partners how major development projects contained in its bid can be supported. Through the city action teams and the Department's regional offices, we will do all we can to support and encourage such initiatives.
  We shall be looking closely at the performance of the first two rounds of city challenge in deciding if and when to have a third round. The early results are encouraging.
  496
  We shall also be looking at the outcome of the 1991 census in deciding the shape of urban policy for the next few years.
  The hon. Gentleman drew attention particularly to the problems of unemployment and deprivation in Sheffield. I assure him that the review that I have in mind for early next year will be a thorough review of urban needs, drawing on the results of the 1991 census. It will cover multiple deprivation and will inform policy decisions for 1993–94 onwards. Among other things, it will cover unemployment, housing and dereliction. The results of the 1991 census should be available in January or February 1993. Only then shall we have a clear picture of how urban needs have shifted since 1981.
  There are some measures we can take which do not depend on the census results. We need to simplify further the administration of support for urban areas. That is why, for areas of derelict and vacant land, the Urban Regeneration Agency will, at a stroke, bring together three existing instruments: derelict land grant, city grant and English Estates. We have already simplified procedures for city challenge and are looking at the potential for further rationalisation. The aim must be to make our programmes accessible to local people and local businesses while maintaining a proper regard for value for money.
  The hon. Gentleman invited me to receive a deputation from Sheffield. I assure him, and other hon. Members, that my door is always open to authorities which want to discuss constructive ways to promote urban regeneration.
  As the hon. Gentleman may know, I paid an early visit to Sheffield after the city challenge announcement, specifically to meet the partners behind the unsuccessful bid. I remain available to discuss with other authorities how we take forward the many exciting initiatives that are now available.
  Mr. Betts: I have listened to the Minister with great interest. I understand that he is undertaking a review and examining many new initiatives. However, I have not yet heard an explanation why, while the review is taking place, the urban programme, with its proven success, has been effectively terminated and replaced by new schemes. Why was the urban programme not continued until the review had been completed and we had examined other schemes to see whether they were more suitable to achieve the success that we wanted?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the background to the autumn statement, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that, against tight controls on public expenditure, we would emphasise capital projects. As I made clear, the total urban block has been not merely preserved, but marginally increased. Within that block, we have emphasised capital projects, which is why the urban programme has been reduced.
  I did not come here to be controversial. I hesitate even to mention the subject, but I find it a bit rich that the Government are blamed for the revenue problems that Sheffield city council faces at present. Any problems that the council faces—I have considerable sympathy with it—did not arise primarily from any Government actions. They arose from past leadership of the council and decisions taken by it. I have much sympathy with the people of Sheffield, who must now pay the price. It is not

  497
  fair or reasonable, but untrue, to suggest that the problems resulted from Government decisions. It is important to put that on record.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Guildford and Woolwich Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what public interest immunity certificates he has signed in relation to documents provided by his Department for Sir John May's inquiry.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what documents the Law Officers have supplied to Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford Four convictions; and on what terms.

  The Attorney-General
  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers provided Sir John May with complete copies of the files relating to the prosecution of the Guildford Four and the Maguires. In addition, his inquiry was provided with a number of files relating to other cases arising at about the same time as the matters under consideration by Sir John May where decisions were taken whether to authorise proceedings under the Explosive Substances Act 1883.

  These documents were supplied to Sir John on a confidential basis and with an understanding that he would discuss with us any question of their further use which might arise in the course of his inquiry.

TRANSPORT

  West Coast Main Line
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for recognising wider social benefits and making provision for through ticketing when financing new rail infrastructure, with particular regard to the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under our privatisation proposals, ownership of the railway infrastructure will pass to Railtrack, a public sector track authority. Investment in infrastructure will largely be financed from charges to operators but, as stated in the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways", the Government may provide direct support for investment schemes not earning an adequate financial return but which have satisfactory cost-benefit returns when wider social and economic benefits are taken into account. No proposals for major investment in the west coast main line have been submitted to the Secretary of State. We have given a clear commitment in the White Paper to preserve through ticketing arrangements across the network.

  M25 (Junctions 12 and 15)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters his Department has received commenting on his proposals to enlarge the M25 between junctions 12 and 15; and how many of these supported the proposals.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In total, 2,691 letters, some copied to other Ministers, and 7,405 pre-printed postcards have been received specifically commenting on the link road proposals between junctions 12 and 15 of the M25. A number of other letters have also been received raising wider M25 issues. Eight letters in support of the link road proposals have been received.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the alternative routes considered when he was preparing his proposals to enlarge the M25 between junctions 12 and 15.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am arranging for the list to be placed in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of those organisations that have submitted comments on his proposals to enlarge the M25 between junctions 12 and 15.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A range of possible measures to improve the M25 was outlined in a report by consultants, Rendel, Palmer and Tritton, published in July 1989. This was followed by the M25 action plan published in December 1990 which announced plans to deal with congestion on the M25 and to improve the operation of the motorway. More recently, a review report and a technical appraisal report outlining alternative options for providing additional capacity between junctions 12 and 15 of the M25 were placed in the Library.

  Chris Green
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what capacity he has invited Chris Green, head of InterCity, to attend the meeting of potential rail operators scheduled for 9 December.

  Mr. Freeman
  The meeting on 9 December will discuss the procurement of rolling stock following privatisation, particularly through leasing. Those attending are therefore mainly representatives of financial institutions, together with a number of potential franchisees.

  British Rail will be represented by the board member for finance, Mr. James Jerram. Mr. Chris Green is not attending.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has about the extent, and the reasons for, the decline in freight on British Rail(a) in the two years preceeding 14 July and (b) since 14 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  Total tonnage carried by rail fell from 143·1 million tonnes in 1989–90 to 135·8 million tonnes in 1991–92. Factors affecting changes in rail freight are discussed at pages 18 to 20 of the 1991–92 annual report and accounts of the British Railways Board, which is responsible for rail freight in Great Britain.
  285
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the rail freight group; and what discussions they had on the switch of freight moved by British Rail to road transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  I last met the rail users group on 19 May 1992. During the discussion we exchanged views on how rail freight could best compete with other modes.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport if it remains his policy to encourage a switch of freight from road to rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It remains Government policy to encourage a switch of freight from road to rail where this makes commercial sense.

  InterCity (Franchising Bids)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider the propriety of serving managers of InterCity, and other senior British Rail executives, being allowed to work with, and facilitate prospective franchises in the negotiation and preparation of franchising bids for InterCity which would involve them as shareholders if successful.

  Mr. Freeman
  We wish to encourage bids for franchises from the management and employees of BR. The BR Board has issued appropriate guidance to its managers so that potential conflicts of interst can be identified. It will be a concern of the franchising authority to ensure equality of information and treatment for all prospective bidders at each stage of the tendering process for each franchise.

  British Rail Executives
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether British Rail executives may be considered for the advertised posts of rail regulator and head of franchising; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We placed no restrictions on the field of application for candidates wishing to be considered for the posts of railway regulator or passenger railway franchising authority. British Rail employees, like any others, were free to apply. The public advertisement for the posts said that railway or public transport experience would be an advantage, though not essential; and it was one of several criteria on which we have been considering candidates.

  Advanced Channel Express Ltd.
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the operational conditions, in respect of catamarans operated by Advanced Channel Express Ltd, which his surveyor has identified as not currently meeting specified standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The operational conditions for all high-speed craft are set out in a permit to operate, issued in accordance with a safety code developed by the International Maritime Organisation. The owners of the catamaran are aware of this, having been advised that the Department will have to be satisfied that the craft is suitable for the intended service.

  Catamaran Safety
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review all aspects of catamaran safety; and if he will make a statement.
  286
  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom has requested a formal review of the International Maritime Organisation safety code for high-speed craft. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of that review which will include all aspects of catamaran safety and is expected to be completed next year.

  HGV Operators' licences
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change the regulations that prevent a regional centre processing applications for heavy goods vehicle operators' licences from accepting objections from neighbouring regions.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is nothing to prevent an owner or occupier making representations against the proposed use of a goods vehicle operating centre which is the subject of an application before a licensing authority, in circumstances where the operating centre and the owner or occupier's property are in different traffic areas. The only criteria are that the representor's property must be shown to be adversely affected and that it falls within what the licensing authority determines to be the vicinity of the operating centre in question.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the cost per annum of traffic congestion to(a) the Exchequer, (b) businesses and (c) the average household; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Congestion is costly, but the cost can be measured usefully only against realistic alternatives such as more or less road building or policies for reducing or redirecting traffic. There is therefore no single figure which can be quoted. Much of the Department's roads and traffic expenditure and policies are, however, concerned with reducing congestion and making the best possible use of available road space.

  Bus Companies (Future)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be meeting the chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority to discuss the authority's reaction to his announcement on 23 November about the future of local authority-owned bus companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have written to the chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority on behalf of my right hon. Friend agreeing to meet him to discuss the division of Greater Manchester Buses.

ENVIRONMENT

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  The Building Research Establishment, the planning inspectorate and the Queen Elizabeth
  287
  conference centre all come under my Department's health and safety policy statement and I have placed a copy of the document in the Library.

  I have asked Professor David Rhind to place in the Library a copy of his health and safety policy for the Ordnance Survey, and Mr. Roger Powell for the Buying Agency.

  Municipal Waste
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he will give of the relative average net costs per tonne of disposal of municipal waste based upon projects handling 250,000 tonnes per year comparing landfill via road at a distance of 100 km and waste-to-energy incineration based on a rate of interest of 20 per cent. over 20 years showing the costs per tonne for incineration both with and without non-fossil fuel obligation subsidy.

  Mr. Maclean
  The wide range of factors involved and the price variations that exist across the country make it very difficult to give general estimates for the cost of waste disposal. Recent work carried out for the Department suggests that the current disposal costs for waste destined for disposal to landfill vary from between £7·50 to £22·50 per tonne. These costs are likely to increase substantially over the next few years as the Government's improved waste management arrangements are brought into effect. Waste to energy incineration costs are thought to be about £20 to £25 per tonne at present. Without the non-fossil fuel obligation, these are thought likely to be nearer £30 to £35 per tonne. These prices are not expected to change significantly over the next few years.

  Timber
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in meeting the requirements of CITES, he intends to make changes to the system of monitoring timber imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have already made the changes necessary to meet the latest CITES requirements.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Environment what labelling of timber species listed in the appendices of CITES is required prior to entry into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  CITES-listed timber imported into the United Kingdom is not required to be labelled. It must, however, be accompanied by appropriate export and import permits identifying the species in each consignment. The Government are currently supporting schemes to develop effective labelling systems in producer countries.

  Water
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the chairmen of the regional water companies; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ministers have had a number of meetings in recent months with the chairman of British Waterways at which, among other things, matters of strategic policy and board appointments have been discussed. But the Secretary of State has at present no plans to meet him.

  Research
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding was made available by Her Majesty's Government to fund research outside Government Departments on international environmental policy issues in the financial year 1991–92; and what expenditure is proposed for 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not readily available in the form requested and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. However, the Cabinet Office annual review of Government-funded research and development gives a useful overview of the substantial research efforts devoted to diverse and important international policy issues across Government. In addition, considerable proportions of United Kingdom subscriptions to international bodies are devoted to relevant research.

  Clean Air Grant
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the clean air grant will continue to be available to local authorities in England and Wales after 1 April 1993; what economic instruments will be made available to local authorities wishing to improve local air quality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The future of the clean air grant is under review, but the grant will certainly continue to be available to local authorities in 1993–94. Supplementary credit approval will also be available to local authorities in 1993–94 to assist the financing of their capital expenditure on smoke control which is not covered by clean air grant.

  Sulphur Dioxide
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which month he expects the United Kingdom to meet the large combustion plant directive target of a 20 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The directive requires the United Kingdom's total emissions of sulphur dioxide from our existing large combustion plants in 1993 to be at least 20 per cent. below those in 1980. Emissions from such plant in 1991, the latest available year, were 71 per cent. of the 1980 figure.

  Urban Programme (Rochdale)
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many urban programme proposals in the Rochdale metropolitan borough council were funded in 1992–93; and how many are likely to be funded in 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1992–93, 102 proposals received urban programme funding. In 1993–94, it is likely that 34 proposals will receive funding.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of 27 October,Official Report, column 543 what steps he intends to take to implement the EC regulations agreed on the supervision and control of shipments of toxic waste; and when he will publish the regulations;
  289
  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of 27 October, Official Report, column 543, on control of shipments of toxic waste in the European Community, if he will make it his policy in implementing the proposals to ensure that toxic waste is disposed of as close as possible to its source within the United Kingdom and that no waste is imported for commercial gain.

  Mr. Maclean
  The regulation will be published in the Official Journal after adoption by the Council and is likely to apply 15 months after publication. We shall be giving careful consideration to the application of the regulation's provisions in relation to imports for final disposal. We expect no change as result of the regulation to existing practice within the United Kingdom.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what criteria he will adopt regarding stack emissions for waste incinerators approved by him;

  (2) what level of emission of dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls he regards as (a) safe and (b) acceptable from waste incinerators;

  (3) what criteria he will adopt regarding stack emissions for waste-to-energy incinerators approved by him;

  (4) what level of emission of dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls he regards as (a) safe and (b) acceptable from waste-to-energy incinerators.

  Mr. Maclean
  Prime responsibility for the control of stack emissions from incinerators rests with the appropriate enforcing authority under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; either Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution or the relevant district or borough council. Several guidance notes have been published by the Secretary of State and by the chief inspector, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution concerning emission control standards for incinerators.

  In granting authorisations, the regulating body will have regard to the advice contained in the relevant

  Table showing provisional 1993–94 SSAs by selected inner London boroughs (excludes the City of London)

  Service

  Relative Position

  Authority

  SSA per head or per child

  All Other Services

  Highest SSA

  Westminster

  £562 per head

  Lowest SSA

  Greenwich

  £191 per head

  Next Lowest SSA

  Lewisham

  £233 per head

  Child Social Services

  Highest SSA

  Lambeth

  £860 per child

  Lowest SSA

  Greenwich

  £311 per child

  Next Lowest SSA

  Lewisham

  £461 per child

  Education Services

  Highest SSA

  Tower Hamlets

  £700 per head

  Lowest SSA

  Kensington

  £236 per head

  Next Lowest SSA

  Westminster

  £275 per head

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which inner-London boroughs standard spending assessments are below £950 a head; and which are above.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Within the provisional standard spending assessments for 1993–94 announced on 26 November, the SSA per head for Greenwich is £923. That for all other inner London boroughs is above £950 per head.
  290
  guidance note. These notes provide guidance on the techniques considered to be appropriate to meet the requirement to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to either prevent the release of prescribed substances or, where that is not practicable, to minimise such releases and to render them harmless. They also provide guidance on the levels of releases achievable using these techniques. For dioxins these are set as release limits which accord with the best international safety standards. To facilitate the complete destruction of a wide range of toxic substances, including PCBs, the requirement is to ensure that the gases resulting from the combustion of the waste are raised to a sufficiently high temperature for a minimum time period.

  Copies of all guidance notes have been placed in the House Library.

  Housing Conditions Survey
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the last survey of housing conditions was made; and if he will publish the result of the survey.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest national survey of housing conditions was begun in September 1991 and completed in October this year. Results from the survey will be published next year.

  Standard Spending Assessments (London)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the highest, lowest and next lowest standard spending assessment elements for inner London boroughs for(a) other services, (b) child social services and (c) education expressed for each relevant person.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested, in respect of the provisional standard spending assessments, is shown in the table below. The education SSA has been expressed in £s per head since this SSA covers services provided across the full age range.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what standard spending assessments would be allocated to Greenwich if it was the same for each person as the assessment for(a) Wandsworth and (b) Lewisham.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Combining the SSA per head for Wandsworth and for Lewisham with the latest resident population figure for Greenwich would produce SSA totals of £205 million and £206 million respectively. SSAs are intended to reflect the social characteristics of the area
  291
  concerned. Greenwich's SSA is different from that of Wandsworth and Lewisham because, inter alia, its social characteristics are different.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effects on the standard spending assessments for Greenwich of(a) population change and (b) the factors II (i) to (vi) in his Department's letter of 26 November to local authorities on local government finance (England).

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such estimates have been made.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the significant factors other than population affecting standard spending assessments and what effect each contributed to the difference between the standard spending assessments of Greenwich and Wandsworth.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All the factors on which standard spending assessments are based are listed in the draft Local Government Finance Report (England) 1993–94 which is in the Library. These are very similar to those used for 1992–93. The SSA Handbook for 1992–93, which is in the Library, shows the contribution of the main indicators to each authority's SSA in £per adult. Similar calculations have not been carried out for provisional 1993–94 SSAs.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state for each air pollutant monitored by his Department at what levels the Department classifies the pollution as good, average and below average; if he will list the guidelines or standards advised by the World Health Organisation in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  For the purposes of the air quality bulletins issued by the Department to the media for public consumption, the quality of air, based on measured concentrations of ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, is divided into four categories: very good, good, poor and very poor. The bandings are as follows:

  Department of Environment guidelines (parts per billion/1 hour)

  Very good

  Good

  Poor

  Very poor

  OZONE

  < 50

  50–89

  90–179

  > = 180

  NO2

  < 50

  50–99

  100–299

  > = 300

  SO2

  < 60

  60–124

  125–399

  > = 400

  World Health Organisation guidelines (parts per billion)

  1 hour

  8 hour

  24 hour

  OZONE

  76–100

  50–60

  33

  NO2

  210

  —

  80

  SO2

  122

  —

  35

  Environmental Health Regulations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the environmental health regulations he is considering for modification or abolition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and 292
  Substances) Regulations 1991, which prescribe the processes to be controlled by local authorities under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  We have received representations about the enforcement of legislation concerning houses in multiple occupation and common lodging houses and these are being considered.

  Following a review of the house renovation grant system for private sector properties a number of changes have been proposed. These include amendments to:—

  —the Housing Renovation etc. Grants (Reduction of Grant) Regulations 1990;

  —the Housing Renovation etc. Grants (Prescribed Forms and Particulars) Regulations 1990;

  —assistance for Minor Works to Dwellings Regulations 1990.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether local authorities considering planning applications that will have a direct effect on a neighbouring authority pay sufficient care and attention to the needs, costs and infrastructure of that neighbouring authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  Planning authorities are required to keep under review all matters that are expected to affect the planning of development in their area, and to take account, in consultation with the authorities concerned, of the effects for their areas of similar matters in neighbouring areas. In preparing development plans, all local planning authorities are required to consult the planning authorities for areas adjacent to the area covered by their plan proposals, and to take into account any representations made. We advise them to consult other authorities likely to be affected.

  Planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A local planning authority is required by article 18 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 to consult the neighbouring planning authority about any application which affects land in its area.

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 862, if he will make a further statement on the Darwin initiative in the light of the autumn statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Subject to parliamentary approval, funding for projects which meet the objectives of the Darwin initiative will be £1 million for 1993–94, £2 million for 1994–95 and £3 million for 1995–96. We will be consulting widely on the priorities and programmes for the initiative. I am establishing a small advisory committee to consider the responses to that consultation. I am pleased to say that Sir Crispin Tuckell has agreed to chair it.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Malone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the responses to the consultation paper on reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.
  293
  Mr. Baldry
  Copies of the responses to the consultation paper, "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968", will be placed in the Department's library shortly, and a list of the responses will be placed in the House of Commons Library. We are now considering over 1,200 responses we have received so far. We will make an announcement about the way forward in due course.

  Industrial Processes (Controls)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the risks to the global environment arising from the transfer of industrial processes from the United Kingdom and other countries with strict environmental legislation to countries with poor or non-existent controls.

  Mr. Maclean
  The main risks to the global environment from industrial processes are from those which contribute to global warming and through the release of ozone depleting substances. The Government are committed to pursuing multilateral solutions to these problems.

  This year over 150 countries including the United Kingdom signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change. All partners will be committed to producing national programmes of measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

  The Montreal protocol provides controls on the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances and trade in them. At a recent meeting of the parties to the protocol it was agreed that CFC's should be phased out by the end of 1995 and halons by the end of 1993.

  EC Environmental Standards
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the consistency of the application through the Community of EC environmental standards affecting the operations of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ensuring consistent application of legislation throughout the EC is, in the first instance, a matter for the Commission. One of the priorities of our presidency has been to highlight the importance of consistent and effective implementation and enforcement of EC environmental legislation. To this end, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has, during our presidency, hosted the first meeting of a network of EC environmental regulatory authorities. Separately we are encouraging the Commission to bring forward proposals for an audit inspectorate to inspect the work of national enforcement agencies.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration is being given by his Department to the effect on United Kingdom industry's competitiveness of failure of overseas governments to enforce measures to protect the national and global environment; and if he will support the introduction of agreed and enforced environmental standards on an international basis.

  Mr. Maclean
  The relationship between industrial competitiveness and environmental protection was the 294
  subject of a resolution agreed by the EC Council of Industry Ministers on 24 November, and of a communication from the Commission to that Council.

  High environmental standards can increase the competitiveness of industry, as well as providing major new market opportunities. However, where necessary to reduce poor standards overseas undermining the competitiveness of certain sectors of United Kingdom industry, we would support action on an international basis.

  Empty Council Property
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of dwellings which have been empty for more than six months for each London borough and the percentage which empty properties constitute of each council's housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest information reported by the London boroughs in their annual housing investment programme (HIP1) returns relates to April 1992 and is as follows:—

  Borough

  London Authority dwellings empty more than six months

  All empty London Authority dwellings

  Number

  Percentage of stock

  Percentage of stock

  City of London

  6

  0·3

  1·5

  Barking and Dagenham

  6

  0·0

  1·1

  Barnet

  26

  0·2

  1·0

  Bexley

  14

  0·2

  1·0

  Brent

  261

  1·4

  3·4

  Bromley

  9

  0·1

  0·9

  Camden

  135

  0·4

  1·8

  Croydon

  19

  0·1

  2·0

  Ealing

  90

  0·5

  2·1

  Enfield

  18

  0·1

  1·8

  Greenwich

  156

  0·5

  1·7

  Hackney

  1,776

  4·4

  6·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  85

  0·5

  2·3

  Haringey

  87

  0·4

  1·7

  Harrow

  20

  0·3

  1·4

  Havering

  14

  0·1

  1·6

  Hillingdon

  62

  0·4

  1·6

  Hounslow

  24

  0·1

  1·5

  Islington

  259

  0·7

  1·9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  32

  0·4

  1·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  0·1

  1·9

  Lambeth

  633

  1·4

  3·1

  Lewisham

  301

  0·8

  2·0

  Merton

  5

  0·1

  0·9

  Newham

  555

  2·1

  3·4

  Redbridge

  130

  1·5

  4·2

  Richmond upon Thames

  34

  0·4

  1·8

  Southwark

  638

  1·1

  2·9

  Sutton

  12

  0·1

  1·0

  Tower Hamlets

  1,068

  2·6

  4·2

  Waltham Forest

  93

  0·5

  2·0

  Wandsworth

  67

  0·3

  1·8

  Westminster

  159

  0·9

  1·8

  Council Rent Arrears
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rent arrears for each London borough and indicate the percentage arrears constitute of each council's rent revenue; and if he will make a statement.
  295
  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 2 July 1992 at column 675 to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), which included the latest figures, relating to the end of March 1991.

  Community Charge Arrears
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the community charge arrears for each London borough and indicate the percentage which arrears constitute of each council's community charge income; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given on 5 November at columns 370–71 to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones).

  Councillors (Travel Allowances)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if local authority councillors are permitted to claim travelling allowances in connection with their official duties in respect of travel by bicycle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The provisions governing the payment of travelling allowances to councillors do not currently permit the payment of a bicycle allowance.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any termination payments will be made to members ceasing to be members of the London residuary body in January 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make any new appointments or re-appointments to the board of the London residuary body in 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend to reappoint Mr. Wallace Mackenzie, Mr. Michael Roberts and Mr. Jack Wolkind as members of the London residuary body when their present terms expire on 31 March 1993. Sir Godfrey Taylor was reappointed as chairman on 1 December this year.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 November,Official Report, column 426, if he will state the main points made by English Heritage following the inspection of Battersea power station on 7 October.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following its inspection on 7 October, English Heritage concluded that there had been no

  Number of council house sales and value by region

  £ thousands

  July to September 1988

  October to December 1988

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  1,987

  36,709

  25,028

  2,034

  38,297

  25,614

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,633

  52,054

  35,490

  3,780

  79,233

  52,993

  East Midlands

  3,310

  83,791

  57,128

  3,998

  99,758

  66,721

  Eastern

  4,652

  207,008

  141,136

  9,233

  230,629

  154,252

  296
  significant deterioration of the structure since work stopped. The external brick clad structure is adequately supported where necessary by the temporary steelwork. There has been some ingress of water into the control room due to failure of temporary waterproofing where a small section of the superstructure was removed. A temporary felt roof is to be provided shortly.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce statutory water quality objectives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today published a consultation paper on river quality. This sets out the Government's proposals for safeguarding our rivers, including the introduction of statutory water quality objectives (WQOs) gradually from 1993, and initially for a limited number of objectives in order to test the new system. The paper proposes a new classification scheme as the framework within which individual WQOs would be set; and a revised basis for carrying out the regular overall assessments of river quality. The proposals are based on recommendations published by the National Rivers Authority in October, following wide consultation. I am grateful for the authority's work which underpins our proposals.

  Our strategy builds on the major programmes of water investment which are already planned or under way and takes account of the implications for consumers. We have set out proposals for maintaining river quality, for reversing recent deteriorations, and for targeting further resources on those improvements which can be achieved most quickly and cost-effectively. This represents a firm foundation for introducing WQOs.

  As discussed in "Using Water Wisely" last July and "This Common Inheritance: the Second Year Report" in October, I am developing proposals for water pollution charging which I believe can play a role as an alternative to further regulatory action as a way of achieving WQOs.

  I have placed copies of our paper in the Library of the House.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number and value of council house sales by region for each of the last 16 quarters(a) at current prices and (b) at 1981 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 30 November 1990]: Information on sales in the period July 1988 to June 1992 is given in the table. The figures exclude dwellings transferred to housing associations and other registered bodies in large scale voluntary transfers. Such transfers accounted for some 94,000 dwellings valued at about £800 million during this period.
  297

  July to September 1988

  October to December 1988

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  London Boroughs

  6,714

  362,265

  246,989

  6,125

  366,884

  245,383

  South East

  3,971

  190,650

  129,983

  5,858

  296,916

  198,586

  South West

  4,306

  156,295

  106,560

  3,998

  150,392

  100,587

  West Midlands

  3,844

  94,945

  64,733

  5,031

  115,756

  77,421

  North West (including Cumbria)

  2,558

  48,266

  32,907

  3,287

  69,860

  46,724

  England

  33,975

  1,231,983

  839,954

  43,344

  1,447,725

  968,282

  January to March 1989

  April to June 1989

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  2,870

  50,173

  32,915

  2,814

  53,385

  34,607

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,418

  77,390

  50,770

  5,038

  103,921

  67,368

  East Midlands

  3,947

  100,460

  65,905

  3,441

  102,685

  66,567

  Eastern

  4,288

  227,040

  148,945

  3,345

  179,422

  116,312

  London Boroughs

  7,997

  464,267

  304,573

  6,960

  369,307

  239,407

  South East

  10,823

  223,562

  146,663

  3,617

  193,226

  125,261

  South West

  3,684

  155,889

  102,268

  3,279

  141,094

  91,466

  West Midlands

  5,165

  126,229

  82,810

  4,870

  136,882

  88,735

  North West (including Cumbria)

  3,908

  78,040

  51,197

  4,698

  95,387

  61,836

  England

  47,100

  1,503,050

  986,046

  38,062

  1,375,309

  891,558

  July to September 1989

  October to December 1989

  DOE Regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  2,409

  48,029

  30,717

  3,205

  64,908

  40,981

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,946

  115,025

  73,565

  4,815

  116,218

  73,377

  East Midlands

  2,941

  93,824

  60,006

  2,429

  78,891

  49,809

  Eastern

  2,926

  160,757

  102,814

  2,316

  133,353

  84,195

  London Boroughs

  6,871

  396,835

  253,800

  7,697

  456,854

  288,444

  South East

  3,239

  181,639

  116,169

  3,081

  177,520

  112,081

  South West

  2,511

  120,463

  77,043

  2,081

  94,343

  59,565

  West Midlands

  4,412

  133,129

  85,144

  4,635

  147,126

  92,891

  North West (including Cumbria)

  4,292

  99,185

  63,435

  5,026

  118,681

  74,932

  England

  34,547

  1,348,886

  862,694

  35,285

  1,387,894

  876,275

  January to March 1990

  April to June 1990

  DOE Regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  3,276

  67,646

  41,819

  2,654

  60,062

  36,315

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,245

  151,261

  93,510

  3,425

  90,974

  55,005

  East Midlands

  1,945

  68,422

  42,298

  1,443

  50,753

  30,686

  Eastern

  2,317

  128,199

  79,253

  1,867

  103,780

  62,747

  London Boroughs

  7,580

  460,364

  284,597

  5,671

  361,103

  218,330

  South East

  2,507

  134,138

  82,924

  1,811

  103,258

  62,432

  South West

  1,801

  80,982

  50,063

  1,319

  57,695

  34,884

  West Midlands

  4,510

  149,355

  92,331

  3,203

  110,390

  66,744

  North West (including Cumbria)

  5,364

  125,478

  77,570

  4,347

  104,706

  63,307

  England

  34,545

  1,365,845

  844,365

  25,740

  1,042,721

  630,450

  £ thousands

  July to September 1990

  October to December 1990

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  2,155

  50,270

  29,549

  1,828

  47,086

  27,399

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,446

  69,326

  40,751

  2,309

  65,553

  38,145

  East Midlands

  1,095

  38,966

  22,905

  984

  33,740

  19,633

  298 299

  July to September 1990

  October to December 1990

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Eastern

  1,630

  86,420

  50,799

  1,574

  83,715

  48,713

  London Boroughs

  4,926

  311,363

  183,022

  4,581

  301,318

  175,334

  South East

  1,473

  86,096

  50,608

  1,252

  74,669

  43,449

  South West

  1,002

  46,590

  27,386

  904

  40,946

  23,826

  West Midlands

  2,564

  89,846

  52,812

  1,951

  66,297

  38,578

  North West (including Cumbria)

  3,395

  86,399

  50,786

  3,255

  83,722

  48,717

  England

  20,686

  865,276

  508,618

  18,638

  797,046

  463,793

  January to March 1991

  April to June 1991 (Provisional)

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  1,553

  37,956

  21,821

  1,315

  35,832

  20,038

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,080

  60,829

  34,971

  1,299

  38,779

  21,686

  East Midlands

  768

  28,154

  16,186

  707

  25,529

  14,276

  Eastern

  1,367

  69,156

  39,759

  1,236

  64,318

  35,967

  London Boroughs

  4,107

  250,770

  144,170

  3,021

  190,697

  106,640

  South East

  1,333

  74,395

  42,771

  1,220

  67,599

  37,802

  South West

  797

  37,310

  21,450

  722

  32,638

  18,251

  West Midlands

  1,751

  63,950

  36,765

  1,416

  48,494

  27,118

  North West (including Cumbria)

  2,593

  69,743

  40,096

  1,832

  53,393

  29,858

  England

  16,349

  692,263

  397,989

  12,768

  557,279

  311,636

  July to September 1991 (provisional)

  October to December 1991 (provisional)

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  1,407

  38,414

  21,218

  1,306

  35,140

  19,198

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,338

  41,953

  23,172

  1,162

  38,943

  21,276

  East Midlands

  904

  32,603

  18,008

  807

  28,800

  15,734

  Eastern

  1,417

  73,907

  40,822

  1,244

  66,829

  36,511

  London Boroughs

  2,781

  174,979

  96,648

  2,845

  172,056

  93,999

  South East

  1,388

  79,219

  43,756

  1,270

  69,120

  37,762

  South West

  853

  38,310

  21,160

  876

  37,592

  20,538

  West Midlands

  1,511

  54,749

  30,240

  1,336

  52,798

  28,845

  North West (including Cumbria)

  1,759

  54,049

  29,853

  1,848

  50,124

  27,384

  England

  13,358

  588,183

  324,877

  12,694

  551,402

  301,247

  January to March 1992 (provisional)

  April to June 1992 (provisional)

  DOE regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  1,510

  39,748

  21,445

  1,067

  30,212

  16,012

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,289

  41,801

  22,552

  990

  32,787

  17,376

  East Midlands

  815

  28,390

  15,317

  697

  24,974

  13,236

  Eastern

  1,331

  66,021

  35,620

  1,143

  56,156

  29,762

  London Boroughs

  2,651

  178,011

  96,040

  2,310

  126,305

  66,939

  South East

  1,192

  63,770

  34,405

  1,055

  56,051

  29,706

  South West

  767

  35,710

  19,266

  733

  31,365

  16,623

  West Midlands

  1,317

  51,366

  27,713

  1,056

  37,963

  20,120

  North West (including Cumbria)

  1,617

  50,080

  27,019

  1,287

  40,205

  21,308

  England

  12,489

  554,897

  299,378

  10,338

  436,018

  231,081

  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment element for fire and civil defence for each county council and metropolitan fire and civil defence authority in England in each year since 1983–84; and what are the figures for 1993–94.
  300
  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Standard spending assessments were first introduced for the settlement year 1990–91 as a replacement for grant related expenditure assessments. The SSA elements for fire and civil defence for each county council and metropolitan fire and civil defence authority in England are shown in table 2 of the SSA handbooks for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, all of which are in the Library. The provisional figures for 1993–94 are given in the table.
  301

  1993–94 Provisional SSA Elements for Fire and Civil Defence

  Authority

  £ million

  Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  70·787

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  47·118

  South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  28·117

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  34·449

  West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  67·514

  West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  49·002

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  242·568

  Isles of Scilly

  0·053

  Avon county council

  20·473

  Bedfordshire county council

  11·073

  Berkshire county council

  16·601

  Buckinghamshire county council

  12·360

  Cambridgeshire county council

  12·039

  Cheshire county council

  20·103

  Cleveland county council

  19·464

  Cornwall county council

  7·181

  Cumbria county council

  8·753

  Derbyshire county council

  17·067

  Devon county council

  19·557

  Dorset county council

  12·065

  Durham county council

  12·973

  East Sussex county council

  14·891

  Essex county council

  31·445

  Gloucestershire county council

  9·605

  Hampshire county council

  31·585

  Hereford and Worcester county council

  12·116

  Hertfordshire county council

  20·328

  Humberside county council

  21·322

  Isle of Wight county council

  2·229

  Kent county council

  30·998

  Lancashire county council

  32,276

  Leicestershire county council

  16·924

  Lincolnshire county council

  9·583

  Norfolk county council

  13·010

  Northamptonshire county council

  11·260

  Northumberland county council

  5·823

  North Yorkshire county council

  12·001

  Nottinghamshire county council

  21·087

  Oxfordshire county council

  11·284

  Shropshire county council

  7·839

  Somerset county council

  7·693

  Staffordshire county council

  19·345

  Suffolk county council

  11·023

  Surrey county council

  22·133

  Warwickshire county council

  8·993

  West Sussex county council

  14·836

  Wiltshire county council

  10·054

  Total England

  1,139·000

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the actual expenditure on fire and civil defence services by each county council and metropolitan fire and civil defence authority in England for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: I have arranged for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals for opencast coal sites his office has dealt with in each year since 1983–84 and from 1 April to 30 September 1992; how many were approved and refused each year; what extent of land and volume of coal were approved and disapproved each year; how many appeals are outstanding; and what extent of land and volume of coal these involve.
  302
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Information on planning appeals involving opencast coal extraction between 1983–84 and 1986–87 is not available. The outcome of appeals determined between 1987–88 and 30 September is given in the table.

  Planning appeal decisions for opencast coal sites

  Appeals decided

  Appeals allowed

  Appeals dismissed

  1987–88

  15

  7

  8

  1988–89

  16

  8

  8

  1989–90

  16

  8

  8

  1990–91

  18

  9

  9

  1991–92

  8

  7

  1

  To 30 September 1992

  5

  3

  2

  At 30 November 1992 there are 14 appeals involving opencast coal extraction before the Secretary of State.

  Information on the extent of land and the volume of coal approved and disapproved is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Waterways; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ministers have had a number of meetings in recent months with the chairman of British Waterways, at which among other things matters of strategic policy and board appointments have been discussed. But the Secretary of State has at present no plans to meet him.

  Multilateral Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution Her Majesty's Government has made to the interim multilateral fund to assist the developing nations to phase out CFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply. We have paid the equivalent of US$3·443 million to the interim fund which meets the United Kingdom's full share of approved projects and support costs up to June 1992. We are firmly committed to providing the remainder of our share of the US$240 million fund.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current value to the Legal Aid Board, at 1992 prices, of those statutory charges placed on homes as a consequence of civil legal aid proceedings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As at 31 March 1992—which is the most recent date for which a total figure is available—the value to the Legal Aid Board of charges placed on property as a consequence of civil legal aid proceedings was £86 million.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the changes in civil legal aid eligibility on(a) the numbers

  303
  who will take legal action and (b) the access to legal representation and its quality of those client groups no longer financially eligible for legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I estimate that the number of civil legal aid bills paid will rise from around 298,000 in 1992–93 to around 327,000 in 1995–96. Legal services for those outside the legal aid scheme will continue to be available from lawyers in private practice and from other sources.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he has had with(a) the Law Society and (b) the Law Centres Federation concerning the impact of changes in the legal aid system on the numbers eligible for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department regularly discusses a range of issues relating to legal aid with both the Law Society and the Law Centres Federation. I am always open to receive representations on any matter.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of his amended eligibility criteria for legal aid on applications for legal advice under the green form scheme and private medical examinations for appellants against refusal of invalidity care allowance, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and disability living allowance.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The changes announced on 12 November do not affect the type of work that can be done under the green form scheme. Those people receiving income support or with incomes at income support level will be unaffected by the changes. This will mean that around 21 per cent. of households will be eligible for advice under the green form scheme. People with incomes above income support level will in future be unable to receive help under the green form scheme. However, the average green form bill in the last financial year was £82 and it is not unreasonable to expect them to meet costs of this order.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what public interest immunity certificates he has signed in relation to documents provided by his Department to Sir John May's inquiry.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Privity of Contract
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have to reform the law on the privity of contract principle.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is actively considering the recommendations of the Law Commission on this subject—"Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate"—Law Com. No. 74—and hopes to be able to make an announcement about it in the near future.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will carry out a survey 304
  into how many tenants are estimated to be facing bills for back rent because of default by their successors to whom they had assigned leases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to carry out such a survey, but he takes careful note of the representations he receives from former tenants and from landlords in relation to the operation of the doctrine of privity of contract.

WALES

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding of the warden service in sheltered housing after 1994; and what is his estimate of the number of wardens employed by health and social services authorities in sheltered housing.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A Court of Appeal judgment cast doubt on housing authorities' powers to provide care services and charge their costs to the housing revenue account. To avoid the risk of disruption to these important services, the Government are seeking powers in the Housing and Urban Development Bill to regularise housing authorities' practices in connection with these services.

  The Government's policy is that the housing revenue account should be a landlord account. We therefore propose that these new powers would be temporary. However, before any decisions are taken about the tinting of any change in the arrangements, about how the services would be provided thereafter, or about how their costs would be accounted for, there will be full consultation with all parties in the new year. When considering how best to implement any new arrangements, we shall consider all the financial and administrative issues to ensure that support continues to be available for those who need it. Information on the number of wardens in local authority sheltered accommodation is not held centrally.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in south Glamorgan are currently on waiting lists for youth training schemes.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  However, as at 12 November 1992, of the number of young people in south Glamorgan registered for employment or training with the careers service, 228 were reported to be seeking entry or re-entry to youth training. This figure includes young people still receiving guidance as well as those already under submission to training schemes.

  St. Mary's Hospital, South Glamorgan
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requirements he has imposed on South Glamorgan health authority and Llandough hospital unit for public consultation before any plan to close St. Mary's day hospital is implemented.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office guidance requires health authorities to discuss service changes with
  305
  community health councils, prior to taking a view on whether those changes are substantial and therefore subject to formal consultation procedures.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 91, if the Mid Glamorgan, West Wales and Clwyd training and enterprise councils have completed their action plans for local job creation in the areas affected by the Taff Merthyr, Betws and Point of Ayr collieries; if he has considered their contents; if he will place a copy of each plan and any written response he has made to them in the Library; and if the £4·8 million he has allocated for employment and training in these areas is drawn from the £75 million allocated for this purpose by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Mid Glamorgan, West Wales and North East Wales TECs have now submitted action plans proposing initiatives which could be taken in their respective areas. These plans are currently being finalised in discussion with my officials and I will announce my proposals as soon as possible.

  Of the allocation of £4·8 million which I have already announced, £2·8 million is included in the £75 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 November to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, relating to the auditing arrangements of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, on what date he expects to complete the amendment to the financial memorandum; and if he will place a copy of the amendment in the Library.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials wrote to the corporation yesterday with the amendment to the financial memorandum. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in the Treasury at principal grade and above are in receipt of performance-related pay by grade; and what is the total cost of performance-related pay for these grades in the Treasury.

  Mr. Nelson
  In total some 116 people at grade 7—principal—and above are in receipt of performance-related pay. The total cost of performance-related pay for these grades in 1992–93 is estimated at £270,000. The numbers of staff in each grade are as follows:

  Numbers

  Grade 7 (principal)

  47

  Grade 6

  8

  Grade 5

  30

  Grade 4

  2

  Grade 3

  23

  Grade 2

  6

  306

  Numbers

  116

  Chancellor's Tenant
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the accounting officer appointed under section 22 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 minuted the Comptroller and Auditor General about the expenditure arising in connection with the eviction of a tenant renting property from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he will name the relevant accounting officer.

  Mr. Portillo
  No minute was sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The relevant accounting officers were Sir Peter Middleton and Sir Terence Burns, who succeeded him on 3 May 1991.

  Football Grounds
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to confirm his decision to extend the life of the pool betting duty relief announced in the 1990 Budget to provide funds to assist with the implementation of the Taylor report at football grounds.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will decide whether to extend the reduction in pool betting duty in the light of evidence from the Football League and football clubs that they have moved ahead with planning their own contribution to implementing the Taylor recommendations.

  Corporation Tax
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax regime applicable to the payment of corporation tax on income accrued as a result of superannuation contribution holidays; and whether any differences exist with respect to the treatment of nationalised industries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Companies can obtain a deduction from taxable profits only for superannuation contributions actually paid. This applies equally to nationalised industries as well as the private sector.

  Independent Forecasters
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to announce the appointment of a team of independent forecasters to assist the Treasury; and if he will name the individuals he has approached to date.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: It is planned to issue invitations to join the forecasting panel in the next few weeks. An announcement about the panel's membership will follow shortly afterwards.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the £750 million allocated in the autumn statement for buying empty and repossessed properties will be allocated to London local authorities.
  307
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Of the total £750 million allocated to boost the housing market in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, £580 million was allocated to the Housing Corporation to enable housing associations in England to purchase empty properties. Seventy-five per cent. of this £580 million has already been allocated to individual associations. Of this 75 per cent., half—around £220 million—has been allocated to projects in the Housing Corporation's three London and home counties regions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the affidavit sent to him by Ms. Tess Lawrence on 30 November.

  The Prime Minister
  The affidavit has been sent by Ms. Lawrence to Lord Justice Scott. It will be for him to consider the information which it contains.

  Legal Advice (Ministers)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1979 the Government have funded, wholly or in part, the cost of legal advice of representations for Ministers of the Crown in respect of matters which related in part to personal and private matters; and if he will list the names of the Ministers in respect of whom such payments have been made.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no central record of such cases. Such advice is normally confidential.

  Sprinkler Systems
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that sprinkler systems similar to those to be installed at the National Library of Scotland should be installed at the British museum in London.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for the trustees and directing staff of individual museums and galleries to decide on the most appropriate fire systems for their institutions with regard to the nature of their collections.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date the Government received copies of the report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency into the attempt by Iraq to build and develop nuclear weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  So far, the International Atomic Energy Agency has carried out 15 inspections aimed at uncovering Iraqi attempts to build and develop nuclear weapons. As reports of these inspections are published as Security Council documents, they are placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if lie will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants are employed by the Northern Ireland Office in(a) London, (b) Belfast and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Mates
  As at 1 November 1992, the number of people working for the Northern Ireland Office was:

  (a) 110 in London

  (b) 2,813 in Belfast and

  (c) 2,870 elsewhere.

  Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a comprehensive list of all those who have died as a result of Northerrn Ireland terrorism, including the date and location of their death and of the incident leading to their death and the organisation allegedly responsible for the death since August 1968 in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Great Britain, (c) the Republic of Ireland and (d) other EC countries.

  Mr. Mates
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman when compilation of the available information is completed and arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Wildlife
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he or his officials last met representatives of the agrochemical industry to discuss the future funding of the wildlife incident investigation schemes.

  Mr. Hanley
  Wildlife incident investigation schemes operate on a common basis throughout the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes the lead in negotiations with the agrochemical industry, and I understand that it has recently met with industry representatives to discuss the funding of the scheme.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future funding of the wildlife incident investigation scheme Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Wildlife incident investigation schemes operate on a common basis throughout the United Kingdom with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the lead Department as far as their operation is concerned.

  Laganside Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 789, relating to the auditing arrangements of the Laganside Corporation, on what date he expects to complete the amended financial memorandum; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  Laganside Corporation was advised by letter dated 1 December 1992 of the amendment to the financial memorandum. The amended section now reads:
  309
  "The Northern Ireland Audit Office shall have full access on request to the books and records of the Corporation."
  I am arranging for a copy of the memorandum to be placed in the Library.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about aid to Bangladesh.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain provided £56 million in aid to Bangladesh in 1991. Our aid programme supports development of the country's natural resources, its physical infrastructure and its human resources through health and population, education and training. We promote good government through our assistance with economic reform, and improvements to the efficiency and accountability of public services. We have established a new aid management office in Dhaka, staffed by a multi-disciplinary team, which will allow us to focus our aid still more effectively on Bangladesh's development priorities.

  Global Environment Facility
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to provide additional resources for replenishment of the global environment facility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government have agreed to provide new and additional resources for the replenishment of the global environment facility. Provision for this will be made following the outcome of the replenishment negotiations and as soon as the level and the timing of our contribution is known.

  Malawi
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the Consultative Group in May 1992, we and other donors agreed to withhold new balance of payments and restrict other forms of aid, pending improvements in Malawi's human rights record. We welcome the decision to hold a referendum on the one-party system and other indications that the Malawi Government are beginning to address human rights issues. It is essential that the referendum is conducted fairly and those calling for democratic changes are allowed to campaign freely and openly. We continue to urge the Malawi Government to make further improvements in human rights.

  We keep our position on aid under regular review, but for the moment we are concentrating new aid on humanitarian relief and projects to help the poorest. So far this year we have allocated £12·3 million of humanitarian relief, including £0·5 million of medical supplies offered during November.

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest information on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's estimates on rates of tropical forest loss.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Preliminary estimates from the current 1990 FAO forest resources assessment indicate a rate of tropical forest loss in excess of 17 million hectares annually.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure implementation of the forest principles agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We shall publish a national plan on our own implementation of the forest principles, by the end of 1993. We are also using our influence, together with our EC and G7 partners, to seek agreement to an international review process. We believe that this should involve the Sustainable Development Commission which is being established by the United Nations General Assembly.

  Grenada
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the environmental impacts of the Commonwealth Development Corporation/Liberty Club Ltd. tourist hotel development in Grenada.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is the Government's responsibility under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act to set the policy framework in which the Commonwealth Development Corporation carries out its activities. Decisions on individual investments are the responsibility of its board. Assessment of the environmental aspects of proposed investments is an integral part of the Commonwealth Development Corporation's project appraisal and approval procedures. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Overseas Development Administration to undertake separate studies of proposed projects.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to authorise the Commonwealth Development Corporation to extend its area of operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Approval has been given to the Commonwealth Development Corporation undertaking activities in the Dominican Republic. In pursuing investment opportunities the Commonwealth Development Corporation will endeavour to give priority to promoting the private sector.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether applicants for membership of the Commonwealth have to fulfil any standards with regard to democracy or respect for human rights.
  311
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding reply 1 December 1992]: All countries applying to join the Commonwealth are expected to adhere to the "Declaration of Commonwealth Principles" issued at the 1971 Singapore Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received about the arrest and detention of Dr. Bieleu, president of the Union of Cameroonian Democratic Forces.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: We have received a large number of representations about human rights abuses in Cameroon following the Presidential elections on 11 October. Particular concern has been expressed by human rights groups in both the United Kingdom and Cameroon about the detention of opposition leaders, including Dr. Bieuleu, who is currently detained without charge at the headquarters of the Gendarmerie Nationale in Yaoundé. The authorities have also apparently refused Dr. Bieuleu medication to control his diabetes.

  We have made our concerns about human rights abuses plain to the Cameroon Government and have called publicly on President Biya to release those in detention, especially leaders of the opposition parties.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of staff available to support the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank in his evaluation of the economic poverty alleviation and environmental impact of proposed World bank projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The United Kingdom executive director has a joint office dealing with World bank and IMF matters. In addition to two alternate directors, there are six assistants, all of whom have responsibilities for reviewing World hank projects and policies. Technical back-up is available as necessary from professional advisers at the ODA's headquarters.

  Malaria Conference
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference in Amsterdam on malaria, at which the Department of Health was represented.

  United Kingdom contributions to United Nations organisations in cash terms

  £ thousands

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  11991

  United Nations Development Programme

  21,000

  21,000

  23,000

  24,500

  26,001

  27,114

  28,964

  World Food Programme2

  500

  500

  10,392

  4,542

  15,674

  4,030

  15,190

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  16,860

  14,020

  14,800

  19,470

  19,316

  19,495

  23,475

  United Nations Children's Fund

  8,400

  8,308

  12,000

  12,223

  12,200

  9,285

  11,232

  United Nations Population Fund

  4,500

  4,500

  5,000

  5,250

  5,500

  36,000

  47,500

  United Nations Environment Programme

  750

  1,000

  1,000

  1,250

  3,000

  3,000

  4,000

  United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,746

  391

  719

  898

  n/a—Not available.

  1 The figures for the United Nations Development Programme, the World Food Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund have been updated since the answer given to the House on 14 July 1992.

  2Contributions to the World Food Programme include subscription payments, commodity purchase and, from 1987, food aid. Prior to 1987 the food aid channelled through the World Food Programme could not be distinguished from other food aid, and therefore is not included

  312
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Participants from 102 member states of the World Health Organisation unanimously adopted the world declaration on the control of malaria at the ministerial conference in Amsterdam on 26 to 27 October. Acknowledging that malaria constitutes a major threat to health and to economic development, the conference concluded that malaria can and must be controlled with the tools now available; the key to success is applying the right strategy in the right places at the right time; in most endemic countries the goal will be to prevent malaria mortality and to reduce morbidity as well as social and economic losses due to the disease through building local and national capabilities; and aid donors should increase support for malaria control efforts.

  The United Kingdom delegation was led by ODA's chief health and population adviser and included representatives from the Department of Health and the Liverpool and London Schools of Tropical Medicine. The United Kingdom delegation stressed the need for cost-effective interventions to tackle malaria. It noted that ODA already provides substantial support to the management of malaria in many developing countries, and announced ODA's intention to establish a United Kigdom malaria consortium to help developing countries acquire skills needed to develop cost-effective malaria strategies and undertake relevant operational research. Developing countries will be able to apply for such assistance under ODA's bilateral country programmes. We hope that other aid agencies, such as WHO and the World bank, will also draw on this United Kingdom expertise.

  United Nations Programmes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the United Kingdom contributed financially to(a) the United Nations development programme, (b) the world food programme, (c) the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, (d) UNICEF, (e) the United Nations fund for population activities, (f) the United Nations environment programme and (g) the United Nations disaster relief organisation, in cash and at 1991 prices for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Contributions in cash terms and in 1991 prices were as follows.
  313
  in this table.

  3 United Kingdom pledge for 1990, of which £3 million was actually paid in February 1991.

  4 United Kingdom pledge for 1991. Excludes payment of £3 million in February 1991 against 1990 pledge.

  United Kingdom contribution to United Nations organisations at 1991 prices

  £ thousands

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  11991

  United Nations Development Programme

  30,047

  29,044

  30,301

  30,279

  29,990

  29,052

  28,964

  World Food Programme2

  715

  692

  13,691

  5,613

  18,079

  4,318

  15,190

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  24,124

  19,391

  19,498

  24,063

  22,279

  20,888

  23,475

  United Nations Children's Fund

  12,019

  11,490

  15,809

  15,106

  14,072

  9,949

  11,232

  United Nations Population Fund

  6,439

  6,224

  6,587

  6,488

  6,344

  36,429

  47,500

  United Nations Environment Programme

  1,073

  1,383

  1,317

  1,545

  3,460

  3,214

  4,000

  United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  3,394

  451

  770

  898

  Note: Latest available Her Majesty's Treasury deflators (consistent with the Autumn Statement) were used. These figures therefore differ from those given in the answer to the House on 14 July 1992.

  N/a—Not available.

  1 The figures for the United Nations Development Programme, the World Food Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund have been updated since the answer given to the House on 14 July 1992.

  2 Contributions to the World Food Programme include subscription payments, commodity purchase and, from 1987. food aid. Prior to 1987 the food aid channelled through the World Food Programme could not be distinguished from other food aid, and therefore is not included in this table.

  3 United Kingdom pledge for 1990, of which £3 million (in cash terms) was actually paid in February 1991.

  4 United Kingdom pledge for 1991. Excludes payment of £3 million (in cash terms) in February 1991 against 1990 pledge.

EDUCATION

  Open University
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the Open university will be given the extra funds previously indicated for 1993 to enable it to continue to increase its undergraduate student numbers.

  Mr. Forman
  The baseline funding for the Open university, which is being transferred to the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 1993–94, includes provision for the university to recruit an additional 2,000 undergraduate students in 1993. I understand that the funding council's decision on the university's funding for the period up to 31 July 1993 takes account of these additional students.

  Adult Illiteracy
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures are being taken to tackle adult illiteracy in England.

  Mr. Forman
  The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 places the Further Education Funding Council under a duty to secure adequate provision of basic literacy teaching for adults. The Government also support the adult literacy and basic skills unit which provides advice and undertakes development work in basic skills.

  Birmingham City Council
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effect of penalties imposed on council spending which exceeds standard spending assessment on the ability of Birmingham city council to reach its standard spending assessment for education; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Forth
  Birmingham city council is responsible for deciding its overall budget and spending priorities and is accountable locally for the decisions it takes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the provisions of the treaty of Maastricht which(a) alter the status of the council as an institution of the European Community, (b) increase the scope of majority voting or (c) reduce the right of unilateral action by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 20 May at column 169 detailing extensions of majority voting under the Maastricht treaty. The status of the Council is not altered by the treaty on European union. The United Kingdom would forgo the right to act unilaterally in monetary mattes if it chose to join the move to a single currency, but the treaty does not oblige it to do so. The treaty includes new articles on education, training, culture, health, consumer protection, industry and development which include powers for the Community to act. But measures in all these areas had already been adopted under the existing treaty, so the articles concerned largely make explicit what is already possible under existing provisions. In addition, article 3b of the treaty sets new criteria for Community action across the board, which will limit its right to constrain member states' activities. On balance, therefore, we are confident that member states' freedom of action will be increased.

  South-West Atlantic (Fish Stocks)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with the Argentine Government concerning the conservation of fish stocks in the south-west Atlantic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Discussions were held with the Argentine Government at the fourth meeting of the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission on 23 and 24 November 1992. The delegations exchanged views on conservation and related matters. We shall continue the dialogue with the Argentine Government.
  315
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value of licences to fish for illex squid in Falkland Islands waters in 1992, if he will make an estimate of the projected income for 1993; what information he has concerning investment in fisheries in the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The income from illex squid licences to fish in Falkland Islands waters in 1992 amounted to £20·768 million. The current licensing round is riot yet complete and prospective income is uncertain. It could be significantly lower. The market for squid is weak. There may be fewer applications for licences.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has concerning the depletion of stocks of the illex squid in the waters of the south-west Atlantic; and what is his policy for ensuring that immature squid is protected from overfishing in these waters.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The proportion of the annual illex squid brood which is not caught each season and is thus able to breed has been sufficient to maintain an adequate stock in Falkland Islands waters.

  We support the measures taken by the Falkland Islands Government to prevent overfishing by limiting the number of licences for fishing in the Falkland Islands conservation zone (FICZ), closing the fishery early if necessary and negotiating voluntary restraint agreements to prevent overfishing in the adjacent high seas. We discuss with Argentina measures for fisheries conservation in the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission.

  Malta
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with Malta's application for membership of the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Maltese application has been referred to the European Commission for its Opinion. We look forward to an early discussion by the Council of Ministers when the Opinion is available.

  Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current status and recent implementation of the CFE treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  An agreement to apply the CFE treaty provisionally from 17 July 1992 was signed by all 29 CFE states parties at the Helsinki summit on 10 July. This was in response to the view of many states parties that implementation of the treaty, which was signed on 19 November 1990, should not be delayed any further by the failure of some states parties to ratify quickly. The treaty entered into force definitively on 9 November, following ratification by the last two states parties, Belarus and Kazakhstan, on 30 October.

  In the 120-day period of intensive inspection since 17 July, the United Kingdom has conducted 21 inspections in the countries of the former Warsaw pact, and has received seven inspections from them. On 14 November the treaty moved into its three-year reduction phase, in the course of
  316
  which states parties will reduce their equipment holdings to the limits specified by the treaty. We are satisfied that the CFE treaty, which we regard as a cornerstone for co-operative security in Europe, has been properly implemented so far.

  EC Officials
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 November,Official Report, column 1012, how many of the British employees at the European Commission are translators or interpreters; and if he will break down the figure for those in the administrative grade by directorate general.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently 185 full-time British translators and interpreters working for the European Community institutions. These are additional to the figures for British officials employed in the European Commission in my answer of 13 November, at column 1012. The provision of detailed breakdowns of staffing figures is a matter for the European Community institutions.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Government have taken at the United Nations or elsewhere about the current political and constitutional position in Cameroon.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A Cameroonian mission, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Francis Nkwain, visited the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 18 November. We called on the Cameroon Government on this occasion to take all possible measures to end human rights abuses and to take active measures to demonstrate their commitment to democracy. We have subsequently drawn to the attention of the Cameroon Government a British statement issued on 19 November which urged President Biya to end the state of emergency and to release those in detention or under house arrest, especially leaders of the opposition parties.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations he has made into the civil rights position of the SDF candidate for the presidency in Cameroon in respect of human rights; and whether his Department has sought to meet Mr. John Fru Ndi recently.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The continued restriction on Mr. Fru Ndi appear to run counter to Cameroon's obligations under the international convention on civil and political rights. The British ambassador to Cameroon has spoken to Mr. Fru Ndi several times by telephone and a member of the embassy visited the North-West Province on 23–24 November, when he was able to meet him in person.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Government have made about the treatment of the English-speaking Cameroons in recent years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have been given no grounds to make such representations in recent years. The current problems in Cameroon are not solely related to problems
  317
  between the anglophone and francophone communities in Cameroon, but rather stem from the conduct of the presidential election on 11 October and the increase in human rights abuses in the aftermath of that election.

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many species of tropical rain forest timber he considers to be in danger of global extinction as a result of over-harvesting.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Species threatened with extinction which are, or may be, affected by trade are listed in appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The appendix currently includes two tropical timber species: the Guatemalan Fir, Abies guatemalensis, and Brazilian Rosewood, Dalbergia nigra.

HEALTH

  Health Practices
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to promote better health practices in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Over £150 million has been invested since 1989 to support medical and clinical audit. The philosophy of audit is now generally accepted by the medical and other health care professions.

  The clinical outcomes group, jointly chaired by the chief medical officer and chief nursing officer and representing all the major professional groups in the national health service, has been set up to drive forward the concept of clinical audit and focus on establishing outcomes.

  Other initiatives include:
  the "Health of the Nation" which has set targets in the area of awareness and prevention of illness; and
  a series of bulletins entitled "Effective Health Care", bringing together evidence of the effectiveness of specific health care interventions. Four bulletins have been issued to date:

  Population Screening for Osteoporosis

  Rehabilitation after Stroke

  The Management of Subfertility

  Treatment of Persistent Glue Ear in Children

  Department of Health funded research programmes which will form the basis of standards for audit in future;
  encouraging the medical royal colleges to set best practice standards for their specialties.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to speed up the supply of children's HIB vaccines to district health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  More than 2 million doses of HIB vaccine have been issued to health authorities since the vaccine was introduced on 1 October. The recommended programme for immunisation, which gives priority to the youngest children because they are at most risk from invasive haemophilus disease, required some 850,000 doses in October and November. This has left a substantial balance to allow for the immunisation of older children 318
  who would otherwise be called in at a later stage in the programme. The objective is to immunise all children under four years of age by September 1993.

  It is the responsibility of health authorities to arrange equitable distribution of the vaccine they receive, according to requirements, and to make any adjustments to the supply arrangements considered necessary. Continuing supplies of HIB vaccine should ensure that a total of 5 million doses will be distributed in the first six months of the programme.

  Family Planning
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for every district health authority in England and number of family planning clinics in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Drugs (Labelling)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require drug companies to label drugs with Braille symbols.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no such plans. I understand that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has had discussions with the industry which is looking at ways of introducing some degree of Braille labelling.

  Secure Units (Juveniles)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places in secure units for juveniles there are in England and Wales; and how many places the Government are intending to provide by 1995.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 30 November 1992 there were 292 places in local authority secure units in England.

  Plans are being prepared to provide an additional 60 to 65 secure places in order to implement the new juvenile remand provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 by the mid 1990s.

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average cost of keeping a juvenile in a local authority secure unit.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information in the form requested is not collected centrally.

  Eyesight and Dental Checks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make regulations to restore the right to a free eye test and the right to a free dental check-up.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Social Security Budget
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the adjustment in the amount to be transferred from the social security budget to local authorities from 1 April 1993 in the light of the uprating of benefits announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 12 November; and if she will make a statement.
  319
  Mr. Yeo
  The amounts of the transfer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 2 October were based on a calculation made at that time of the resources which the Government would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. The transfer was calculated on the assumption of an increase in social security benefit levels of 4·25 per cent. In the event the uprating of social security benefits announced on 12 November amounted to 3·6 per cent., but I do not envisage any adjustment being made to the transfer amounts.

  Chemical Entity Medicines
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November,Official Report, columns 810–11, if she will name the indigestion remedy, the laxative and the vitamin product that have been granted product licences by the United Kingdom licensing authority since 1985; and what was the recommendation of the NHS Advisory Committee on Drugs in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The indigestion remedy is Pepulsid which the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs accepted was appropriate for supply on NHS prescription. The laxative is Importal which the committee decided should not be prescribable under the NHS by its proprietary name, although it can be supplied under the generic name Lactitol. The vitamin is Hearn which has not been considered by the committee; I understand it may never have been marketed in the United Kingdom.

  GPs Fee Scale
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recommendations the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body is planning to make on the fee scale for general medical practitioners in 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the chairman of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body of its amended remit for the coming year, he invited the review body to make recommendations as normal on a fee scale for general medical practitioners that would make provision for their practice expenses and deliver the new intended average net income set by the Government's policy for public sector pay settlements for the coming year.

  The review body expressed some reservations about what this might entail. There have been discussions between my officials, the profession, and the DDRB secretariat, to explore the review body's concerns and to see how far the two sides could offer evidence which might help. A good deal of common ground has emerged, but it is now clear that there remain some issues which it would be difficult for the review body to handle in current circumstances.

  The Government have therefore concluded that the best course is not to refer these questions to the review body for the 1993–94 pay round. Instead, the Health Departments will pursue them directly with the profession, to a time scale which should allow further progress on the unresolved technical matters. My officials are in touch with the British Medical Association about the arrangements for these discussions.

  Osteopaths
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to introduce provisions that osteopaths should be trained to minimum standards of competence and be regulated by a governing body capable of enforcing an appropriate code of practice.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are supporting the private Member's Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) to establish a single statutory governing body for osteopaths responsible for developing, promoting and regulating the profession of osteopathy and for setting educational standards and standards of professional conduct.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the effectiveness of the limited list prescribing system which is used in each other member country of the European Community which has adopted such a system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that steps have been or are being taken to ensure that the best use is made of resources available for the provision of drugs in a number of member states in the European Community including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Belgium. We have no information about the extent to which the effectiveness of such schemes has been formally evaluated.

  Health-related Projects
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the health-related projects currently funded by(a) city challenge and (b) the urban programme.

  Mr. Sackville
  City challenge funding commenced in April this year and health-related projects are reflected in the action plans of Manchester, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Newcastle, Wirral, Lewisham, Middlesbrough and Bradford. Plans include a wide range of health promotion projects and others related to primary care, maternity services, drugs prevention, a well woman clinic, health services for ethnic minorities and for elderly people, and family and community health.

  The latest information available centrally under the urban programme is for 1991–92. A list of health-related projects for which details are held centrally has been placed in the Library.

  Private Ambulance Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she has taken in the last 12 months to monitor the activities of companies providing private ambulance services; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what measures she has undertaken to monitor the suitability and qualifications of staff working for private ambulance companies; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what guidelines exist governing the operation of private medical services which offer an emergency response service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Private ambulance services and their staff are not subject to any specific statute or regulation. It is for the prospective purchasers of private ambulance
  321
  services to satisfy themselves that operators are competent to provide the required service. Private ambulance services do not respond to emergency 999 calls.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she or her officials have had with Belmont International Air and Road Ambulance in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Research Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the research units within the NHS funded by her Department, (b) their principal publications in the last four years and (c) any plans for their reorganisation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department currently supports 13 research units on rolling contracts. In addition, there are 15 research programmes on fixed-term contracts. None of these contracts is currently held with national health service authorities. The units and programmes are largely based in university departments.

  Details of research contracts supported over the past four years are contained in the Department of Health "Handbook of Research and Development", an annual publication, which is available in the Library. A list of units' principal publications is not held centrally. The majority of research units on rolling contracts receive funds from a variety of sources, of which the Department is one.

  In respect of plans for reorganisation, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 2 December.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her response to the Reed report on mentally disordered offenders.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 27 November, at columns 873–74.

  Ativan
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what criteria the drug Ativan was originally made available; and what drugs its availability was intended to supersede.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ativan is a proprietary brand of lorazepam, one of the benzodiazepine group of drugs. It was licensed by the licensing authority on the basis of the normal criteria of quality, efficacy and safety. Whether or not a particular drug is intended to supersede another one is not relevant to the licensing procedure.

  Under the selected list arrangements, general practitioners are not permitted to prescribe Ativan tablets under the National Health Service, although lorazepam tablets can be prescribed generically.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to monitor the system of extra-contractual referrals in the NHS; and if she will make a statement.
  322
  Mr. Sackville
  The level of expenditure on extra-contractual referrals is monitored during the year. There are no plans for additional monitoring.

  NHS (Private Investment)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her plans to attract private investment into the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Measures already announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will increase the scope for using private finance in joint ventures with the national health service to improve and extend services. We aim to ensure that NHS patients will benefit from these new freedoms to the greatest possible extent.

  Pay Beds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each regional health authority and for England as a whole(a) the number of NHS pay beds and (b) the total revenue generated from those beds for 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and the projected figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available centrally is given in the table.

  Number of authorised pay beds in NHS hospitals

  Region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  97

  97

  Yorkshire

  188

  188

  Trent

  136

  136

  East Anglian

  108

  108

  North West Thames

  283

  283

  North East Thames

  411

  411

  South East Thames

  333

  333

  South West Thames

  180

  180

  Wessex

  116

  116

  Oxford

  194

  194

  South Western

  100

  100

  West Midlands

  276

  276

  Mersey

  129

  129

  North Western

  233

  227

  Special Health Authorities

  178

  178

  England

  2,962

  2,956

  Data for 1991–92 are not yet available. Nor do we project this data for future years.

  Income front private in-patients

  Region

  1989–90 £000 (cash)

  1990–91 £000 (cash)

  Northern

  1,275

  1,408

  Yorkshire

  3,020

  3,642

  Trent

  2,064

  1,755

  East Anglian

  3,953

  4,153

  North West Thames

  9,936

  11,013

  North East Thames

  11,598

  13,291

  South East Thames

  7,007

  8,979

  South West Thames

  2,449

  2,874

  Wessex

  1,817

  2,246

  Oxford

  6,315

  7,421

  South Western

  2,768

  3,836

  West Midlands

  3,080

  3,968

  Mersey

  1,206

  1,499

  North Western

  3,928

  4,933

  Special Health Authorities

  12,861

  14,635

  England

  73,277

  85,653

  323
  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Note:

  Information derivable from 1991–92 annual accounts will be available shortly. Relevant figures are not collected in-year and any estimates for 1992–93 or 1993–94 would consequently be speculative.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to improve the operation of the ambulance service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government remain committed to the maintenance of high standards by NHS ambulance services.

  The patients charter sets performance standards for ambulance emergency response times. Progress towards the achievement of the Government's target of one paramedic per front-line ambulance by 1996 continues and is generally ahead of schedule.

  In London the inquiry established by the South West Thames regional health authority has been asked to identify the lessons to be learned for the operation and management of the London ambulance service against the imperative of delivering service of the required standard.

  NHS Services (Contracting-out)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the contracting out of NHS services, in connection with recent European rulings on the transfer of undertakings.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the national health service market testing has been mandatory for catering, laundry and linen and domestic services since 1983 and a significant amount of work has been put out to commercial contractors. NHS managers have undertaken market testing in some 20 other support services and the NHS is preparing for an enhanced programme of testing as set out in the "Competing for Quality" White Paper.

  Contractors and would-be tenderers may have seen confusing reports concerning an amendment to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (1981) proposed in the employment legislation now before Parliament.

  These regulations provide for the transfer of employees' contracts where an undertaking has transferred to a new employer. It is not true, as reports have suggested, that the amendment which is being made applies the regulations to the public sector for the first time. Nor is it correct to suggest this cuts across the Government's policy to open central and local government services to competition. The Government have always accepted that the regulations cover both the public and private sectors.

  However, in every case the crucial consideration in deciding whether the regulations require that existing terms and conditions of employment should be preserved, is whether or not an undertaking is actually being transferred. This test has always applied and will continue to apply.

  In the NHS there is a wide spectrum of work and contracting scenarios. Health authorities, trusts and would-be contractors need to consider in each case, whether there is likely to be a transfer of undertaking involved and if in any doubt to take legal advice.
  324
  The Bill makes no difference to the likely outcome of such consideration. The only relevant changes that are being made in the Bill are that it will no longer be necessary to show that the undertaking is in the nature of a commercial venture and that it is made clear that property does not have to be transferred for there to be a transfer of an undertaking.

  These changes are required to bring the wording into line with the EC acquired rights directive and to clarify its interpretation.

  The changes in the Bill do not imply that past cases should have been decided differently because other criteria may have been relevant to those decisions, nor can it be assumed that future cases will be decided differently.

  Market testing in the NHS has led to both improvements in quality of service and financial savings thus releasing resources for direct patient care. The NHS is committed to pressing ahead with the challenging programme of market testing for the future.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each regional health authority the latest figures on(a) the percentage of patients receiving an immediate assessment in casualty, (b) the percentage of patients whose waiting time has been limited to 30 minutes and (c) the percentage of patients who have experienced the cancellation of a booked operation.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities, as purchasers of services, are required to publish annual reports giving details of the performance against all relevant patients charter rights and standards achieved by their providers. A commentary on overall performance will be included in the chief executive's annual report for 1992–93.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Loan Objects
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the number of indemnity undertakings given by Departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-month period ended 30 September; and what was the value of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time and which remain outstanding as at 30 September.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information my hon. Friend requests is as follows:

  In the six-month period ended 30 September 1992 the following undertakings to indemnify were given by the relevant Departments for items on loan to national and non-national institutions.

  Number

  Department of National Heritage

  535

  Scottish Office Education Department

  93

  Welsh Office Education Department

  38

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  8

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time and outstanding at 30 September 1992 are:
  325

  £

  Department of National Heritage

  1,303,095,363

  Scottish Office Education Department

  284,743,138

  Welsh Office Education Department

  56,733,397

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  2,899,587

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what allocations of items accepted in lieu of tax there have been since his last announcement on 6 November.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since my last announcement, on 6 November at column 429, I am pleased to inform the House of an allocation of an offer in lieu of tax. The offer is of minutes and accounts relating to the Hambledon cricket club. These documents will be allocated to the Hampshire record office.

  Children's Play
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support he intends to give to children's play after 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department's current funding of the national children's play and recreation unit, through the Sports Council, comes to an end on 31 March 1993, Discussions have now been opened with the Sports Council with a view to its taking over direct responsibility for a number of the play unit's functions.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what advice he has received on the impact of the proposed national lottery on the football pools if the total percentage taken out in tax and in payments to good causes were identical for pools and national lottery;

  (2) what advice he has received on the impact of the proposed national lottery on football pools assuming no changes are made in the current rules governing the pools operation and promotion;

  (3) what advice he has received on the impact of the proposed national lottery on football pools if pools were permitted (a) to be promoted to potential clients who want to use lucky numbers rather than skill and judgment in placing their bets, (b) to run roll-over jackpots, (c) to be advertised on television or (d) to have pools coupons collected from shops;

  (4) what advice he has received on the consequences for the proposed national lottery's turnover if the lottery were not to offer instant games;

  (5) what advice he has received on the number of jobs lost in the football pools industry if the national lottery is introduced and no changes are permitted in the regime governing football pools operation and promotion;

  (6) what advice he has received on the consequence for the proposed national lottery's turnover if (a) the number of types of retailer handling lottery tickets were restricted to one, (b) if it were not advertised on television or (c) limits were imposed on prizes and jackpots;

  (7) what advice he has received on the impact of the proposed national lottery on retail sales of newspapers and sweets.
  326
  Mr. Brooke
  The Department commissioned a firm of consultants to advise on a number of aspects of the national lottery. This advice was intended to identify the key determinants for a successful lottery. Among the matters covered was advice on the issues the hon. Member raises in his questions. This advice contained a number of illustrative scenarios based on ranges of assumptions. Much of the information in the report is commercially sensitive to those who provided it, and I do not intend to publish the report.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice he has received on the impact of the proposed national lottery on funding for football, assuming no changes in the rules governing pools operation and promotion.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received a number of letters from chairmen of football clubs and the Football Trust, which refer to the concerns expressed by the pools companies.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will allow representatives of the GAH consulting group to meet representatives of the pools promoters to discuss its report on the impact of the proposed national lottery on football pools.

  Mr. Brooke
  GAH is bound by normal Government contract conditions not to disclose details of its report.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice he has received on the impact of the proposed national lottery on the sale of premium bonds.

  Mr. Brooke
  Internal advice suggests that the products offered by these two schemes are very different. Premium bonds are a savings instrument. We expect both schemes to be viable.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Pools Promoters Association members to discuss the proposed national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  My officials have met the Pools Promoters Association to discuss the national lottery on a number of occasions, most recently on 4 November. I am due to meet the chairman and representatives of the pools companies on 9 December.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his latest forecast of the projected annual income of the national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  All forecasts at this stage must be speculative. I hope that the national lottery will generate substantial sums for good causes.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many reports have been commissioned on the impact of the national lottery on football pools.

  Mr. Brooke
  The GAH group was commissioned to undertake a report to help the Department shape its legislation on the national lottery. Part of this report looked at the possible effects of the national lottery on the pools industry.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the cost to public funds of the research he has commissioned on the impact of the national lottery on football pools.
  327
  Mr. Brooke
  The GAH report, commissioned to cover a wide range of issues, cost £44,985.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that football pools are not damaged by the introduction of the national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  The football pools companies have compiled a list of the relaxations they would like to see to the regime which regulates their operations. The Government are considering whether any changes are appropriate.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice he has received on the impact of the proposed national lottery on lotteries run by sports clubs.

  Mr. Brooke
  A number of organisations which run small lotteries, including sports clubs, have submitted information in response to the White Paper "A National Lottery Raising Money for Good Causes".

  Historic Homes
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grade I historic homes have sprinkler systems installed as a fire precaution.

  Mr. Brooke
  This information is not held centrally and is not readily available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disability Quota
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the percentage quota for disabled people employed by each local authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Tables of figures showing the number and percentage of registered disabled people employed by a wide range of public sector employers, including, local authorities, are published annually in the Employment Gazette. This information is published with the agreement of the individual employers. The latest figures for local authorities in England and Wales were published in the February edition of the Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently waiting to get on to places on the YTS; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 1 December, at columns 127–28.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the percentage increase in each category of recorded crime 328
  during the 12 months ended June over the 12 months ended June 1989 (a) in England and Wales and (b) in each police force area.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The information requested is contained in the tables.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area Percentage change for 12 months ended June 1992 compared with 12 months ended June 1989 Violence against the person

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  23

  Bedfordshire

  -10

  Cambridgeshire

  48

  Cheshire

  4

  Cleveland

  7

  Cumbria

  16

  Derbyshire

  26

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  Dorset

  14

  Durham

  1

  Essex

  5

  Gloucestershire

  28

  Greater Manchester

  4

  Hampshire

  34

  Hertfordshire

  2

  Humberside

  -8

  Kent

  45

  Lancashire

  5

  Leicestershire

  34

  Lincolnshire

  28

  City of London

  7

  Merseyside

  31

  Metropolitan Police District

  33

  Norfolk

  3

  Northamptonshire

  1

  Northumbria

  15

  North Yorkshire

  24

  Nottinghamshire

  21

  South Yorkshire

  2

  Staffordshire

  14

  Suffolk

  19

  Surrey

  7

  Sussex

  9

  Thames Valley

  7

  Warwickshire

  12

  West Mercia

  12

  West Midlands

  26

  West Yorkshire

  15

  Wiltshire

  39

  Dyfed-Powys

  53

  Gwent

  18

  North Wales

  15

  South Wales

  31

  England and Wales

  19

  Sexual offences

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  -3

  Bedfordshire

  -16

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  Cheshire

  30

  Cleveland

  -2

  Cumbria

  4

  Derbyshire

  -17

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  Dorset

  38

  Durham

  16

  Essex

  -4

  Gloucestershire

  36

  Greater Manchester

  -1

  Hampshire

  15

  329

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Hertfordshire

  -19

  Humberside

  -6

  Kent

  33

  Lancashire

  -20

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire

  -12

  City of London

  41

  Merseyside

  26

  Metropolitan Police District

  29

  Norfolk

  12

  Northamptonshire

  -16

  Northumbria

  3

  North Yorkshire

  -13

  Nottinghamshire

  -9

  South Yorkshire

  -4

  Staffordshire

  -6

  Suffolk

  34

  Surrey

  30

  Sussex

  4

  Thames Valley

  -19

  Warwickshire

  -11

  West Mercia

  7

  West Midlands

  6

  West Yorkshire

  7

  Wiltshire

  6

  Dyfed-Powys

  29

  Gwent

  -20

  North Wales

  -33

  South Wales

  -3

  England and Wales

  6

  Robbery

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  85

  Bedfordshire

  113

  Cambridgeshire

  171

  Cheshire

  160

  Cleveland

  71

  Cumbria

  92

  Derbyshire

  148

  Devon and Cornwall

  54

  Dorset

  126

  Durham

  100

  Essex

  36

  Gloucestershire

  190

  Greater Manchester

  90

  Hampshire

  104

  Hertfordshire

  75

  Humberside

  31

  Kent

  138

  Lancashire

  89

  Leicestershire

  45

  Lincolnshire

  78

  City of London

  8

  Merseyside

  25

  Metropolitan Police District

  32

  Norfolk

  55

  Northamptonshire

  94

  Northumbria

  87

  North Yorkshire

  78

  Nottinghamshire

  86

  South Yorkshire

  48

  Staffordshire

  87

  Suffolk

  75

  Surrey

  93

  Sussex

  55

  Thames Valley

  100

  Warwickshire

  118

  West Mercia

  85

  West Midlands

  69

  West Yorkshire

  174

  Wiltshire

  63

  330

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Dyfed-Powys

  182

  Gwent

  102

  North Wales

  44

  South Wales

  62

  England and Wales

  54

  Burglary

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  97

  Bedfordshire

  92

  Cambridgeshire

  113

  Cheshire

  82

  Cleveland

  35

  Cumbria

  82

  Derbyshire

  132

  Devon and Cornwall

  80

  Dorset

  81

  Durham

  45

  Essex

  89

  Gloucestershire

  88

  Greater Manchester

  37

  Hampshire

  83

  Hertfordshire

  90

  Humberside

  70

  Kent

  117

  Lancashire

  57

  Leicestershire

  117

  Lincolnshire

  67

  City of London

  32

  Merseyside

  -13

  Metropolitan Police District

  37

  Norfolk

  65

  Northamptonshire

  100

  Northumbria

  45

  North Yorkshire

  70

  Nottinghamshire

  98

  South Yorkshire

  81

  Staffordshire

  87

  Suffolk

  43

  Surrey

  66

  Sussex

  83

  Thames Valley

  96

  Warwickshire

  123

  West Mercia

  86

  West Midlands

  59

  West Yorkshire

  99

  Wiltshire

  70

  Dyfed-Powys

  80

  Gwent

  104

  North Wales

  51

  South Wales

  53

  England and Wales

  62

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  59

  Bedfordshire

  49

  Cambridgeshire

  83

  Cheshire

  56

  Cleveland

  49

  Cumbria

  66

  Derbyshire

  88

  Devon and Cornwall

  46

  Dorset

  38

  Durham

  61

  Essex

  57

  Gloucestershire

  102

  Greater Manchester

  33

  331

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Hampshire

  67

  Hertfordshire

  52

  Humberside

  45

  Kent

  97

  Lancashire

  56

  Leicestershire

  82

  Lincolnshire

  37

  City of London

  14

  Merseyside

  17

  Metropolitan Police District

  25

  Norfolk

  62

  Northamptonshire

  46

  Northumbria

  13

  North Yorkshire

  69

  Nottinghamshire

  62

  South Yorkshire

  39

  Staffordshire

  59

  Suffolk

  54

  Surrey

  83

  Sussex

  70

  Thames Valley

  79

  Warwickshire

  80

  West Mercia

  74

  West Midlands

  30

  West Yorkshire

  70

  Wiltshire

  56

  Dyfed-Powys

  75

  Gwent

  66

  North Wales

  48

  South Wales

  31

  England and Wales

  47

  Fraud and forgery

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  6

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  58

  Cheshire

  29

  Cleveland

  -22

  Cumbria

  2

  Derbyshire

  32

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  Dorset

  24

  Durham

  49

  Essex

  88

  Gloucestershire

  66

  Greater Manchester

  23

  Hampshire

  43

  Hertfordshire

  -39

  Humberside

  22

  Kent

  113

  Lancashire

  -30

  Leicestershire

  58

  Lincolnshire

  42

  City of London

  25

  Merseyside

  45

  Metropolitan Police District

  42

  Norfolk

  48

  Northamptonshire

  44

  Northumbria

  55

  North Yorkshire

  26

  Nottinghamshire

  60

  South Yorkshire

  30

  Staffordshire

  49

  Suffolk

  57

  Surrey

  66

  Sussex

  801

  Thames Valley

  97

  Warwickshire

  88

  West Mercia

  38

  West Midlands

  49

  West Yorkshire

  42

  332

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Wiltshire

  101

  Dyfed-Powys

  -2

  Gwent

  5

  North Wales

  -25

  South Wales

  43

  England and Wales

  35

  Criminal damage

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  36

  Bedfordshire

  28

  Cambridgeshire

  55

  Cheshire

  32

  Cleveland

  38

  Cumbria

  79

  Derbyshire

  65

  Devon and Cornwall

  43

  Dorset

  27

  Durham

  40

  Essex

  34

  Gloucestershire

  27

  Greater Manchester

  29

  Hampshire

  34

  Hertfordshire

  23

  Humberside

  30

  Kent

  75

  Lancashire

  18

  Leicestershire

  70

  Lincolnshire

  39

  City of London

  4

  Merseyside

  20

  Metropolitan Police District

  36

  Norfolk

  51

  Northamptonshire

  72

  Northumbria

  78

  North Yorkshire

  20

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  South Yorkshire

  41

  Staffordshire

  41

  Suffolk

  18

  Surrey

  45

  Sussex

  47

  Thames Valley

  68

  Warwickshire

  55

  West Mercia

  23

  West Midlands

  43

  West Yorkshire

  49

  Wiltshire

  30

  Dyfed-Powys

  49

  Gwent

  47

  North Wales

  35

  South Wales

  63

  England and Wales

  41

  Other offences

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  Bedfordshire

  -5

  Cambridgeshire

  94

  Cheshire

  123

  Cleveland

  68

  Cumbria

  113

  Derbyshire

  35

  Devon and Cornwall

  46

  Dorset

  54

  Durham

  104

  Essex

  36

  Gloucestershire

  132

  333

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Greater Manchester

  67

  Hampshire

  98

  Hertfordshire

  26

  Humberside

  101

  Kent

  64

  Lancashire

  55

  Leicestershire

  64

  Lincolnshire

  132

  City of London

  21

  Merseyside

  70

  Metropolitan Police District

  17

  Norfolk

  105

  Northamptonshire

  91

  Northumbria

  41

  North Yorkshire

  92

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  South Yorkshire

  128

  Staffordshire

  29

  Suffolk

  58

  Surrey

  36

  Sussex

  44

  Thames Valley

  49

  Warwickshire

  111

  West Mercia

  44

  West Midlands

  62

  West Yorkshire

  148

  Wiltshire

  167

  Dyfed-Powys

  19

  Gwent

  99

  North Wales

  64

  South Wales

  47

  England and Wales

  55

  All offences

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  57

  Bedfordshire

  47

  Cambridgeshire

  82

  Cheshire

  55

  Cleveland

  39

  Cumbria

  66

  Derbyshire

  85

  Devon and Cornwall

  48

  Dorset

  14

  Durham

  49

  Essex

  56

  Gloucestershire

  85

  Greater Manchester

  32

  Hampshire

  62

  Hertfordshire

  44

  Humberside

  44

  Kent

  94

  Lancashire

  41

  Leicestershire

  83

  Lincolnshire

  43

  City of London

  16

  Merseyside

  11

  Metropolitan Police District

  31

  Norfolk

  58

  Northamptonshire

  57

  Northumbria

  33

  North Yorkshire

  58

  Nottinghamshire

  59

  South Yorkshire

  47

  Staffordshire

  58

  Suffolk

  44

  Surrey

  68

  Sussex

  66

  Thames Valley

  77

  Warwickshire

  83

  West Mercia

  61

  West Midlands

  40

  334

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  West Yorkshire

  70

  Wiltshire

  55

  Dyfed-Powys

  62

  Gwent

  62

  North Wales

  39

  South Wales

  41

  England and Wales

  47

  Domestic Supervision Cases
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide funding for Relate to assist the probation service with domestic supervision cases.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no plans to give Relate direct funding in relation to supervision orders.

  Derek Bentley
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what opportunity he gave to the individuals mentioned in paragraph 7 of his press statement of 1 October, on the case of the late Derek Bentley, to be interviewed or to provide any information supplementary to the material referred to.

  Mr. Jack
  All the people mentioned in paragraph 7 of the memorandum issued by my right hon. and learned Friend to accompany his statement on 1 October about his review of the case of the late Derek Bentley had the opportunity to submit further material about the case at any time; two persons involved in the preparation of the Thames TV programmes were interviewed by a senior officer in the Metropolitan police in the course of inquiries carried out at the request of my Department.

  Burglary
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the burglary at the office of Ms. Tess Lawrence at 109 New Bond street, London W1, on 26 November; what documents were taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On the evening of 26 November officers from West End Central CID were called to investigate a burglary at 109 New Bond street, the office of Ms. Tess Lawrence.

  I understand from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that, among the items which were alleged to have been stolen was a copy of a sworn affidavit, draft letter, and various other papers.

  Police at West End Central are continuing with their investigations into this incident.

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will(a) make available to the members of Standing Committee A on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill and (b) deposit in the Library the draft immigration rules discussed by the meeting of EC Ministers with responsibility for immigration held in London on 30 November;
  335
  (2) if he will (a) make available to the members of Standing Committee A on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill and (b) deposit in the Library the agenda for the meeting of EC Ministers with responsibility for immigration held in London on 30 November.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Details of the conclusions of the EC Ministers' meeting were placed before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill Committee and in the Library on 1 December. Details of the agenda for the meeting were placed in the Library on 30 November.

  In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly be reporting to the House on the discussions and conclusions of EC Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting on 30 November, and we will he making available those resolutions and recommendations which Ministers adopted.

  May Inquiry
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the final report by Sir John May of his inquiry into the convictions of the Maguire family will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I have received the final report by Sir John May of his inquiry into the case of the Maguire family and their co-defendants, who were convicted in 1976 of the unlawful possession of explosives. Those convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal on 26 June 1991 following Sir John's interim report on the case and the decision of the then Home Secretary now Lord Waddington, to refer the whole case to the court under the provisions of section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

  This report is being published today in response to an order of the House for a return. We wish to thank Sir John and all those who assisted him for the care and thoroughness with which his inquiry has examined the circumstances of the convictions of the Maguires and their co-defendants and issues arising therefrom.

  In his report Sir John reviews the basis of the decision to prosecute the Maguire family and their co-defendants. He then examines the role of Home Office Ministers and officials in the consideration of representations received over a number of years alleging that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Sir John has also re-examined some of the scientific issues which were dealt with in his interim report, although that re-examination has not caused him to amend his conclusions on the scientific aspects of the case.

  It is a very serious matter whenever there is a miscarriage of justice and my right hon. and learned Friend and I are determined that the lessons from such cases should be learned and applied effectively.

  Sir John concluded that the criteria which successive Home Secretaries have used to determine whether intervention in a conviction can be justified are sound in law and logic and provides no grounds for criticism. I welcome his further conclusion that, within the limits imposed by those criteria, the Home Office investigated the representations it received with care and thoroughness.

  Since the time when those representations were considered, the Home Office has developed its approach to the consideration of alleged miscarriage of justice—in
  336
  particular, by being ready to investigate the circumstances of a case more widely than the scope of representations made to it and, where there appear to be grounds for doing so, by being ready to initiate inquiries without having first received any representations. We are constantly seeking to apply the lessons to be learned from cases and we will continue to do so, taking account now of what Sir John has said in this report. It will continue to be our aim to give prompt, diligent and impartial consideration to all representations taking whatever action may be necessary including, where appropriate, the referral of a conviction to the Court of Appeal.

  Sir John's report raises important questions about the part played by scientific evidence and by expert witnesses in the prosecution of offenders. Since the time when the Maguires and their co-defendants were prosecuted, there have been significant advances in procedures and quality control in the field of forensic science. Questions about the role of experts in criminal proceedings, their responsibilities to the court, prosecution, and defence, the relationship between the forensic science service and the police and access by accused persons to court evidence are being examined by the royal commission on criminal justice.

  In his report Sir John May concludes that there should be some new machinery indpendent of the Home Office to consider whether alleged wrongful convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal. In the oral evidence which I gave recently to the royal commission, I put forward the same proposal.

  The commission, of which Sir John May is a member and to whose deliberations he is ideally placed to contribute the wider lessons of his inquiry, is expected to make its own report in June 1993.

  Cephalopods
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee on whether cephalopods used in research should be protected by the controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government recently received the views of the Animal Procedures Committee. The committee has concluded that there is not yet definite scientific evidence to suggest that cephalopods can experience pain or suffering. However, a majority of the committee believes that there is sufficient doubt about one species of cephalopod, the common octopus or Octopus vulgaris, that the benefit of the doubt should be given to that species and that it should be protected by the 1986 Act.

  The Government accept the majority view of the committee and agrees in principle that Octopus vulgaris should be included within the definition of protected animal for the purposes of the 1986 Act. Work is in hand to give effect to this change.

  I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the letter from Lord Nathan, chairman of the APC, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary giving details of the committee's considerations.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contract has been let for the management of Blakenhurst prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 5 December 1991 my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary announced that tenders would be sought for the management of a new 649 place prison at Blakenhurst then under construction near Redditch in Hereford and Worcester.

  On 15 June 1992. invitations to tender for the management of Blakenhurst were issued to nine contractors.

  Today I am pleased to announce that the contract has been awarded to UK Detention Services Limited. UKDS
  338
  is a consortium comprising Corrections Corporation of America, John Mowlem & Company and Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons (Trade Investments) Ltd.

  The success of UKDS follows detailed consideration of proposals submitted by seven potential contractors in response to the Home Office invitation to tender. There was keen competition to secure the contract and several excellent proposals were received. It was considered that UKDS had submitted well researched proposals underpinned by CCA's experience of running penal establishments in Australia and the USA, which offered value for money, and a high quality regime for prisoners. The quality of all proposals submitted has confirmed our view that the private sector has much to offer.

  Blakenhurst is the first private sector local prison and is due to take its first prisoners in April 1993.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Travel Allowances
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if hon. Members are allowed to claim travelling allowances in respect of travel by bicycle.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Members' Funds
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consultations he had before 25 November with the managing trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund on its role in relation to pensions and death benefits applicable to hon. Members and their dependants from 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Newton
  I spoke informally on 25 November to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) in their capacities as chairman and member of the trustees of the parliamentary pensions fund: these discussions did not touch specifically on the Members' fund.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what powers the House of Commons Members' Fund has to supplement a pensions benefit in cases where an hon. Member now in service dies or retires due to ill-health after 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Newton
  The trustees' powers to make discretionary payments are very wide indeed since the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the circumstances in relation to which it may be necessary to consider the role of the House of Commons Members' Fund in relation to hon. Members' pensions in the very short term.

  Mr. Newton
  I am discussing pensions matters raised in the debate with the trustees of the parliamentary pensions fund shortly, and have nothing to add at the moment to my remarks at the end of the debate on 25 November.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Council
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will conduct a review into the functions of the Privy Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to review the functions of the Privy Council.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many appeals from the decisions of professional disciplinary bodies have been heard by the Privy Council in each of the last three years; and if he will provide a breakdown by professional body and the number which are(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful.

  Mr. Newton
  The total number of appeals in each of the last three years has been:

  1990

  4

  1991

  2

  1992

  8 (to date)

  340
  The details are as follows:

  General Dental Council

  1990

  1 successful, 1 unsuccessful

  1991

  None

  1992

  1 awaiting judgement

  General Medical Council

  1990

  1 successful, 1 unsuccessful

  1991

  2 successful

  1992

  1 successful, 5 unsuccessful,1 awaiting judgement

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received seeking a review of the functions of the Privy Council in relation to its function in hearing appeals from the decisions of professional disciplinary bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received no such representations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the functions of the Privy Council.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council advises the sovereign on the making of Royal Proclamations and Orders in Council, and on the grant and amendment of royal charters. It approves certain rules made by statutory registration councils responsible for the medical and certain other professions, and makes instruments of government for higher education corporations. The Privy Council is also responsible for certain appointments to statutory councils and to the governing bodies of universities and colleges, and for the appointment of high sheriffs. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final court of appeal from courts of the United Kingdom dependencies and from courts of those independent Commonwealth countries which have retained the right of appeal. The committee also hears appeals from courts of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and from the disciplinary and health committees of the medical and allied professions, together with some ecclesiastical appeals.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to ensure that appeals heard by the Privy Council from persons resident in Scotland are held in accordance with the principles of Scots law; and if he will maake a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for the Judicial Committee, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case, and having heard argument, to determine the relevant applicable legal principles.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many appeals have been heard by the Privy Council from persons who have had their names erased from the medical register by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council under the Medical Act 1983 in each of the last three years; and if he will provide a breakdown showing figures for(a) Scotland, (b) Wales, (c) England, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom and the number which were (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful.

  Mr. Newton
  The total number of appeals in each of the last three years has been:

  1990

  1

  1991

  1

  1992

  3 (to date)

  The details are as follows:
  341

  Scotland

  1990

  None

  1991

  None

  1992

  1 awaiting judgment

  Wales

  1990, 1991 and 1992

  None

  England

  1990

  1 unsuccessful

  1991

  1 unsuccessful

  1992

  1 unsuccessful, 1 unsuccessful

  Northern Ireland

  1990, 1991 and 1992

  None

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department will, by the end of 1992, have a green housekeeping strategy in place. It will include a commitment to reducing the use of ozone-depleting substances.

  Steps which are being taken to reduce leakages of ozone-depleting refrigerants include regular checks, servicing and maintenance; compliance with professional codes of practice; and installation of leakage detection systems.

  The information needed to set targets for reductions is not currently available.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department (a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Burt
  There are 11,572 staff employed in London, and 80,413 staff employed elsewhere.

  Notes:

  1. Staff numbers relate to permanent staff as at 20 November 1992.

  2. London has been defined as the London pay area.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reply to the letter of 2 November from the hon. Member for Walsall, North, acknowledged under reference S/3644/9, regarding the rule whereby women over 60 years are not allowed to pay the extra sum to qualify for a state pension.
  342
  Miss Widdecombe
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter yesterday. The delay arose because it was necessary to contact both the Benefits and the Contributions Agencies regarding aspects of the individual case in question.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the costs for the setting up of the Child Support Agency, (b) the running costs of the Child Support Agency in 1993–94, and for each of the financial years up to the year the agency will be fully operational, (c) the total number of staff the agency will employ, (d) how many staff will be located in the six regional centres, (e) how many child support officers the agency will employ and (f) how many of the child support officers will be located in the six regional centres.

  Mr. Burt
  The current estimates are:

  (a) Total costs of setting up the agency—£146 million.

  (b) Running costs of the agency—

  £ million

  Year

  Costs

  1993–94

  94

  1994–95

  111

  1995–96

  117

  1996–97

  114

  1997–98

  116

  (c) The agency will employ around 5,000 staff when fully operational.

  (d) About 500 staff employed will be employed in each of the six Child Support Agency centres.

  (e) The agency will employ around 1,500 child support officers.

  (f) There will be about 250 child support officers located in each Child Support Agency centre.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications it is estimated that the Child Support Agency will deal with in each year from 1993–94 to the year in which it becomes fully operational.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency will become fully operational during 1997–98. On current predictions, the number of applications per year until then are estimated to be as follows:

  (thousands)

  Year

  Applications

  1993–94

  830

  1994–95

  570

  1995–96

  650

  1996–97

  430

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) male and (b) female (i) pensioners and (ii) people of working age were in receipt of income support at the latest available date; and what proportion they made of the relevant population in each case.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.
  343

  Number of income support recipients

  Percentage of relevant population in Great Britain

  Male claimants over 65

  270,000

  7·64

  Female claimants over 60

  1,140,000

  16·86

  Total number of claimants who are of pensionable age

  1,410,000

  13·70

  Male claimants of working age

  1,390,000

  6·34

  Female claimants of working age

  1,700,000

  7·15

  Total number of claimants who are of working age

  3,080,000

  6·76

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand

  Figures may not sum due to rounding

  Pensioners are defined as males over age 65 and females over age 60

  2. Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1991 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 1990

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people on income support had automatic deductions for(a) electricity, (b) gas, (c) social fund loan repayments, (d) rent arrears, (e) mortgage arrears, (f) water charges and (g) community charge arrears at the latest available date; and what were the average amounts for each type of deduction.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information showing the numbers of income support recipients with deductions is as follows:

  Numbers

  Fuel

  1305,000

  Social fund loan repayments

  2637,000

  Rent arrears

  1134,000

  Mortgage interest

  3461,000

  Water charges

  1147,000

  Community charge arrears

  1337,000

  1 These figures are based on Management Information Statistics (MIS) collected by the Benefits Agency at the end of August 1992. MIS figures do not distinguish between gas and electricity deductions or provide an average amount for each type of deduction. These figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, are provisional and may be subject to amendments.

  2 It is not possible to exclude from the social fund figure repayments made by people not in receipt of income support.

  3 The figures for mortgage interest deductions is based on the number of direct payments made during November 1992. Recipients with more than one mortgage will be counted more than once.

  The latest information available showing separate figures for gas and electricity deductions and the average amount of individual deductions is contained in table 10·1 of volume 1 of the "Department of Social Security Income Support Statistics Annual Statistical Enquiry, May 1991", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Figures distinguishing between deductions for current charges and those for arrears are not available.

  Prioritisation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is given by his Department in respect of prioritisation within high priority groups for community care grants and budgeting loans.
  344
  Mr. Scott
  National guidance on the priority to be accorded to social fund applications is contained in the social fund guide, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate what the level of child benefit would be in 1993–94 if it had been fully uprated since 1979 and its structure had remained the same.

  Mr. Burt
  The rate of child benefit in April 1979 was £4 a week for each child. If this level had been uprated annually in line with the retail prices index, and with the normal rounding to the nearest five pence, it would become £9·55 at April 1993.

  Invalidity Pension
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are in receipt of the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension; and how many men were in receipt of non-contributory invalidity pension in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Scott
  Severe disablement allowance replaced the two non-contributory invalidity pensions from 29 November 1984. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 23 October, at column 396.

  Income-related Benefits
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the latest figures showing the take-up rates of income-related benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Work on the statistics on the take-up of income-related benefits in 1989 has not yet been completed. The results will be published early in the new year.

  Benefits Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive an answer to his letter, dated 28 October, to Mr. Michael Bichard, chief executive, Benefits Agency, concerning his constituent, Mr. McMaster—Ref. DB103169.

  Mr. Scott
  Correspondence on operational issues is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 2 December 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning correspondence about your constituent Mr. McMaster (Ref. DB103169).
  I can confirm that decisions have now been made on Mr. McMaster's claims and these have been notified to him. I replied on 1 December to your letter of 28 October and this explains the position in greater detail.
  I offer my sincere apologies to Mr. McMaster for the delay in dealing with his claims and for delay in responding to your correspondence. Clearly neither you nor your constituent have received the standard of service to which you have every

  345
  right to expect of the Agency. You will be aware from my letter of 19 October to all MPs of the problems we have encountered since the successful launch of the new benefits and the positive steps taken to improve the situation.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Disability Allowances
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set up an emergency office in Stoke on Trent North to deal with outstanding disability living allowance and attendance allowance applications.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance and attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms. Joan Walley, dated 2 December 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about setting up an emergency office in Stoke on Trent North to deal with Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) claims.
  There are no plans to set up an emergency office in Stoke on Trent. New claims to DLA and AA are dealt with by ten Disability Benefit Centres (DBCs) around the country. All claims from the Stoke on Trent area are dealt with by the DBC in Birmingham.
  My letter of 19 October to all MPs outlined the measures that were implemented to deal with the backlog of claims successfully. We are of course closely monitoring the effectiveness of the procedures and organisation in place for DLA. As with all new benefits, procedures and organisation will be reviewed and I can assure you that every opportunity will be taken to identify new initiatives to speed up processing times.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium and Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 411, how many representations on plutonium exports his Department has received; and if he will indicate the nature of the representations from the (a) United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over the past four months or so, my Department has received over 50 letters which mentioned, in most cases among other topics, the transfer of plutonium overseas. None of these letters came from abroad. Further representations may have been received by other Departments.

  The letters came either direct from members of the public or through hon. Members and raised the possible misuse of the plutonium and its safe transport. The replies explained that civil plutonium is transferred overseas only subject to the application of safeguards and on receipt of assurances covering peaceful use, physical protection and controls on re-transfer.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of plutonium are contained in(a)
  346
  nuclear fuel in reactors and (b) spent nuclear fuel in one-site cooling ponds at reactor sites in England and Wales; and what information on this plutonium his Department is required to report to the Euratom safeguards authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested by the hon. Member is given in the annual plutonium figures published by my Department. Operators meet the requirements of the Euratom safeguards authorities by supplying monthly inventory change reports. These reports, which are sent via my Department's safeguards office, include any shipments off site of their irradiated fuel. Reports on such shipments contain estimates of the plutonium content of the fuel.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long plutonium and depleted uranium is permitted to be stored before these substances can no longer be used as fuel for nuclear power stations without further processing.

  Mr. Eggar
  The properties of uranium, whether natural, depleted or recovered from reprocessing, do not vary significantly over time. In the case of plutonium, the material changes its characteristics over time, mainly as a result of the formation of americium 241. The rate of this change depends on the burn-up of the fuel and the cooling period before reprocessing. The acceptable levels of americium when re-cycling plutonium are a commercial matter for the manufacturer of the recycled fuel and the operator of the reactor in which it will be used.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when current supplies of uranium will be depleted; and if he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom's energy resources.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom has no uranium resources which could be extracted economically under current world market conditions. The Government's aims are to promote the economic development of our indigenous energy resources and to ensure that the United Kingdom's energy needs are met cost-effectively.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochloro-fluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is committed to eliminating the use of ozone-depleting substances on its estate. As an interim measure, the Department has established policies for the use and disposal of such substances which are designed to minimise releases to atmosphere.

  Control procedures have been introduced to minimise leakages, including arrangements for the regular monitoring and servicing of refrigerant and air conditioning

  347
  systems containing ozone-depleting substances. When discharging equipment containing ozone-depleting substances, every effort is made to recover CFCs/HCFCs rather than release them to atmosphere. Wherever practicable, ozone-depleting substances are recycled in order to minimise purchases of new supplies.

  Waste to Energy
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to halt any approvals for waste to energy incinerators pending the outcome of the Select Committee inquiry into the pit closure programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 30 November, at column 33.

  Fossil Fuel Levy and Renewable Energy
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much has been levied under the fossil fuel levy in 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (2) what proportion of the amounts levied has been used under the NFFO for renewable energy schemes; and what value this represented in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The fossil fuel levy raised £1,175 million in 1990–91,and £1,324 million in 1991–92. The proportion going to renewables was about 0·5 per cent. (£6 million) in 1990–91, and I per cent (£15 million) in 1991–92.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his latest assessment of the proportion and value of the fossil fuel levy that will be used for renewable energy schemes over the entire life of its operation until December 1998; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assumptions were made about the proportion and value of the fossil fuel levy that would be used for renewable energy schemes over the entire life of its operation until December 1998.

  Mr. Eggar
  The proportion of levy receipts going to renewables is set to rise through the 1990s. The exact amounts will depend on a number of factors, including the pool price and the number of projects coming forward under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Electricity
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the electricity bought from the pool by RECs was from renewable energy sources in 1990–91 and 1991–92; how many megawatts this represented; and what are the RECs' obligations under the NFFO in comparable terms.

  Mr. Eggar
  The great majority of renewables-sourced electricity in the United Kingdom is not traded through the pool. In 1990–91 and 1991–92 about 2 per cent. of electricity generated in the United Kingdom came from renewable energy sources. This represented the output from, respectively, about 1500MW and 1600MW of capacity. The aggregate obligation on the regional electricity companies to contract for electricity from renewable sources eventually builds up to 102MW under the 1990 order and 457MW under the 1991 order. At the end of 1990–91 the obligation was 29MW, and at the end of 1991–92 it was 37MW.

  Gas
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his review of energy policy will address the consequences for long-term gas supplies and gas prices caused by purchasing policies of the regional electricity companies; and what representations he received on this aspect of policy during 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  The terms of reference of the Government's coal review were set out in the answer which the President of the Board of Trade gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 26 October, at columns 522–23. Estimates of likely reserves of gas and the scale of gas-fired power generation in the United Kingdom are being considered in the context of the review, as are the relative costs of gas and coal-fired power generation.

  Excluding evidence submitted to the coal review, by the end of November 1992, Ministers had received around 20 representations on these issues.

  EC Industry Council
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions which took place in the EC Industry Council on 24 November.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I chaired the meeting of the Industry Council in Brussels on 24 November. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry represented the United Kingdom.

  From the United Kingdom point of view, this was a highly successful Council which met all our objectives. In particular, we secured adoption of two resolutions: one on deregulation which highlights the importance of the Commission's impact assessment system in helping to reduce the burdens of EC legislation on industry and will ensure regular scrutiny and review of the Community's record on deregulation; and one which underlines the importance of dialogue with business on the best way of achieving environmental objectives and ties the Commission to assess the costs and benefits of different means of achieving these objectives.

  We also succeeded in securing satisfactory Council conclusions on the future of the European Coal and Steel Community which call for substantial reductions in the levy on coal and steel producers.

  A discussion of the Commission's annual report on competition policy resulted in Presidency conclusions supporting the vigorous and even-handed application of EC competition policy.

  The main debate in the Council centred on proposals for aid to the Spanish steel industry. The Council was unable to approve the derogations from the steel aids code required to accommodate the Spanish proposals. The Council decided that further work was needed and the issue should be reconsidered under the Danish Presidency. The Council discussed recent Commission ideas on restructuring the steel industry, which will also need further consideration under the next Presidency.

  Other items briefly discussed included future policy on small and medium-sized enterprises and a Commission communication on the non-energy mining industry.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 19 November.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Council continued its discussion, begun at the last Council meeting in June, of the European Commission's proposal for a Council decision on an action plan for the introduction of advanced television services in Europe. The action plan proposes a subsidy of up to 850 mecu to help accelerate the development of the market for widescreen and high-definition television services. Agreement was reached on the text of the action plan, subject to a reservation by one member state and consideration of amendments proposed by the European Parliament. However, member states were unable to reach agreement on funding. The United Kingdom opposed the sume of 850 mecu as unacceptably high and questioned the justification for any subsidy. Several other member states could not give agreement to funding while the Community's overall financial perspectives remain to be settled. A number of member states have sought a further meeting of the Telecommunications Council on this issue before the end of the year, but the possibility of further progress on this question will be clearer after the Heads of Government summit in Edinburgh.

  The Council also discussed the Commission's review of the situation in the Community telecommunications sector, which considers further liberalisation of the European telecommunications market. It agreed a resolution calling upon the Commission, to report to the next Telecommunications Council, currently scheduled for 10 May 1993, on the results of its consultations on the review document.

  Presidency proposals on the process and time scale for taking forward the work on the Commission's Green Paper on postal services, once the present consultation period has ended, were also adopted. The Commission agreed to prepare for the next Council, a summary of the results of the consultation period, the main conclusions which the Commission draw from the consultations and a detailed and signposted timetable for subsequently moving forward to draft directives. The Council also agreed on the urgent need to seek reform of arrangements at both European and global level under which postal administrations account with each other for imbalances in mail flows between them.

  The Council adopted resolutions on frequencies and numbering, setting out a framework for future Community action in both these fields. It also reviewed progress on the ONP voice telephony directive and discussed trans-European networks and a Commission communication on the European telecommunications equipment industry.

  Number of establishments subject to

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Issue of improvement and emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Aberdeen City

  944

  41

  191

  —

  Angus

  1,676

  4

  189

  2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  664

  1

  12

  1

  Argyll and Bute

  968

  —

  371

  —

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  212

  —

  83

  —

  Banff and Buchan3

  2,055

  —

  181

  —

  British Coal Corporation
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the final response from the British Coal Corporation concerning the 1989 report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the corporation's investment programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal has prepared a comprehensive final response to the 1989 report into the corporation's investment programme, which has now been placed in the Library of the House. Many of the issues mentioned in the response, such as the market prospects for coal and the competitiveness of British Coal as an organisation, will be examined in the coal review which was announced in October.

  Argentina
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of imports from Argentina for the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available; and what is the value of British exports for the same period.

  Mr. Needham
  The value of imports from Argentina for the 12 months ended September 1992 was £122·3 million. The value of British exports to Argentina was £103·4 million for the same period.

  Collieries (Redundancy Applications)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library regularly updated details of how many people are applying for redundancy at each of the 31 collieries originally planned for closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: This is a matter for British Coal.

SCOTLAND

  Food Safety
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inspections of food premises have been carried out by each local authority in Scotland under the Food Safety Act 1990; and how many of those inspections have resulted in(a) the issuing of improvement and emergency prohibition notices, (b) informal warnings letters or (c) the voluntary closure of companies.

  Sir Hector Monro
  At present information is available only for 1991. This is given in the table1
  351

  Number of establishments subject to

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Issue of improvement and emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  156

  2

  6

  —

  Berwickshire3

  178

  1

  26

  —

  Caithness3

  135

  2

  38

  —

  Clackmannan3

  390

  31

  110

  —

  Clydebank

  697

  6

  32

  —

  Clydesdale3

  481

  1

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth3

  62

  22

  23

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley3

  741

  10

  411

  —

  Cunninghame3

  995

  —

  —

  —

  Dumbarton3

  607

  7

  15

  1

  Dundee City3

  1,570

  —

  581

  —

  Dunfermline

  1,119

  55

  —

  —

  East Kilbride

  482

  —

  413

  —

  East Lothian

  820

  12

  325

  —

  Eastwood

  284

  —

  20

  —

  Edinburgh City3

  5,374

  120

  892

  3

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  409

  2

  101

  —

  Falkirk

  3,396

  16

  442

  —

  Glasgow City

  9,670

  259

  490

  7

  Gordon3

  394

  3

  246

  —

  Hamilton

  987

  24

  190

  —

  Inverclyde

  645

  6

  431

  —

  Inverness3

  510

  —

  236

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  755

  —

  209

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside

  317

  —

  103

  —

  Kirkcaldy3

  1,940

  9

  631

  1

  Kyle and Carrick3

  1,338

  10

  309

  3

  Lochaber

  229

  22

  11

  —

  Midlothian3

  240

  16

  65

  —

  Monklands

  1,222

  40

  463

  2

  Moray3

  622

  —

  217

  —

  Motherwell3

  1,298

  2

  458

  —

  Nairn3

  111

  —

  —

  —

  Nithsdale3

  472

  —

  68

  —

  North East Fife3

  509

  12

  275

  —

  Orkney3

  92

  —

  48

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  1,281

  11

  661

  —

  Renfrew

  2,671

  72

  3

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  703

  1

  16

  4

  Roxburgh3

  199

  25

  64

  4

  Shetland3

  258

  —

  44

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh3

  85

  —

  55

  —

  Stewartry3

  336

  17

  195

  —

  Stirling3

  578

  6

  17

  —

  Strathkelvin

  769

  29

  11

  —

  Sutherland3

  474

  3

  19

  3

  Tweeddale

  120

  —

  39

  —

  West Lothian3

  597

  53

  53

  —

  Western Isles3

  104

  —

  —

  —

  Wigtown3

  467

  1

  54

  —

  1 These statistics cover work carried out by local authorities under the Food Safety Act 1990, regulations made under it and the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive. They exclude:

  meat hygiene inspections carried out under EC veterinary legislation;

  inspections carried out by the Wine Standards Board under EC wine legislation.

  2 The number of food hygiene and food standards inspections covers:

  inspection of premises;

  inspection of equipment including cleaning and maintenance equipment;

  inspection of process or operational procedure;

  inspection of the hygiene or practices of personnel;

  inspection of food (including ingredients, additives and products at any stage of manufacture) or contact materials;

  inspection of labels, labelling equipment and advertising matter and/or inspection of records.

  These figures exclude all other visits, eg revisits to check compliance with notices, sampling visits and visits to follow up complaints.

  3 Excluded figures for first quarter of 1991. This was only required on a voluntary basis.

  University Students
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scots were attending Scottish universities; and how many students were attending Scottish universities from other parts of the United 352
  Kingdom in each year since session 1979–80; and if he will list the regions that all students attending Scottish universities were from in each year since session 1979–80.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: The information requested on students attending the eight traditional Scottish universities in the academic years 1979–80 to 1990–91 is given in the tables.
  353

  Students attending Scottish universities Full-time postgraduate

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (all domiciles)

  4,716

  4,758

  4,871

  4,976

  5,261

  5,626

  6,201

  6,689

  6,762

  6,910

  7,387

  7,625

  8,539

  Scotland

  2,053

  2,299

  2,467

  2,416

  2,522

  2,637

  2,720

  2,705

  2,726

  2,761

  2,862

  2,976

  3,388

  Borders

  22

  24

  29

  29

  30

  44

  45

  41

  23

  40

  41

  35

  54

  Central

  107

  122

  137

  131

  134

  128

  146

  159

  144

  124

  116

  141

  129

  Dumfries and Galloway

  32

  33

  32

  28

  40

  45

  49

  46

  51

  43

  61

  38

  52

  Fife

  126

  133

  132

  130

  143

  156

  170

  167

  156

  145

  146

  159

  189

  Grampian

  185

  209

  234

  207

  215

  214

  203

  228

  270

  247

  247

  252

  349

  Highland

  44

  52

  57

  49

  58

  67

  62

  71

  71

  75

  76

  60

  70

  Lothian

  512

  536

  544

  537

  515

  528

  557

  539

  540

  559

  596

  624

  711

  Strathclyde

  847

  999

  1,072

  1,093

  1,165

  1,204

  1,249

  1,212

  1,231

  1,289

  1,315

  1,374

  1,522

  Tayside

  165

  178

  214

  190

  189

  214

  219

  210

  219

  208

  233

  255

  271

  Islands

  13

  13

  16

  22

  33

  32

  20

  32

  21

  31

  31

  36

  41

  Not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Other United Kingdom

  884

  851

  829

  909

  1,003

  1,088

  1,197

  1,299

  1,306

  1,390

  1,494

  1,539

  1,848

  England

  767

  740

  726

  787

  881

  963

  1,077

  1,172

  1,160

  1,220

  1,320

  1,358

  1,649

  Wales

  30

  33

  42

  46

  48

  51

  49

  45

  49

  72

  68

  62

  71

  Northern Ireland

  85

  77

  61

  76

  72

  74

  69

  81

  96

  98

  106

  119

  128

  United Kingdom not known

  2

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Overseas

  1,779

  1,608

  1,575

  1,650

  1,736

  1,901

  2,284

  2,685

  2,730

  2,759

  3,031

  3,110

  3,303

  Full-time undergraduate

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (all domiciles)

  38,568

  39,688

  40,081

  39,824

  39,588

  39,647

  40,008

  40,541

  41,579

  42,869

  44,966

  46,417

  49,989

  Scotland

  29,536

  30,198

  30,412

  29,904

  29,129

  28,715

  27,982

  27,744

  28,324

  29,128

  30,045

  30,300

  31,741

  Borders

  412

  450

  495

  478

  505

  513

  483

  496

  489

  514

  556

  550

  599

  Central

  1,477

  1,557

  1,588

  1,589

  1,563

  1,539

  1,545

  1,576

  1,580

  1,629

  1,698

  1,702

  1,783

  Dumfries and Galloway

  795

  835

  823

  837

  799

  752

  745

  719

  724

  752

  764

  752

  752

  Fife

  1,785

  1,812

  1,912

  1,861

  1,879

  1,793

  1,710

  1,683

  1,768

  1,823

  1,916

  1,897

  2,028

  Grampian

  2,324

  2,343

  2,325

  2,243

  2,206

  2,168

  2,132

  2,160

  2,315

  2,444

  2,729

  2,902

  3,099

  Highland

  1,039

  1,041

  1,036

  1,016

  1,009

  1,009

  995

  974

  1,009

  1,034

  1,085

  1,111

  1,180

  Lothian

  4,561

  4,713

  4,717

  4,657

  4,436

  4,375

  4,212

  4,138

  4,294

  4,515

  4,665

  4,696

  4,978

  Strathclyde

  14,549

  14,741

  14,836

  14,544

  14,143

  13,997

  13,632

  13,446

  13,548

  13,718

  13,888

  13,860

  14,271

  Tayside

  2,292

  2,397

  2,357

  2,359

  2,284

  2,252

  2,202

  2,191

  2.208

  2,287

  2,329

  2,429

  2,627

  Islands

  292

  306

  321

  320

  305

  317

  326

  360

  388

  411

  414

  399

  423

  Not known

  10

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Other United Kingdom

  6,535

  7,071

  7,452

  7,763

  7,992

  8,223

  8,724

  9,196

  9,670

  10,103

  10,824

  11,634

  13,425

  England

  5,761

  6,206

  6,504

  6,780

  6,902

  7,130

  7,495

  7,901

  8,265

  8,516

  9,011

  9,687

  11,200

  Wales

  147

  165

  162

  163

  176

  176

  201

  198

  214

  233

  258

  289

  295

  Northern Ireland

  627

  700

  786

  819

  914

  916

  1,027

  1,096

  1,190

  1,353

  1,555

  1,658

  1,930

  United Kingdom not known

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Overseas

  2,497

  2,419

  2,217

  2,157

  2,467

  2,709

  3,302

  3,601

  3,585

  3,638

  4,097

  4,483

  4,823

  Total full-time students

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (all domiciles)

  43,284

  44,446

  44,952

  44,799

  44,849

  45,273

  46,209

  47,230

  48,341

  49,779

  52,353

  54,042

  58,528

  Scotland

  31,589

  32,497

  32,879

  32,320

  31,651

  31,352

  30,702

  30,449

  31,050

  31,889

  32,907

  33,276

  35,129

  Borders

  434

  474

  524

  507

  535

  557

  528

  537

  512

  554

  597

  585

  653

  Central

  1,584

  1,679

  1,725

  1,720

  1,697

  1,667

  1,691

  1,735

  1,724

  1,753

  1,814

  1,843

  1,912

  Dumfries and Galloway

  827

  868

  855

  865

  839

  797

  794

  765

  775

  795

  825

  790

  804

  Fife

  1,911

  1,945

  2,044

  1,991

  2,022

  1,949

  1,880

  1,850

  1,924

  1,968

  2,062

  2,056

  2,217

  Grampian

  2,509

  2,552

  2,559

  2,450

  2,421

  2,382

  2,335

  2,388

  2,585

  2,691

  2,976

  3,154

  3,448

  Highland

  1,083

  1,093

  1,093

  1,065

  1,067

  1,076

  1,057

  1,045

  1,080

  1,109

  1,161

  1,171

  1,250

  Lothian

  5,073

  5,249

  5,261

  5,194

  4,951

  4,903

  4,769

  4,677

  4,834

  5,074

  5,261

  5,320

  5,689

  Strathclyde

  15,396

  15,740

  15,908

  15,637

  15,308

  15,201

  14,881

  14,658

  14,779

  15,007

  15,203

  15,234

  15,793

  354 355

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Tayside

  2,457

  2,575

  2,571

  2,549

  2,473

  2,466

  2,421

  2,401

  2,427

  2,495

  2,562

  2,684

  2,898

  Islands

  305

  319

  337

  342

  338

  349

  346

  392

  409

  442

  445

  435

  464

  Not known

  10

  3

  2

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  Other United Kingdom

  7,419

  7,922

  8,281

  8,672

  8,995

  9,311

  9,921

  10,495

  10,976

  11,493

  12,318

  13,173

  15,273

  England

  6,528

  6,946

  7,230

  7,567

  7,783

  8,093

  8,572

  9,073

  9,425

  9,736

  10,331

  11,045

  12,849

  Wales

  177

  198

  204

  209

  224

  227

  250

  243

  263

  305

  326

  351

  366

  Northern Ireland

  712

  777

  847

  895

  986

  990

  1,096

  1,177

  1,286

  1,451

  1,661

  1,777

  2,058

  United Kingdom not known

  2

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Overseas

  4,276

  4,027

  3,792

  3,807

  4,203

  4,610

  5,586

  6,286

  6,315

  6,397

  7,128

  7,593

  8,126

  Part-lime postgraduate

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (all domiciles)

  2,964

  3,084

  3,161

  3,158

  3,394

  3,688

  3,585

  4,142

  4,122

  4,480

  4,902

  5,134

  5,549

  Scotland

  2,327

  2,394

  2,457

  2,447

  2,653

  2,817

  2,916

  3,308

  3,265

  3,490

  3,827

  3,890

  4,162

  Borders

  21

  32

  26

  22

  21

  15

  18

  26

  32

  44

  47

  46

  44

  Central

  184

  180

  172

  159

  163

  167

  163

  187

  185

  194

  186

  169

  180

  Dumfries and Galloway

  18

  15

  14

  22

  22

  30

  22

  27

  30

  31

  41

  44

  40

  Fife

  160

  146

  134

  164

  157

  159

  172

  179

  163

  173

  212

  228

  227

  Grampian

  147

  148

  161

  146

  183

  187

  195

  265

  253

  280

  353

  361

  409

  Highland

  14

  17

  17

  25

  25

  33

  33

  30

  33

  39

  49

  66

  58

  Lothian

  498

  586

  621

  649

  717

  768

  698

  791

  780

  891

  973

  996

  1,023

  Strathclyde

  1,087

  1,089

  1,127

  1,085

  1,216

  1,295

  1,440

  1,591

  1,560

  1,608

  1,715

  1,697

  1,879

  Tayside

  191

  179

  179

  172

  146

  154

  161

  195

  210

  212

  234

  263

  286

  Islands

  7

  2

  6

  3

  3

  9

  14

  17

  19

  18

  17

  20

  16

  Not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other United Kingdom

  263

  289

  305

  345

  350

  397

  370

  440

  475

  531

  567

  606

  568

  England

  236

  256

  277

  308

  313

  357

  332

  391

  433

  487

  519

  558

  534

  Wales

  9

  7

  8

  12

  14

  19

  11

  17

  15

  18

  16

  15

  13

  Northern Ireland

  17

  26

  18

  25

  23

  21

  24

  28

  24

  25

  30

  32

  21

  United Kingdom not known

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Overseas

  374

  401

  399

  364

  391

  374

  299

  394

  382

  459

  508

  638

  819

  Part-time undergraduate

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (all domiciles)

  650

  732

  998

  1,260

  1,546

  1,845

  2,033

  2,285

  2,194

  1,835

  1,674

  1,277

  1,299

  Scotland

  525

  558

  807

  1,061

  1,321

  1,643

  1,826

  2,080

  1,938

  1,618

  1,497

  1,128

  1,140

  Borders

  2

  2

  8

  8

  7

  8

  9

  29

  12

  22

  18

  15

  7

  Central

  29

  61

  93

  108

  131

  125

  150

  178

  152

  148

  126

  106

  159

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10

  11

  21

  27

  33

  35

  37

  42

  39

  30

  22

  11

  11

  Fife

  17

  9

  25

  33

  30

  38

  45

  50

  45

  38

  45

  35

  49

  Grampian

  9

  8

  21

  34

  49

  141

  177

  248

  270

  252

  257

  244

  231

  Highland

  8

  8

  11

  20

  23

  32

  27

  29

  52

  42

  51

  28

  16

  Lothian

  89

  77

  111

  129

  149

  137

  184

  197

  175

  171

  178

  116

  119

  Strathclyde

  347

  365

  480

  650

  828

  1,053

  1,111

  1,214

  1,107

  818

  686

  519

  471

  Tayside

  9

  8

  26

  40

  57

  58

  70

  74

  68

  66

  97

  50

  71

  Islands

  5

  8

  11

  12

  14

  16

  16

  17

  16

  12

  15

  2

  5

  Not known

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  19

  2

  2

  1

  Other United Kingdom

  32

  18

  43

  57

  69

  78

  93

  104

  128

  103

  75

  42

  46

  England

  26

  15

  39

  50

  61

  71

  86

  89

  110

  86

  64

  33

  39

  Wales

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  7

  5

  3

  4

  1

  3

  Northern Ireland

  5

  3

  4

  7

  8

  4

  4

  8

  13

  14

  7

  7

  4

  United Kingdom not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Overseas

  93

  156

  148

  142

  156

  124

  114

  101

  128

  114

  102

  107

  113

  356 357

  Total part-time students

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (all domiciles)

  3,614

  3,816

  4,159

  4,416

  4,940

  5,433

  5,618

  6,427

  6,316

  6,315

  6,576

  6,411

  6,848

  Scotland

  2,852

  2,952

  3,264

  3,508

  3,974

  4,460

  4,742

  5,388

  5,203

  5,108

  5,324

  5,018

  5,302

  Borders

  23

  34

  34

  30

  29

  23

  27

  55

  44

  66

  65

  61

  51

  Central

  213

  241

  265

  267

  294

  292

  313

  365

  337

  342

  312

  275

  339

  Dumfries and Galloway

  28

  26

  35

  49

  55

  65

  59

  69

  69

  61

  63

  55

  51

  Fife

  177

  155

  159

  197

  187

  197

  217

  229

  208

  211

  257

  263

  276

  Grampian

  156

  156

  182

  180

  232

  328

  372

  513

  523

  532

  610

  605

  640

  Highland

  22

  25

  28

  45

  48

  65

  60

  59

  85

  81

  100

  94

  74

  Lothian

  587

  663

  732

  778

  866

  905

  882

  988

  955

  1,062

  1,151

  1,112

  1,142

  Strathclyde

  1,434

  1,454

  1,607

  1,735

  2,044

  2,348

  2,551

  2,805

  2,667

  2,426

  2,401

  2,216

  2,350

  Tayside

  200

  187

  205

  212

  203

  212

  231

  269

  278

  278

  331

  313

  357

  Islands

  12

  10

  17

  15

  17

  25

  30

  34

  35

  30

  32

  22

  21

  Not known

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  19

  2

  2

  1

  Other United Kingdom

  295

  307

  348

  402

  419

  475

  463

  544

  603

  634

  642

  648

  614

  England

  262

  271

  316

  358

  374

  428

  418

  480

  543

  573

  583

  591

  573

  Wales

  10

  7

  8

  12

  14

  22

  14

  24

  20

  21

  20

  16

  16

  Northern Ireland

  22

  29

  22

  32

  31

  25

  28

  36

  37

  39

  37

  39

  25

  United Kingdom not known

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  3

  1

  2

  2

  0

  Overseas

  467

  557

  547

  506

  547

  498

  413

  495

  510

  573

  610

  745

  932

  Grand total students

  Domicile of student

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (all domiciles)

  46,898

  48,262

  49,111

  49,215

  49,789

  50,706

  51,827

  53,657

  54,657

  56,094

  58,929

  60,453

  65,376

  Scotland

  34,441

  35,449

  36,143

  35,828

  35,625

  35,812

  35,444

  35,837

  36,253

  36,997

  38,231

  38,294

  40,431

  Borders

  457

  508

  558

  537

  563

  580

  555

  592

  556

  620

  662

  646

  704

  Central

  1,797

  1,920

  1,990

  1,987

  1,991

  1,959

  2,004

  2,100

  2,061

  2,095

  2,126

  2,118

  2,251

  Dumfries and Galloway

  855

  894

  890

  914

  894

  862

  953

  834

  844

  856

  888

  845

  855

  Fife

  2,088

  2,100

  2,203

  2,188

  2,209

  2,146

  2,097

  2,079

  2,132

  2,179

  2,319

  2,319

  2,493

  Grampian

  2,665

  2,708

  2,741

  2,630

  2,653

  2,710

  2,707

  2,901

  3,108

  3,223

  3,586

  3,759

  4,088

  Highland

  1,105

  1,118

  1,121

  1,110

  1,115

  1,141

  1,117

  1,104

  1,165

  1,190

  1,261

  1,265

  1,324

  Lothian

  5,660

  5,912

  5,993

  5,972

  5,817

  5,808

  5,651

  5,665

  5,789

  6,136

  6,412

  6,432

  6,831

  Strathclyde

  16,830

  17,194

  17,515

  17,372

  17,352

  17,549

  17,432

  17,463

  17,446

  17,433

  17,604

  17,450

  18,143

  Tayside

  2,657

  2,762

  2,776

  2,761

  2,676

  2,678

  2,652

  2,670

  2,705

  2,773

  2,893

  2,997

  3,255

  Islands

  317

  329

  354

  357

  355

  374

  376

  426

  444

  472

  477

  457

  485

  Not known

  10

  4

  2

  0

  0

  5

  0

  3

  3

  20

  3

  6

  2

  Other United Kingdom

  7,714

  8,229

  8,629

  9,074

  9,414

  9,786

  10,384

  11,039

  11,579

  12,127

  12,960

  13,821

  15,887

  England

  6,790

  7,217

  7,546

  7,925

  9,157

  8,521

  8,990

  9,553

  9,988

  10,309

  10,914

  11,636

  13,422

  Wales

  187

  205

  212

  221

  238

  249

  264

  267

  283

  326

  346

  367

  382

  Northern Ireland

  734

  806

  869

  927

  1,017

  1,015

  1,124

  1,213

  1,323

  1,490

  1,698

  1,816

  2,083

  United Kingdom not known

  3

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  6

  6

  5

  2

  2

  2

  0

  Overseas

  4,743

  4,584

  4,339

  4,313

  4,750

  5,108

  5,999

  6,781

  6,825

  6,970

  7,738

  8,338

  9,058

  Small Businesses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many small businesses have gone out of business in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Comprehensive information on all types of businesses is not available. The figures in the table refer to liquidations
  358
  of limited companies registered in Scotland, but it is not possible separately to identify those company liquidations involving small firms.

  Number of companies

  1987

  636

  1988

  651

  1989

  674

  1990

  689

  1991

  848

  Source: Companies house.

  Disabled Persons' Housing
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments were made by Scottish Homes for adaptations to houses for disabled persons in each region in each month since May.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: This information is not held by the Scottish Office Environment Department. I shall ask the chairman of Scottish Homes to write to the hon. Member.

  Public Conveniences
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is given to(a) Scot Rail and (b) local authorities on the proper provision of public conveniences suitable for (i) disabled and elderly people, (ii) public transport users and (iii) those with children; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Requirements and standards for sanitary facilities, including access, are given in the Technical Standards for Compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990. These apply to all buildings open to the public including railway stations and other transport facilities. Guidance on the design of public conveniences with facilities for the disabled was given by the Scottish Office to local authorities in SDD circular No. 53/68.

  Police (Court Appearances)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many man hours were used by police officers attending courts in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available; and what proportion of total police manpower hours this represented in each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: This information is not recorded.

  Legal Proceedings
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many defendants appeared before the High Court on criminal charges in each of the past three years; how many were(a) convicted and (b) acquitted; how many of those acquitted had pleaded guilty in the first instance; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: The particular information requested is not held centrally. The number of indictments which called in the High Court in each of the past three years, and to the end of October 1992, is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  773

  1990

  795

  1991

  833

  1992

  786

  The information requested on disposals is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  360
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many charges were(a) brought and (b) withdrawn by the Procurator Fiscal in each sheriffdom in each of the last three years in (i) the district court and (ii) the sheriff court; how many guilty pleas were tendered to the original charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Monkfish
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy he has for raising the precautionary total allowable catch on monkfish fishing west of 4°w; and if he will make a statement on fishing access to deep water fisheries.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Scientific studies of west of Scotland anglerfish have been conducted in response to representations from the industry for an increase in total allowable catch. Unfortunately the results suggest that the stock is already fully exploited.

  The Government view the development of deep water fisheries as a useful extension of the fishing opportunities available to our fleet.

  Haddock
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the fishing community about the accuracy of the calculations used to determine the 1992 North sea haddock total allowable catch.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: I have received a number of representations from the industry about the possibility of increasing the North sea haddock total allowable catch for this year. Scientific surveys conducted during 1992 confirmed the estimates of stock size on which the TAC was set.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the methodology used to arrive at the 1992 haddock North sea total allowable catch; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: The North sea haddock total allowable catch was set on the basis of the stock assessment and of scientific advice on the need for a 30 per cent. reduction from the 1989 level of fishing effort. This advice was based on the standard methodology employed for stock assessment and the reduction in effort was considered necessary in order to reduce the very high level of mortality of the stock.

  Marine Mammals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reports regarding incidental catches of marine mammals by fishermen his fisheries officers have received to date under the scheme set up to monitor the extent of this interaction.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Since the voluntary report scheme was introduced in

  361
  January 1992, there have been three confirmed reports of incidental capture of a marine mammal in Scottish waters. These were two porpoises and one dolphin. The dolphin was successfully released.

  New Town Housing Stocks
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce the financial arrangements for the transfer of new town housing stocks.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: The draft guidance was issued for consultation on 27 November and comments are due to be submitted by 31 January 1993. A copy has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the effect on job numbers in rural Scotland of(a) the current common agricultural policy reform package and (b) further changes arising from the GATT agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: The impact of the CAP measures agreed in May on employment in rural Scotland will depend on the response of the farming community over the next few years. The draft GATT settlement is consonant with those reform measures and should therefore have no separate employment impact.

  Voluntary Organistions
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Leukaemia and Cancer Children's Fund applied for a special grant of £35,000 for the Millerfield family centre; when it was paid; what criteria he applied in considering this application; which fund was the source of the grant; and if he will list the grants given in 1992 from the same source.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: The Leukaemia and Cancer Children's Fund applied to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department in May this year for funding under the scheme of grants operated under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. The grant was paid in June this year to meet the organisation's immediate funding difficulties. As with all such applications, the criteria employed were those set out in statute and in the memorandum of guidance approved by Her Majesty's Treasury which applies to the scheme. The possibility of assisting the fund in 1993–94 is still under consideration. Expenditure on the section 16B grant scheme is borne on vote 12 subhead K6(1). Total expenditure on that sub-programme in the current financial year will amount to some £300,000, and the following bodies will benefit:

  Action on Smoking and Health (Scotland)

  Age Concern Scotland

  ACET—AIDS Care and Education Training

  Alzheimers Scotland

  Bell's Palsy Self-Help Group

  Breast Care and Mastectomy Association

  British Association of Immediate Care Schemes

  British Fluoridation Society

  Brook Advisory Centre

  Cancerlink

  Community Service Volunteers

  362

  Dementia Services Department Centre

  Disability Scotland

  Enuresis Resource and Information Centre

  Epilepsy Association

  Family Planning Association

  Hypogammaglobulinaemia Society

  Leukaemia and Cancer Children's Fund

  Medical Commission on Accident Prevention

  Muscular Dystrophy Group

  National AIDS Trust

  National Association for the Childless

  National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital

  National Childbirth Trust

  National Family Planning Group

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Play Matters

  Play in Scottish Hospitals

  Red Cross Society

  RSPCC—Overnewton Centre

  Scottish AIDS Monitor

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Scottish Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  Scottish Child and Family Alliance

  Scottish Cot Death Trust

  Scottish Council on Alcohol

  Scottish Drugs Forum

  Scottish Heart and Arterial Risk Prevention Group

  Scottish Huntington's Association

  Scottish Motor Neurone Disease Association

  Scottish National Blood Transfusion Association

  Scottish Partnership Agency for Palliative and Cancer Care

  Sense in Scotland

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society

  Twins and Multiple Birth Association

  Volunteer Development Scotland

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many special grants have been awarded in 1992 to voluntary and charitable organisations;

  (2) how many grant applications his Department received from voluntary organisations in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of these applications were not successful in obtaining his Department's funding.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: My right hon. Friend is directly responsible for a wide range of voluntary sector grant schemes. Grants may be for continuing administrative costs, projects, capital expenditure or in exceptional circumstances single payments. In 1991–92 the Department received 722 applications from voluntary organisations from which 463 grants were given.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE

  Westminster Hall (Fire Prevention)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will review fire prevention in respect of Westminster hall(a) generally and (b) in relation to its historic roof.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A 10-year programme for upgrading fire precautions within the Palace of Westminster is nearing its completion. It has been agreed by Her Majesty's inspector of fire services. Following the appointment of a fire safety manager earlier this year, those measures and related procedures are already under review. As part of the existing procedures, all areas of the parliamentary estate, including Westminster hall, are patrolled regularly by members of the Palace of
  363
  Westminster fire section. Plans for further preventive measures, which will specifically include protection For the roof of Westminster hall, are in hand.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Property Investments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the value of Church property investments for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Alison
  The value of the Church Commissioners' property investments held at the end of each year was as follows:

  £ million

  1987

  1,128

  1988

  1,327

  1989

  1,441

  1990

  1,171

  1991

  1,034

  There is no centrally held information of the value of other Church property.

  Fulham Football Club Ground
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the independent valuation of the Fulham football club ground at Craven Cottage prior to its sale to Mr. Ernie Clay.

  Mr. Alison
  As I said in my answer on 26 November to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Pendle, the Commissioners' property investments are professionally valued each year. Their freehold interest in Fulham Football Club ground was valued at £70,000 as at 31 December 1984.

DEFENCE

  RAF (Schools)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence if he will list the RAF establishment bases within the United Kingdom that currently have an on-site school for the children of RAF personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following RAF stations within the United Kingdom currently have on-site schools for children of service personnel aged between five and 18:

  RAF Benson

  RAF Coltishall

  RAF Coningsby

  RAF Cottesmore

  RAF Digby

  RAF Henlow

  RAF High Wycombe

  RAF Kinloss

  RAF Leeming

  RAF Odiham

  RAF Scampton

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Wyton

  In all cases, the local education authority is responsible for the school and admission is not restricted to RAF dependants.

  Amphibious Helicopter Carrier
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the prospects are of the proposed amphibious helicopter carrier for the Royal Navy being built in the near future.

  Mr. Aitken
  Our current plans are to place a contract in the autumn of 1993.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many SSNs and SSBNs will be decommissioned in the next five years; and what are the Navy's plans for laying up of these submarines.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to reveal in advance details of plans for decommissioning nuclear-powered submarines. Our policy remains that when nuclear-powered sumarines have been decommissioned the hulls are stored afloat at a suitable berth, pending eventual disposal.

  Strategic Nuclear Force (Employee Costs)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost per employee of the strategic nuclear force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I gave the estimated cost of the nuclear strategic force for the current financial year in an answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 6 November 1992,Official Report, column 533. This equates to approximately £2,700 for each of the Ministry of Defence's 469,000 service and civilian employees.

  Challenger
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to date of Challenger; and if he will report on progress with regard to the sale of this vessel.

  Mr. Aitken
  The total project acquisition cost of HMS Challenger, together with the cost of the two docking periods which she has undergone is some £240 million at 1990–91 prices. The marketing of the ship continues.

  Defence Exports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy relating to the release of information on the export of British defence equipment to(a) Argentina and (b) Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The policy of successive Governments has been to treat information about specific defence exports as commercially confidential. In the special circumstances of Argentina and Iraq, information that is not commercially sensitive has exceptionally been made public.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his oral remarks of 23 November,Official Report, columns 705–6, if he will now release information on the export of British defence equipment to Argentina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Information on the export of defence equipment to Argentina was given in the answer to
  365
  question 7 of the minutes of evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 10 November 1982. A defence equipment embargo has been in force since the 1982 Falklands conflict.

  AWACS Contract
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the figure of offset business placed with British firms on the AWACS contract following the Nimrod cancellation; was this greater or less than the 13 per cent. offset agreement; what proportion of this business would have been placed in the United Kingdom if Nimrod had not been cancelled; and if he will list which firms benefited.

  Mr. Aitken
  As I stated in my answer of 20 May,Official Record, column 190, Boeing has submitted to my Department reports listing contracts placed with United Kingdom firms totalling some $2·1 billion, of which we have agreed some $1·57 billion to count for offset credit. This latter figure exceeds the 130 per cent. target set in the agreement and Boeing have therefore met their obligation. It is not possible to say what proportion of these orders would have been placed in the United Kingdom had Nimrod not been cancelled. Details of Boeing's reports of the firms which benefited are commercially confidential and cannot be released.

  Warships (Refitting and Repair)
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he now intends to publish his proposals for future arrangements for warship refitting and repair; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We continue to receive from a variety of sources much detailed and important information which bears on future arrangements for the refitting and repair of Royal Navy vessels, particularly nuclear-powered submarines. This information has recently included a further series of proposals from the contractors at the royal dockyards for the provision of the new dockyard facilities that will be needed to support Trident submarines. We now expect that the need to assess properly the latest contractor proposals will preclude an announcement before the House returns after the Christmas recess, but we will make an announcement thereafter as soon as we responsibly can.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Alcohol Products
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he has held in the Council of Agriculture Ministers on equal treatment for British alcohol products in continental countries of the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I defend British interests at all times, but there has been no recent discussion within the Council of Agriculture Ministers on this subject.

  Departmental Canteen
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for introducing into his Department's official canteen animal welfare friendly and environmentally friendly foods, including game meat and game fish.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government's policy on consumer choice is fully reflected in menus offered in the Department's staff restaurants.

  Fish Laboratories
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on the new building programme at his Department's fish laboratories in Weymouth.

  Mr. Curry
  Tenders for the main building works were received on 23 November and are being evaluated. We expect to appoint a contractor before Christmas with a view to completing the works early in 1994.

  Retirement Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider the Government's policy on pre-pension retirement schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the implementation of the costs directive and the hygiene directive in their application to slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Soames
  In response to the widespread concern across Europe about the impact of these directives on small abattoirs, my right hon. Friend announced yesterday that he is arranging for the December Council of Agriculture Ministers to consider whether any further action at Community level is required to safeguard small traditional slaughtering businesses.

  As far as implementation in Great Britain is concerned, local authorities are at present responsible for meat inspection and hygiene control in slaughterhouses and are required to charge for this service. Where their actual costs are higher than the standard charge specified in the EC decision on meat inspection charges, they have discretion to recover less than their full costs. The Department has this week issued further guidance which should enable some local authorities to provide the inspection service at a lower cost than they have been estimating.

  GATT
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for agriculture of the current situation in the GATT talks.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
  367
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the action taken by his Department to monitor the effects of the GATT negotiations on food standards.

  Mr. Soames
  The GATT round negotiations have not specifically addressed food standards, but will provide for greater transparency in thm setting and enforcement of animal and plant health requirements affecting trade.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have had discussions about the GATT negotiations with a wide range of individuals and organisations.

  Potato Marketing
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom potato marketing scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government will take decisions on the future of the potato marketing scheme in the light of the recently published proposals for an EC potato regime and following extensive consultations.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the of total CAP expenditure received by Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom's share of receipts from the CAP is around 7 per cent. or approximately £1·8 billion per annum. CAP reforms agreed earlier this year are likely to increase the United Kingdom's share of receipts to over 9 per cent.

  Milk Marketing Boards
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for reform of the milk marketing board.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of milk marketing boards.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Agriculture Bill received its Second Reading in another place on 23 November.

  Transport of Live Animals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the transportation of live animals.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department continues to receive a very large number of representations on this subject. The Government attach great importance to this issue and will continue to press for the high standards in this country to be adopted throughout the European Community.

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will bring forward legislation on agricultural tenancy reforms arising out of his consultations.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I plan to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of his intentions in relation to the designation of further environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Curry
  We plan to launch six new English environmentally sensitive areas in January next year, and a further six the following winter.

  Sheep
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the President of the National Farmers Union to discuss the sheep sector.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I meet the president of the NFU regularly on this subject.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress was made with the review of the Common Fisheries Policy at the council meeting of EC Fisheries Ministers on 23 November.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on 24 November at column 570.

  Wheat and Barley
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of(a) wheat and (b) barley was exported from the United Kingdom in the last 12-month period.

  Mr. Curry
  For the year October 1991 to September 1992, the latest for which data are available, the quantities exported were 4·707 million tonnes and 1·942 million tonnes for wheat and barley respectively.

  Hens
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of hens kept for(a) laying eggs and (b) poultrymeat production in each county.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is given in the following table. Data are from the 1991 June agricultural census. Estimates for minor holdings are excluded.
  369

  Number of laying hens and table chicken by county June 1991 agricultural and horticultural census1

  County

  Hens kept mainly for producing eggs for eating2

  Breeding hens

  Table chicken

  Cleveland

  28,706

  28

  1,249,027

  Cumbria

  396,012

  48,455

  1,488,874

  Durham

  151,800

  16,234

  335,786

  Northumberland

  58,702

  16,110

  38,276

  Tyne and Wear

  64,479

  22

  0

  Humberside

  188,969

  165,630

  1,021,189

  North Yorkshire

  1,073,912

  83,911

  3,950,065

  South Yorkshire

  251,935

  7,047

  313,644

  West Yorkshire

  619,922

  60,220

  343,922

  Derbyshire

  223,991

  492

  1,757,260

  Leicestershire

  289,574

  17,211

  1,014,567

  Lincolnshire

  2,286,927

  626,543

  2,786,702

  Northamptonshire

  386,490

  81,358

  686,315

  Nottinghamshire

  1,199,964

  27,450

  274,084

  Cambridgeshire

  357,039

  40,421

  1,621,364

  Norfolk

  1,695,264

  507,712

  4,054,052

  Suffolk

  543,750

  67,881

  4,191,549

  Bedfordshire

  396,483

  370

  213,728

  Berkshire

  163,084

  198

  109,068

  Buckinghamshire

  214,583

  106

  1,763,907

  East Sussex

  219,883

  400

  554,579

  Essex

  874,972

  284,330

  2,214,152

  Greater London

  33,471

  25,364

  110

  Hampshire

  1,383,803

  290,694

  2,577,162

  Hertfordshire

  115,655

  137,445

  495,366

  Isle of Wight

  11,453

  778

  12

  Kent

  1,316,886

  55,420

  764,210

  Oxfordshire

  467,661

  86,686

  271,376

  Surrey

  185,977

  29,397

  390,929

  West Sussex

  549,236

  1,113

  511,241

  Avon

  488,420

  534

  171,525

  Cornwall and Isles of Stilly

  685,752

  862

  94,489

  Devon

  1,247,897

  93,654

  2,070,086

  Dorset

  456,225

  12,522

  892,766

  Gloucestershire

  452,697

  139,418

  546,763

  Somerset

  409,954

  161,620

  2,670,988

  Wiltshire

  966,905

  96,648

  2,580,654

  Hereford and Worcester

  776,566

  360,045

  4,935,620

  Shropshire

  1,876,694

  39,032

  1,758,698

  Staffordshire

  683,927

  40,863

  549,589

  Warwickshire

  357,932

  86,527

  903,101

  West Midlands

  108,862

  43

  24,108

  Cheshire

  663,548

  120,712

  1,232,193

  Greater Manchester

  257,017

  270

  198,141

  Lancashire

  1,273,554

  159,359

  1,855,844

  Merseyside

  236,419

  9,566

  113,905

  England

  26,692,952

  4,000,701

  55,590,986

  Notes:

  1 Minor holdings excluded.

  2 Growing pullets excluded.

  Counties

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishments subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Avon3

  1,451

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  772

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Berkshire

  570

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire3

  410

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  907

  0

  0

  172

  0

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London, (b) in Scotland and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Curry
  The information as at 1 December 1992 is shown as follows. The figures include permanent and casual staff but exclude fee-paid staff, and those on loan or unpaid leave.

  Number

  (a) London

  3,468·0

  (b) Scotland

  205·5

  (c) Elsewhere

  7,092·0

  Part-time staff are counted as half posts.

  Rapeseed
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the effects of a discontinuance of the rapeseed subsidies on British farmers.

  Mr. Curry
  EC subsidies to rapeseed growers have not been discontinued, though the previous tonnage payments have been replaced by an area payment scheme.

  Fisheries (Rating)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to introduce into the Water Resources Act 1991 a right of appeal against rating of fisheries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to do so. Section 115 of the Water Resources Act 1991 already provides for the inclusion of supplemental and consequential provisions in any order providing for the payment of contributions by owners and occupiers of fisheries. A right of appeal could be introduced under such provisions. This is a matter which the National Rivers Authority will have to take into account in developing its proposals for a contribution scheme.

  Food Premises (Inspection)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspections of food premises have been carried out by each local authority in England under the Food Safety Act 1990; and how many of those inspections have resulted in(a) the issuing of improvement and emergency prohibition notices, (b) informal warning letters of (c) the voluntary closures of companies.

  Mr. Soames
  At present information is available only for 1991. This is given in the table1.
  371

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishments subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Cheshire3

  459

  0

  0

  62

  0

  Cleveland3

  864

  0

  0

  44

  0

  Cornwall3

  363

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  741

  0

  0

  90

  0

  Derbyshire3

  851

  0

  0

  167

  0

  Devon

  4,694

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset3

  623

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  943

  0

  0

  13

  0

  East Sussex3

  405

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  500

  0

  0

  66

  0

  Gloucestershire

  356

  0

  0

  45

  0

  Hampshire3

  3,435

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  583

  0

  0

  231

  0

  Hertfordshire3

  578

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside3

  1,277

  0

  0

  15

  0

  Isle of Wight

  144

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  3,286

  0

  0

  91

  0

  Lancashire3

  1,350

  0

  0

  497

  0

  Leicestershire

  1,071

  0

  0

  120

  0

  Lincolnshire

  502

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Norfolk

  837

  0

  0

  40

  0

  Northamptonshire3

  301

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland3

  297

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire3

  155

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  723

  0

  0

  23

  0

  Oxfordshire

  279

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire3

  630

  0

  0

  154

  0

  Somerset

  430

  0

  0

  8

  0

  Staffordshire3

  182

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk3

  130

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Surrey3

  969

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire3

  851

  0

  0

  10

  0

  West Sussex3

  772

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire3

  889

  0

  0

  0

  0

  English district

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishment subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Adur

  159

  2

  0

  10

  0

  Allerdale3

  224

  36

  0

  114

  0

  Alnwick3

  137

  26

  0

  16

  0

  Amber Valley3

  707

  15

  0

  644

  0

  Arun

  838

  19

  0

  31

  12

  Ashfield3

  279

  25

  1

  168

  1

  Ashford

  634

  86

  0

  230

  0

  Aylesbury Vale3

  446

  33

  0

  136

  2

  Babergh3

  276

  11

  0

  66

  0

  Barrow-in-Furness3

  536

  87

  1

  240

  0

  Basildon

  446

  26

  1

  131

  2

  Basingstoke and Deane3

  593

  89

  0

  536

  0

  Bassetlaw3

  636

  78

  0

  79

  0

  Bath City3

  187

  20

  0

  20

  0

  Berwick-upon-Tweed3

  97

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Beverley

  940

  6

  0

  97

  0

  Blaby

  547

  12

  0

  132

  0

  Blackburn3

  424

  220

  0

  159

  0

  Blackpool

  280

  69

  2

  171

  9

  Blyth Valley3

  127

  13

  0

  190

  0

  Bolsover3

  200

  32

  0

  227

  0

  Boothferry

  523

  48

  1

  542

  6

  Boston

  512

  5

  1

  205

  0

  Bournemouth

  906

  19

  0

  865

  0

  Bracknell Forest3

  302

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Braintree3

  181

  2

  0

  179

  0

  Breckland

  390

  8

  0

  174

  0

  Brent wood

  419

  50

  0

  73

  0

  Bridgnorth3

  148

  15

  0

  128

  0

  Brighton

  814

  78

  1

  0

  1

  Bristol City

  832

  175

  4

  564

  0

  Broadland3

  673

  7

  1

  161

  4

  372 373

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishment subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Bromsgrove3

  217

  5

  0

  130

  0

  Broxbourne3

  485

  31

  0

  378

  0

  Broxtowe3

  577

  72

  0

  475

  0

  Burnley3

  268

  87

  1

  60

  1

  Cambridge City

  1,163

  78

  1

  802

  0

  Cannock Chase3

  228

  1

  0

  67

  0

  Canterbury City3

  1,280

  148

  0

  1,010

  0

  Caradon3

  538

  4

  0

  377

  0

  Carlisle City

  716

  122

  10

  417

  0

  Carrick3

  768

  8

  0

  632

  0

  Castle Morpeth

  748

  213

  0

  179

  0

  Castlepoint

  458

  39

  0

  243

  0

  Charnwood3

  656

  1

  0

  628

  0

  Chelmsford3

  930

  25

  0

  178

  2

  Cheltenham

  368

  14

  1

  267

  1

  Cherwell

  927

  282

  0

  67

  0

  Chester City

  1,476

  53

  0

  925

  0

  Chester-le-Street3

  31

  6

  4

  20

  0

  Chesterfield3

  297

  29

  0

  299

  0

  Chichester3

  918

  50

  0

  313

  0

  Chiltern3

  428

  15

  0

  190

  3

  Chorley3

  272

  86

  0

  65

  0

  Christchurch3

  55

  12

  0

  30

  0

  Cleethorpes3

  371

  35

  0

  407

  1

  Colchester

  608

  102

  0

  142

  2

  Congleton3

  334

  12

  0

  15

  0

  Copeland3

  403

  28

  0

  246

  0

  Corby3

  177

  22

  2

  143

  2

  Cotswold3

  666

  52

  0

  529

  1

  Craven3

  373

  7

  0

  187

  0

  Crawley

  643

  4

  0

  132

  0

  Crewe and Nantwich3

  242

  32

  0

  139

  1

  Dacorum

  650

  5

  0

  82

  0

  Darlington

  243

  5

  0

  175

  0

  Dartford3

  346

  7

  0

  173

  0

  Daventry

  362

  46

  1

  178

  0

  Derby City3

  272

  93

  4

  272

  4

  Derbyshire Dales3

  584

  63

  0

  163

  0

  Derwentside3

  683

  7

  0

  94

  0

  Dover3

  381

  23

  0

  93

  0

  Durham City3

  97

  0

  0

  127

  0

  Easington3

  206

  73

  1

  148

  0

  East Cambridgeshire3

  500

  3

  0

  99

  0

  East Devon

  996

  112

  0

  269

  1

  East Dorset3

  241

  34

  0

  187

  0

  East Hampshire

  688

  15

  0

  144

  0

  East Hertfordshire

  445

  44

  0

  319

  0

  East Lindsey3

  838

  14

  1

  250

  1

  East Northamptonshire3

  251

  46

  0

  56

  0

  East Staffordshire

  845

  74

  1

  888

  1

  East Yorkshire3

  1,211

  24

  0

  228

  0

  Eastbourne3

  754

  9

  0

  436

  0

  Eastleigh

  606

  27

  0

  262

  0

  Eden3

  696

  14

  0

  195

  0

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  369

  0

  0

  131

  0

  Elmbridge3

  55

  20

  0

  28

  1

  Epping Forest3

  489

  28

  2

  383

  2

  Epsom and Ewell3

  55

  1

  0

  20

  0

  Erewash3

  573

  68

  0

  274

  0

  Exeter City3

  584

  32

  0

  56

  0

  Fareham

  544

  57

  0

  399

  0

  Fenland3

  440

  29

  0

  293

  0

  Forest Heath

  398

  8

  0

  104

  0

  Forest of Dean3

  789

  18

  0

  291

  0

  Fylde3

  355

  115

  0

  144

  0

  Gedling

  983

  12

  0

  634

  0

  Gillingham3

  307

  63

  0

  209

  0

  Glanford3

  146

  20

  0

  80

  0

  Gloucester City3

  284

  1

  0

  128

  0

  Gosport

  321

  24

  0

  178

  0

  Gravesham3

  671

  117

  0

  346

  0

  Great Grimsby3

  1,332

  3

  0

  477

  0

  Great Yarmouth3

  1,059

  163

  0

  682

  3

  Guildford

  585

  135

  2

  207

  2

  374 375

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishment subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Halton3

  333

  20

  0

  182

  1

  Hambleton3

  186

  62

  0

  45

  0

  Harborough

  406

  0

  0

  164

  0

  Harlow3

  173

  24

  2

  76

  2

  Harrogate3

  843

  142

  0

  442

  0

  Hart

  561

  19

  0

  304

  0

  Hartlepool3

  301

  33

  0

  166

  0

  Hastings

  767

  105

  0

  608

  0

  Havant3

  842

  86

  0

  447

  0

  Hereford City3

  516

  0

  0

  229

  0

  Hertsmere3

  776

  123

  0

  400

  0

  High Peak3

  340

  33

  0

  239

  0

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  712

  16

  0

  269

  0

  Holderness3

  86

  0

  0

  49

  0

  Horsham3

  771

  10

  0

  68

  0

  Hove3

  545

  120

  0

  282

  0

  Huntingdon3

  441

  85

  0

  333

  6

  Hyndburn3

  447

  73

  1

  451

  0

  Ipswich3

  339

  101

  1

  125

  1

  Kennet3

  551

  23

  0

  299

  0

  Kerrier3

  479

  28

  0

  311

  0

  Kettering3

  358

  112

  0

  83

  0

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk3

  499

  42

  0

  750

  0

  Kingston-Upon-Hull3

  1,070

  85

  0

  545

  23

  Kingswood3

  406

  61

  0

  322

  0

  Lancaster City3

  362

  206

  0

  96

  0

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees3

  107

  1

  0

  25

  0

  Leicester City

  413

  57

  1

  209

  0

  Leominster

  341

  144

  0

  197

  0

  Lewes

  388

  30

  0

  341

  0

  Lichfield3

  425

  2

  0

  234

  1

  Lincoln City3

  383

  37

  0

  134

  0

  Luton

  966

  112

  0

  346

  0

  Macclesfield3

  910

  164

  0

  287

  0

  Maidstone3

  243

  0

  0

  68

  0

  Maldon3

  151

  6

  0

  64

  0

  Malvern Hills3

  163

  59

  0

  106

  0

  Mansfield

  1,157

  83

  1

  554

  0

  Medina3

  763

  69

  0

  146

  2

  Melton3

  276

  8

  0

  219

  0

  Mendip3

  822

  97

  1

  114

  1

  Mid Bedfordshire3

  480

  8

  0

  333

  0

  Mid Devon3

  223

  6

  0

  44

  0

  Mid Suffolk

  269

  43

  0

  23

  0

  Mid Sussex3

  356

  19

  0

  117

  0

  Middlesbrough

  260

  36

  0

  138

  0

  Milton Keynes3

  463

  18

  0

  0

  2

  Mole Valley

  324

  42

  0

  280

  0

  North West Leicestershire3

  960

  8

  0

  586

  0

  New Forest

  565

  42

  0

  194

  0

  Newark and Sherwood3

  236

  35

  0

  118

  0

  Newbury3

  310

  23

  1

  130

  0

  Newcastle Under Lyme

  349

  4

  0

  411

  1

  North Bedfordshire3

  566

  3

  0

  588

  0

  North Cornwall3

  314

  2

  0

  68

  1

  North Devon3

  311

  153

  0

  29

  0

  North Dorset

  257

  8

  0

  204

  0

  North East Derbyshire3

  180

  7

  0

  120

  6

  North Hertfordshire3

  813

  94

  0

  79

  0

  North Kesteven

  376

  30

  0

  236

  3

  North Norfolk3

  627

  2

  0

  130

  0

  North Shropshire3

  169

  6

  0

  87

  0

  North Warwickshire3

  365

  62

  1

  80

  1

  North Wiltshire3

  1,119

  35

  0

  428

  0

  Northampton

  814

  50

  1

  534

  2

  Northavon3

  699

  20

  0

  409

  0

  Norwich City3

  793

  97

  0

  418

  0

  Nottingham City3

  2,252

  75

  0

  1,552

  1

  Nuneaton and Bedworth3

  856

  195

  1

  341

  1

  Oadby and Wigston3

  148

  26

  0

  126

  0

  Oswestry3

  205

  20

  0

  227

  0

  Oxford City3

  334

  109

  0

  199

  0

  Pendle3

  849

  35

  0

  496

  0

  376 377

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishment subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Pen with3

  673

  32

  0

  168

  1

  Peterborough City3

  1,042

  1

  0

  117

  0

  Plymouth City3

  879

  40

  0

  299

  0

  Poole3

  340

  36

  0

  313

  0

  Portsmouth City3

  1,416

  66

  0

  407

  1

  Preston3

  470

  93

  3

  3

  5

  Purbeck

  158

  11

  0

  18

  0

  Reading

  815

  77

  0

  284

  0

  Redditch3

  180

  35

  0

  179

  0

  Reigate and Banstead3

  295

  13

  1

  178

  1

  Restormel3

  420

  2

  0

  421

  0

  Ribble Valley3

  206

  0

  0

  14

  0

  Richmondshire

  482

  0

  0

  208

  0

  Rochester upon Medway3

  911

  22

  0

  797

  0

  Rochford3

  85

  50

  1

  7

  1

  Rossendale3

  352

  253

  0

  163

  1

  Rother3

  804

  30

  0

  80

  0

  Rugby

  570

  141

  0

  495

  0

  Runnymede3

  382

  27

  0

  267

  0

  Rushcliffe

  85

  23

  0

  62

  0

  Rushmoor3

  575

  86

  1

  95

  2

  Rutland3

  237

  39

  0

  13

  0

  Ryedale3

  407

  29

  0

  84

  0

  Salisbury3

  397

  13

  0

  223

  0

  Scarborough

  1,060

  78

  0

  536

  0

  Scunthorpe

  571

  40

  0

  158

  1

  Sedgefield3

  184

  15

  2

  23

  2

  Sedgmoor3

  642

  19

  0

  64

  0

  Selby

  288

  98

  0

  142

  0

  Sevenoaks3

  258

  1

  0

  172

  0

  Shepway3

  821

  72

  0

  36

  0

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  209

  22

  0

  124

  0

  Slough3

  393

  34

  0

  168

  0

  South Bedfordshire3

  366

  164

  0

  0

  0

  South Buckinghamshire3

  186

  51

  0

  157

  0

  South Cambridgeshire3

  373

  18

  0

  261

  0

  South Derbyshire3

  998

  11

  0

  256

  0

  South Hams

  502

  45

  0

  319

  0

  South Herefordshire

  232

  0

  0

  147

  0

  South Holland3

  606

  10

  0

  268

  0

  South Kesteven3

  796

  0

  0

  343

  0

  South Lakeland3

  1,857

  64

  0

  36

  0

  South Norfolk3

  805

  201

  0

  318

  2

  South Northamptonshire

  360

  5

  0

  62

  0

  South Oxfordshire

  712

  8

  0

  442

  0

  South Ribble3

  319

  11

  0

  200

  0

  South Shropshire3

  87

  49

  1

  0

  1

  South Somerset3

  906

  0

  0

  109

  0

  South Staffordshire3

  108

  20

  0

  34

  2

  South Wight

  539

  6

  0

  330

  2

  Southampton City

  1,086

  37

  1

  297

  3

  Southend-on-Sea

  447

  221

  1

  98

  1

  Spelthorne

  158

  15

  0

  25

  0

  St. Albans City

  547

  105

  0

  122

  0

  St. Edmundsbury

  975

  23

  0

  394

  0

  Stafford3

  747

  188

  1

  231

  1

  Staffordshire Moorlands3

  1,346

  0

  0

  220

  4

  Stevenage3

  78

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  775

  36

  0

  429

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent City3

  714

  281

  0

  316

  0

  Stratford-on-Avon

  675

  489

  2

  132

  7

  Stroud

  541

  24

  0

  346

  0

  Suffolk Coastal3

  470

  30

  0

  460

  0

  Surrey Heath3

  214

  4

  0

  210

  0

  Swale3

  435

  50

  0

  265

  0

  Tamworth3

  263

  138

  0

  241

  0

  Tandridge3

  314

  7

  0

  315

  0

  Taunton Deane3

  343

  48

  0

  144

  0

  Teesdale

  281

  1

  0

  29

  0

  Teignbridge

  1,272

  58

  0

  1,086

  0

  Tendring

  2,133

  149

  1

  1,050

  1

  Test Valley3

  734

  5

  0

  200

  0

  Tewkesbury3

  657

  21

  0

  326

  0

  Thamesdown

  1,312

  57

  0

  571

  0

  Thanet3

  1,569

  117

  0

  344

  3

  378 379

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishment subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  The Wrekin3

  623

  95

  1

  153

  1

  Three Rivers3

  610

  228

  0

  157

  0

  Thurrock3

  419

  23

  0

  136

  0

  Tonbridge and Mailing3

  423

  215

  0

  173

  0

  Torbay3

  662

  22

  0

  656

  0

  Torridge3

  125

  6

  0

  6

  0

  Tunbridge Wells3

  388

  51

  0

  313

  0

  Tynedale3

  58

  20

  0

  21

  2

  Uttlesford

  378

  0

  0

  88

  0

  Vale of White Horse3

  438

  1

  0

  307

  3

  Vale Royal3

  248

  28

  1

  221

  7

  Wansbeck3

  5

  4

  0

  2

  0

  Wansdyke3

  411

  27

  0

  76

  0

  Warrington

  432

  36

  0

  350

  2

  Warwick3

  252

  149

  3

  0

  1

  Watford3

  718

  6

  0

  172

  0

  Waveney

  354

  18

  0

  245

  0

  Waverley3

  150

  24

  0

  141

  0

  Wealden

  506

  24

  0

  112

  0

  Wear Valley3

  223

  17

  0

  283

  2

  Wellingborough

  369

  35

  0

  141

  0

  Welwyn Hatfield

  344

  1

  0

  137

  0

  West Devon3

  523

  7

  0

  86

  0

  West Dorset3

  346

  72

  0

  130

  0

  West Lancashire3

  711

  23

  0

  460

  0

  West Lindsey3

  592

  38

  0

  202

  0

  West Oxfordshire3

  281

  1

  0

  0

  0

  West Somerset3

  224

  0

  0

  118

  0

  West Wiltshire3

  385

  17

  0

  666

  0

  Weymouth and Portland3

  174

  108

  0

  15

  0

  Winchester City3

  176

  7

  0

  128

  0

  Windsor and Maidenhead3

  518

  135

  0

  0

  0

  Woking3

  175

  28

  0

  46

  0

  Wokingham

  609

  13

  1

  37

  0

  Woodspring3

  1,152

  401

  2

  1,167

  I

  Worcester City3

  215

  101

  0

  108

  0

  Worthing

  1,266

  21

  0

  294

  0

  Wychavon

  93

  1

  0

  6

  0

  Wycombe

  610

  7

  0

  261

  0

  Wyre

  703

  230

  0

  237

  0

  Wyre Forest

  451

  42

  0

  206

  0

  York City

  555

  106

  0

  153

  0

  Counties

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishment subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Isles of Scilly

  48

  0

  0

  12

  0

  London boroughs

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishments subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Barking and Dagenham3

  518

  36

  3

  0

  2

  Barnet3

  597

  31

  2

  446

  2

  Bexley3

  759

  238

  3

  201

  3

  Brent

  565

  29

  6

  274

  10

  Bromley3

  1,074

  43

  0

  217

  0

  Camden3

  757

  19

  2

  54

  1

  Croydon

  2,251

  262

  1

  1,033

  1

  City of London3

  25,309

  12

  0

  93

  0

  Ealing3

  546

  57

  2

  256

  2

  Enfield

  680

  100

  4

  469

  4

  Greenwich

  219

  32

  3

  88

  4

  Hackney4

  461

  54

  2

  380

  2

  Hammersmith and Fulham3

  156

  6

  0

  0

  0

  380 381

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishments subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Haringey3

  425

  87

  4

  90

  5

  Harrow

  1,690

  27

  0

  232

  0

  Havering3

  729

  121

  1

  291

  1

  Hillingdon3

  1,633

  455

  0

  402

  9

  Hounslow3

  460

  55

  0

  37

  0

  Islington3

  512

  233

  1

  92

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea3

  1,222

  132

  3

  620

  16

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,204

  69

  0

  280

  0

  Lambeth3

  1,335

  204

  0

  569

  10

  Lewisham3

  1,212

  58

  0

  553

  0

  Merton

  677

  147

  0

  403

  0

  Newham3

  109

  20

  0

  57

  0

  Redbridge3

  298

  24

  0

  134

  0

  Richmond upon Thames3

  179

  10

  0

  126

  0

  Southwark3

  803

  262

  16

  509

  37

  Sutton3

  716

  24

  0

  215

  0

  Tower Hamlets3

  1,225

  138

  1

  464

  9

  Waltham Forest3

  654

  18

  0

  130

  0

  Wandsworth3

  473

  81

  1

  72

  1

  Westminster3

  1,615

  79

  0

  0

  0

  Metropolitan councils

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishments subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Barnsley3

  841

  13

  0

  345

  0

  Birmingham3

  4,283

  572

  56

  505

  64

  Bolton3

  1,146

  51

  4

  589

  6

  Bradford

  2,413

  276

  11

  680

  9

  Bury3

  890

  266

  0

  315

  0

  Calderdale3

  1,211

  97

  1

  374

  1

  Coventry3

  699

  227

  9

  173

  9

  Doncaster3

  972

  102

  0

  40

  0

  Dudley3

  1,401

  106

  0

  1,071

  0

  Gateshead3

  867

  11

  0

  444

  0

  Kirklees

  4,354

  234

  1

  1,124

  1

  Knowsley3

  2,109

  135

  1

  154

  0

  Leeds

  2,175

  79

  1

  1,203

  0

  Liverpool3

  3,086

  258

  10

  246

  2

  Manchester3

  854

  230

  6

  33

  9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  769

  200

  0

  470

  0

  North Tyneside3

  163

  12

  0

  125

  0

  Oldham

  1,638

  81

  3

  856

  4

  Rochdale3

  361

  73

  4

  218

  4

  Rotherham3

  565

  134

  1

  231

  1

  St. Helens3

  810

  69

  0

  117

  0

  Salford3

  649

  90

  2

  247

  3

  Sandwell

  1,045

  153

  1

  584

  5

  Sefton3

  1,399

  95

  0

  196

  1

  Sheffield

  4,401

  21

  0

  438

  0

  Solihull3

  1,286

  174

  1

  255

  1

  South Tyneside

  474

  156

  0

  75

  0

  Stockport3

  1,312

  121

  5

  21

  5

  Sunderland3

  3,080

  37

  1

  1,929

  0

  Tameside3

  1,585

  33

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford3

  282

  0

  1

  201

  1

  Wakefield3

  1,051

  121

  3

  411

  0

  Walsall

  2,402

  215

  6

  691

  2

  Wigan3

  742

  27

  1

  616

  5

  Wirral3

  1,450

  947

  0

  411

  0

  Wolverhampton3

  1,255

  468

  8

  254

  1

  382 383

  Port health authorities

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Number of establishments subject to

  Issue of improvement notices

  Issue of emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (voluntary and compulsory)

  Barnstaple

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barrow

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Boston

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bridgewater3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bristol3

  16

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Colchester3

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cowes3

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dover

  36,200

  0

  0

  48

  0

  Exeter3

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Exmouth3

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falmouth and Truro3

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Faversham

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Felixstowe3

  4,919

  0

  0

  26

  0

  Fleetwood3

  35

  35

  0

  0

  0

  Folkestone3

  3,436

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fowey

  73

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Great Yarmouth3

  477

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grimsby3

  1,044

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Hartlepool

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Harwich

  3,120

  0

  0

  54

  0

  Hull and Goole3

  1,285

  0

  0

  17

  0

  Immingham3

  383

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Ipswich3

  981

  0

  0

  1

  0

  King's Lynn

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancaster3

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Littlehampton

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool3

  780

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London3

  30,087

  0

  0

  87

  0

  Lowestoft3

  203

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maldon

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  1,563

  0

  0

  19

  0

  Medway3

  91

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Newhaven

  468

  0

  0

  1

  0

  New Shoreham

  52

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Penwith

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plymouth3

  68

  0

  0

  9

  0

  Poole Harbour3

  4,677

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Portsmouth3

  2,128

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Ramsgate3

  460

  0

  0

  3

  0

  River Blyth

  10

  0

  0

  2

  0

  River Tees3

  1,455

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southampton3

  1,528

  0

  0

  12

  0

  Stroud

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Teignbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyne3

  1,196

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wells3

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Weymouth3

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Whitstable3

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wisbech

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Workington3

  Nil Return

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 These statistics cover work carried out by local authorities under the Food Safety Act 1990, regulations made under it and the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive. They exclude:

  meat hygiene inspections carried out under EC veterinary legislation;

  milk hygiene inspections of production plants;

  inspections carried out by the Wine Standards Board under EC wine legislation.

  2 The number of food hygiene and food standards inspections covers:

  inspection of premises;

  inspection of equipment including cleaning and maintenance equipment;

  inspection of process or operational procedure;

  inspection of the hygiene or practices of personnel;

  inspection of food (including ingredients, additives and products at any stage of manufacture) or contact materials;

  inspection of labels, labelling equipment and advertising matter and/or

  inspection of records.

  These figures exclude all other visits to check compliance with notices, sampling visits and visits to follow up complaints.

  3 Excludes figures for first quarter of 1991. This was only required on a voluntary basis.

  4 For port health authorities this includes the number of consignments and ships' kitchens inspected.

  Wildlife Incident Investigation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future funding of the wildlife incident investigation scheme in England and Wales.

  Mr. Soames
  Officials are reviewing the information required to monitor the effects of pesticides on wildlife and will be putting proposals to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Arrangements for funding will need to be considered in the light of their conclusions.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he or his officials
  384
  last met representatives of the agrochemical industry to discuss the future funding of the wildlife incident investigation schemes.

  Mr. Soames
  Officials met representatives of the agrochemical industry and other interested organisations on 30 October to discuss industry funding of pesticides related( work, including the wildlife incident investigation schemes.

  Animal Carcases
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture., Fisheries and Food (1) what action has been taken against farmers reported for leaving animal carcases in fields during the last 12 months;
  385
  (2) what information he has regarding recent cases of decomposing sheep carcases being left in fields with grazing cattle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The state veterinary service has continued over the last 12 months to monitor closely reports of dumping of animal carcases wherever they occur. Whenever evidence of offenders is available they act with local authorities to try to ensure that prosecutions are secured as appropriate. Legislation is being drawn up to implement the EC directive on the disposal of animal waste, which will increase the penalties for the dumping of carcases.

  Calves (Transport)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 890, what are the welfare implications of sealing vehicles transporting calves from Great Britain to Holland.

  Mr. Soames
  Any sealing of vehicles would be required to be carried out without prejudicing the welfare of the animals and in conformity with legislation on the protection of animals during transportation.

  Mink
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes in procedure have been adopted by his Department on mink farming since August 1989.

  Mr. Soames
  No changes to departmental procedures have been implemented in this time.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his officials did not inspect two adjoining mink sheds when inspecting Swalesmoor Mink Farm to ensure compliance with the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 in 1987, 1988 and in April and September 1989.

  Mr. Soames
  An additional inspection covering the buildings in question was carried out in September 1989, when officials were made aware that mink were being kept in them. The visit confirmed that the security arrangements in operation complied with the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended, which lay down the manner in which mink can be kept under licence. The mink farm owner was therefore acting within the terms of the licence issued to him, to keep mink in any building on the farm.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring his Department conducts of breaches of the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  All mink farms are inspected annually by officials of ADAS, the Ministry's wildlife experts, to ensure that they meet the security requirements laid down for the keeping of mink. Any reported breaches of these security requirements would also be investigated by ADAS.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for licences to operate a mink farm have been rejected since the coming into operation of the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  No applications for licences to keep mink in a mink farm have been rejected since the coming into operation of the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many reports of mink escapes from fur farms have been officially notified since 1980;
  386
  (2) how many reports of mink escapes from fur farms have been officially notified since 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  Based on available information, the Ministry has received only one report of escapes of mink from a fur-farming establishment since 1980.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions are made by his Department to protect the welfare of mink during transportation.

  Mr. Soames
  Welfare of mink during transport is protected by provisions of the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, as amended. The legislation imposes a duty of care on all those who transport animals. It requires transport in suitable conditions and animals must be fed and watered at appropriate intervals.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conditions apply to the transportation of mink between licensed premises under the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended, as currently applied by the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987, require that no mink shall be transported from place to place except in closed cages or other containers constructed in such a manner and of such materials as to prevent their escape.

  Horses (Export)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the export and transit of horses next to be discussed in the EC Agriculture Ministers' Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Directive 91/628 provides for national safeguards to remain applicable until the Council decides what additional safeguards are necessary. No timetable has been set for a return to the subject.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, columns 283–86, if he will list by name and location the company that the chief executive of the Intervention Board visited on his fact-finding visit in respect of deboning beef for intervention storage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since this question concerns a matter which is the direct responsibility of the chief executive of the Intervention Board Executive Agency, I am asking him to write directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 December 1992:
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, following his Answer of 4 November reported in Hansard at columns 283–6, whether he would list by name and location the deboning company I included in my previous letter to you as one of my fact-finding visits. As this is a matter within the operational responsibility of this Agency, the Minister has asked me to reply to you direct.
  The company was Barretts & Baird of West Bromwich.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Subsidiarity
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the subsidiarity proposals in the Maastricht Treaty will apply only to future legislation, or whether they will also be applied retrospectively to existing laws and regulations and to legislation currently in draft.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the principle of subsidiarity is already being applied to draft legislation and will be applied to future proposals. Existing Community legislation is being reviewed to see whether the principle of subsidiarity has been infringed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful Answer. Even if a satisfactory and unambiguous definition of subsidiar-ity can be agreed upon and made binding and immune to the notorious centralising proclivities of the European Court, something which many eminent lawyers in this country believe to be impossible, does she agree that it would be like shutting the proverbial stable door after the horse had bolted if all existing laws and regulations which interfere in the purely domestic affairs of Community member states were to remain in force?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in one sense I agree with the noble Lord. The point is that the principle of subsidiarity will apply to all activity, past, present and future, and to all institutions. If we find that things that have been in force for some time are breaking the subsidiarity rule, then they will be dealt with.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, last week the Minister gave me the simple answer "yes" when asked whether there would need to be a legal definition. Does her answer today mean that if there is no legal definition, it will not apply to past, present or future legislation in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it has been made clear that a list of respective member state or Community competencies would be useless for competencies referred to member states. In a speech to the European Parliament some two weeks ago the President of the Commission said that national competence is the rule and Community competence the exception. We intend to see that that is put into practice through the procedures and the criteria for applying the subsidiarity test and the examples that we shall use to test it. If that is not enough, it will be referred to the European Court of Justice.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no more valuable concept in English law than that of the "reasonable man", and that that is totally incapable of legal definition?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to the most reasonable noble and learned friend whom I know, I can only say yes. The whole point about subsidiarity is that before the Community acts it must in future ask two questions. Is it appropriate to act at all, as opposed to leaving matters to member states? And if so, in what degree of detail? It may not be an exact definition, as my noble and learned friend said, but what appears in the Maastricht Treaty is an important step forward and is a good reason why both Houses of Parliament should ratify the treaty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it does not matter what the President of the Commission says, what she says, or even what the President of the Council says? What really matters is what the court says when a matter is placed before it. Is it not the treaty that will be interpreted by the court and not the mouthings of politicians or bureaucrats?
Baroness Chalker: My Lords, I can do no better than repeat something that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said to the House on 8th July:
"I believe that it is a principle which is perfectly enforceable by the European Court of Justice, as it enforces other principles of general application".—[Official Report, 8/7/92; col. 1138.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there not still considerable scope for discussion between heads of government on the implementation of the principle? Should implementation be by categorisa-tion, which is a political act taken by heads of government and the Council of Ministers without recourse to the court of justice? Or should there be —along the lines just suggested by my noble and learned friend—a formulation of principles, leaving disputes with the Commission to be resolved by the court of justice? Is it right that in the result all past legislation in any event would, either way, be open to review?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I sought to explain that the principle of subsidiarity will apply to all activity, past, present and future. What the principle will do—it will be justiciable before the European Court of Justice—is to provide a limit on over-regulation in all areas. The Commission is already taking that principle seriously. It is already doing work for the heads of government meeting in Edinburgh. After the heads of government have discussed what is put forward at that meeting, we shall all be, I hope, a good deal more confident about the matter than some Members of your Lordships' House seem to be at the moment. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of 12 heads of government, nor the lawyers working for them, to sort this out. It is well on its way to that end.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in another place on 24th September the Prime Minister said that the Maastricht Bill would not be brought back into another place until the whole scheme envisaged by Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty and its area of application, together with examples, were in place? Is the Minister aware that nothing is in place, and that the latest effusion—some seven pages of it—from M. Jacques Delors adds nothing to the ambiguity already implicit in Article 3b itself? Will she not therefore have the grace to abandon this whole wretched enterprise which is wasting everyone's time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the definition in Article 3b carries a clear presumption of activity at the national level. That is what we want to achieve. That is what we intend to achieve. Although the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, may not at this moment be entirely clear about how it will come out, I shall do my best in the coming weeks to ensure that he is.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, how does my noble friend reconcile her thoroughly satisfactory answer with the fact that the European Court is, at this moment, considering whether shops in England and Wales should be entitled to open on Sundays?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, unfortunately something I have learnt over the years is that once a piece of legislative action is in progress, it is difficult to halt it in midstream. If this legislation is at national level—which I think my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter believes, as I do, it should be—then it will be caught by the principle of subsidiarity and what we put into practice.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Baroness was slightly clearer today as to what the Government mean by "subsidiarity" and how they see the concept evolving. Can she tell us how many other countries of the Community agree with her?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think it only right to wait until the Edinburgh summit to see the exact way in which our 11 partner countries respond to the information which is being provided to them for that meeting. I am sorry if I let the noble Lord, Lord Richard, down the other day. We all have days when we are a little clearer than on others.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend envisage a role for the European Communities Committee of the House and its sub-committees in being able to challenge on the grounds of subsidiarity those measures that come before the committee from Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. I should like to look at it in detail before I give him either an affirmative or a negative answer.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, can we be sure that the noble Baroness will insist that the passion for subsidiarity is not used by some member states as a convenient smokescreen for avoiding their proper responsibilities.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is absolutely right. That is why we have always believed that the principle should, in any time of doubt, be justiciable before the European Court of Justice.

Young People Leaving Care
3.11 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that all local authorities provide 16 to 18 year-olds leaving statutory care with the continuing support which they need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we are closely monitoring how local authorities are exercising their powers and duties under the Act as a whole, and the Government will be reporting to Parliament on this in the new year.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that on Monday the programme "World in Action" brought consider-able evidence to bear on the fact that some local authorities at least are not fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as alternative parents to young people in care, in preparing them for independent life and in supporting them when they move out into independent living? Will the Minister please tell the House what action the Government will take to ensure that all local authorities, not just some, take the necessary action to prepare children properly so that they can participate as citizens—we hope successfully—in the life of the country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, none of us watching the programme could have failed to be moved by the experiences of the young people concerned. But it would be wrong to conclude that no support is at present being provided to care leavers. There are many thousands of young people leaving care each year who are being supported in various ways by local authorities. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the support varies widely, so the Government are monitoring the situation through specially commissioned research, new statistical returns and a survey undertaken by the social services inspectorate earlier this year. The survey results will form the basis of the Government's report to Parliament on implementation of the Act early next year.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at the moment youngsters are forced to leave care, not when they are able and ready but purely because of financial pressure to free places? That is the root cause of many of the problems and difficulties which confront the youngsters when they are thrown out, quite unprepared, into the world. Would it be a good idea to reconsider the criteria, even if that means keeping youngsters in care until they are able and

1453
prepared to leave? Also, it would be a good idea to fund the foster carers for a much longer period, until a suitable situation prevails.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much appreciate the views expressed by the noble Lord. Under the new Act, local authorities have the power to give advice and befriend young people up to the age of 21. I believe, though, that we have to accept that there are enormous variations between local authorities. The challenges in Islington are different from those in Suffolk, for example. There are also enormous variations between young people. We know that they come into care for a multiplicity of reasons; some may remain in care for just a month or two, while others may spend a whole lifetime in care. Therefore we must leave the discretion to local authorities as to how they plan the future for each individual young person.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister share my anxiety about the high percentage of young people leaving care and going into young offenders' institutions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if the percentage is high then I am concerned. I have figures, but I do not have that one.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does the Minister agree that beside the humanitarian point of view, there is an extreme waste of resources? Being in care is expensive and unless children and young people are helped with finding both jobs and homes, as well as having supportive relationships, some, though not all, are likely to become homeless and ultimately to become a charge to the state security system. Is this not a waste of resources?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know that my noble friend is an expert in the field and will be well aware of the costs involved in keeping children in care. It is because the Government are aware of the costs that the standard spending on children's services in the current year—which is the first year of the Children Act—is over 14 per cent. higher in real terms than 1990–91. The recent settlement that has been announced for next year provides a further increase of nearly £200 million. That means that over the past three years, personal social services total spending will have risen by one-fifth in real terms. I believe that that is a proud record of commitment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with many children's care organisations that in view of the variations in different local authorities and the circumstances, we should set up a national institute with powers to monitor and set standards for the Children Act?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Children Act is being carefully monitored. As the noble Lord will know, there is a duty on the Secretary of State to report every year on the outcome of the Act. This year I know that my noble friend the Secretary of State wants a detailed report on its first year of implementation to go to Parliament. So I believe that
1454
the Act is being carefully monitored and therefore there is no need to have a national organisation to do it.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, will the Minister ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider setting up an independent national inspec-torate to ensure that all children's homes in the country offer an acceptable standard of physical and pastoral care and prepare their young people for living independent lives and becoming responsible citizens?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that the Act is being carefully monitored. The social services inspectorate does a good job and I do not believe that there is a need for additional monitoring.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the important work of the Children's Society? For more than 100 years it has been the principal agent of the Church of England's work among young people both in care and leaving care. Does she agree with the conclusion of that society that because social security legislation has been enacted largely without reference to the provisions of the Children Act, the good provisions of the Act for 16 to 18 year-olds leaving care have been made ineffective?
Does the noble Baroness further agree that the text:
"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth",
is good for those giving alms, but disastrous when observed by government legislators, as appears to have happened in this case?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it would be a brave person who would debate the text of the Good Book with the right reverend Prelate, so I shall not do so. I believe that the voluntary organisations have a key role to play. Many of us are great admirers of the Children's Society; and, under the new Act, local authorities are required to work closely in partnership with voluntary organisations. I believe that is happening in many instances, although not all. The Government are aware of the enormous contribution that voluntary organisations make and that many children leaving care do not wish to keep their links with local authorities but welcome the support given by others.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when my noble friend looks at the statistics she has promised to consider on behalf of my noble friend Lady Masham and discovers there is indeed a steady flow of young people from care into custody, will she reflect that a local authority spending a lot of money on a young person in care and then letting him or her go without guidance into the community is like a manufacturer spending a lot of money making a motor car and then pushing it down hill without a driver? Will she please therefore follow up her recognition of the importance of the voluntary sector by encouraging her colleagues to support them with the funds which they now need increasingly as they diminish from other sources?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I give my noble friend that assurance.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, will the noble Baroness—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the noble Lord should be the last.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I give way.

Firearms Control Proposal
3.21 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What decision they have reached on the Home Office proposal to establish a national firearms control board.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is in the process of consulting ministerial colleagues about this matter and he will make an announcement as soon as possible.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging if somewhat circumscribed reply. Is he aware that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation estimates there are somewhere between 450,000 and half a million shooters in the United Kingdom who should have game licences? Does he agree that those figures, when compared with the figure he gave me on 10th November last of 46,700 game licences issued, fully justify one agency administering both shotgun and game licences, thereby increasing revenue to the Treasury by over £2 million per annum? Does he not therefore agree that such £2 million per annum extra revenue, plus the £1.5 million per annum savings indicated in the Home Office proposal to establish a national firearms control board—a total figure of £3.5 million per annum—warrant urgent consideration of that decision, particularly bearing in mind that even ignoring the revenue from the issue of firearms certificates, such a board would be self-financing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware of the figures gathered by the body to which my noble friend refers. However, I am perfectly prepared to accept that my noble friend's figures are correct. I tried to follow the other figures my noble friend gave but I became a trifle lost, and I shall have to read them to make certain that my calculations are correct. I quite see my noble friend's point. The difficulty, as I have explained to him previously, is that the firearms certificate is a method of controlling firearms and the licence is supposed to cover that. The game licence is an excise duty. That is, of course, collected by the Post Office. If there were to be a change, it would require legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister said that his right honourable friend was consulting ministerial colleagues. Will he confirm that his right honourable friend is also continuing to consult the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation who, I understand, have expressed opposition to the proposal of a national
1456
firearms control board? Will he confirm that any such body would have to rely on the police for information about the criminal records of those who apply for permission to own firearms? Would not that rather remove some of the savings suggested in the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there has been a great deal of consultation and my right honourable friend therefore has to make up his mind in consultation with his colleagues. If that should come about, as I explained in my original reply, my right honourable friend will make a statement. I cannot say what the statement will contain. There may be possibilities for further consultation or there may be possibilities for action. There has been plenty of consultation but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is desirable to have the police co-operate in the matter.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that if and when this firearms control board is set up the members of it will be sufficiently familiar with the technicalities of firearms? That is noticeably lacking in many police forces at present.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole point of a firearms board is that it would be a specialist board which, we hope, would achieve greater consistency. It would release police officers from administrative tasks. However, I agree with my noble friend that the members of that board would obviously have to be specialists.

Youth Training
3.25 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their Written Answers of 27th October (Official Report, col. WA 99) and 17th November (Official Report, cols. WA 42–46), what is their evidence for believing that a guarantee of a youth training place for 16 and 17 year-olds has been met.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the payment of bridging allowance to a young person is not an indication that the guarantee is not being met. The Government have continued to emphasise their commitment to the guarantee and have always made it clear that TECs will be adequately resourced.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, but it is not an awfully informative one. We know, for he has often told us so, that he believes the guarantee is working. I asked him for evidence to convince us that the guarantee is working. Can he give any?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is rather like asking for the length of a piece of string. The Government have always made it quite clear they are totally committed to fulfilling the guarantee. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State regards

1457
meeting that guarantee as a top priority. We have made it absolutely clear to TECs that we are taking the closest interest, TEC by TEC, to ensure that that guarantee is met.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, are we to take it from that that the Minister is answering no, he does not have evidence?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is perhaps taking this matter rather lightly. At the end of the summer a great number of people are deciding whether or not to take up youth training. If they suddenly decide to take up youth training but do not enter youth training the next day it is not a matter of the guarantee failing.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that organisations dealing with youth, notably Youth Aid, estimate that there are 124,700 16 and 17 year-olds currently unemployed, of whom 97,300 are not receiving any benefit or payment? Is the Minister also aware that a number of TECs claim they have long waiting lists? One London TEC apparently has a waiting list of 2,600. How do the Government square those figures?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, all those who left school in the summer are entitled to extended child benefit. Therefore none of those would be included in the figures which the noble Baroness puts forward. I believe her figures are entirely exaggerated and that the number of people waiting for a YT place is very much within reason.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on One Stop Shops.
London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Agriculture Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 4 to 11,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 12 to 25,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 26 to 32,

Schedule 4,

1458

Clauses 33 to 55,

Schedule 5,

Clause 56.—(Earl Howe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord Rea: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Judd said at Second Reading, we on these Benches welcome this small but useful Bill. It will make it easier for justice to be done on behalf of those who suffered as a result of the illegal occupation of Kuwait by Iraq.
My only concern is whether, once compensation funds are eventually available from Iraqi oil sales, there will still be a lengthy legal process before claimants receive any payment. Are the British claims which have been laid before the commission already being sorted out and adjudicated pending the arrival of compensation funds? Can the noble Baroness comment on that question in her final remarks?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is my understanding that work has already begun on the claims. That is not work of a formal nature because work of a formal nature can only begin when the Bill has passed all its stages in both your Lordships' House and in another place. Every effort will be made to assist those who need help in processing their claims.
I believe that it is right that the Bill should now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Car Tax (Abolition) Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Car Tax (Abolition) Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill gives effect to one of the measures which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Autumn Statement in another place. It abolishes car tax with effect from midnight on 12th/13th November 1992.
This is a measure of tax reform which has been widely welcomed by the motor industry. Last March my right honourable friend made the first step in this direction by cutting the tax from 10 per cent., the rate since it was introduced in 1973, to 5 per cent. Now he has completed the reform and got rid of the tax altogether. The motor industry had long pressed for the abolition of car tax because it regarded it as a discriminatory tax. It applied to cars alone, whereas all other consumer goods were subject only to VAT. This Bill removes that discrimination.

1459
In announcing the measure my right honourable friend made clear that it would have to be paid for in higher motoring taxes after this financial year. But instead of being liable to three taxes, apart from VAT, on cars—a tax on purchase, one on ownership (vehicle excise duty) and one on use (fuel duty)—motorists will in future be liable only to the latter two.This is a measure which will help the environment. All new cars will shortly have to be fitted with catalytic converters and use unleaded fuel, and so they are more environmentally friendly than the old cars they replace. Moreover, to the extent that the cost is recouped from fuel duty—the tax on car use—this should help the environment because environmental damage is related to car use, not car purchase.
As I have said, the motor industry has widely welcomed this measure. It expects it to lead to increased sales and increased confidence in the industry. The UK motor industry —with associated industries such as components manufacture and distribution—is an important part of British industry and its health is important to the health of the British economy. The measure will also benefit British business in another way. Just over half the cars bought in the United Kingdom are bought by business, so they will benefit directly from the price reduction resulting from car tax abolition. It will also benefit the private citizen, reducing the cost of the average family car by about £400. That reduction should also feed into second-hand car prices.
I should like now briefly to explain the Bill which is before the House. Although it is a short Bill, consisting only of six clauses, it is still a little more complicated than might at first have been thought necessary. Car tax is abolished by Clause 1. Clause 2 contains various consequential transitional pro-visions. It restricts Customs' powers in relation to car tax to dealing with cars on which tax became due on or before 12th November. Once manufacturers and importers have satisfied Customs and Excise that all the tax due on such cars has been paid, they will be deregistered. Clause 3 provides relief for dealers' tax-paid stocks of unsold cars on 12th November and also for cars ordered by customers but not invoiced, paid for and delivered until after that date. Clause 4 deems never to have been enacted the legislation for adapting collection of car tax on imported cars to the single market, due to have come into force on 1st January 1993. Clause 5 sets the date the Bill comes into effect, and Clause 6 its title.
This is a short and useful measure. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should just like to say a word in welcoming the Bill. It is a sensible action on the part of the Government. It will help an industry which is experiencing a certain amount of difficulty at present. It will deal with what I have always thought was an extraordinary anomaly. When car tax was levied on the sale of a car VAT was then charged on the price of that car as inflated by the car tax. That curious and rather perverse provision will
1460
now disappear. The Bill is a good thing and I hope that your Lordships will give it a speedy Second Reading.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments which I put two days ago to the effect that this reduction in car tax is being paid for by the drivers of existing cars in the form of higher road fund licence fees and petrol tax.
Is it not the case that profit margins on cars sold in this country are higher than they are in many continental countries, notably Belgium? If dealers were prepared to reduce their margins there would not be a need for the Bill and existing motorists would not have to pay higher petrol tax or higher road fund licence fees.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as concerns profit margins, I am sure that if one spoke to some car dealers they would say that at the moment they do not have a profit margin. I do not follow the logic that the Bill is unnecessary. I believe that it is a necessary measure.
I was grateful for what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. My noble friend and I go back some years on this matter. When I was Paymaster General he chided me for having a tax in the first place. I was then able to turn to him and say what a good thing it was that the tax had been reduced to 5 per cent. in the Budget. My noble friend then said that that was not good enough and we must remove the rest. I now have the greatest pleasure in saying to my noble friend that we have done so.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 30th November), Bill read a third time and passed.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
3.37 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Licensing of fishing boats]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert:
("() After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Such an order, if it applies to fishing for salmon or migratory trout in any waters which are included in the area which by virtue of section 2 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is the area in relation to which the National Rivers Authority carries out its functions relating to fisheries under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, shall have the effect of superseding the powers and duties of the National Rivers Authority to grant licences under section 25 of that Act in relation to the specified area for the description of sea fish, by the method and during the season of the year or other period that are specified in the order." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended to move the amendment at the Report stage but unfortunately the previous business on that day was completed much faster than expected. When my amendment was called I was in the Library and saw with alarm my name on the enunciator. I failed to get

1461
to the Chamber in time. I apologise to the House, and particularly to any noble Lords who were in the House on that occasion wishing to speak on the amendment.
After spending a good deal of time on the Bill discussing problems relating to cod and haddock, it might be a relief to your Lordships to turn briefly to the problems of salmon and sea trout. This is, after all, a sea fish conservation Bill and salmon and sea trout are, as your Lordships know, sea fish for part of their life cycle, and their conservation is extremely important. One aspect of that conservation was discussed by your Lordships in this House on 5th November when we talked about the North East drift nets. There was remarkable unanimity from all sides of the House on the need to phase out those drift nets within five years. The reply that the noble Earl gave us on that occasion was disappointing but I hope that he and his right honourable friend will consider very carefully the view that was expressed by all noble Lords who took part.
This amendment is related not to that specific question but more to the future and to obtaining clarification of the Government's powers to control drift netting for salmon and sea trout. I asked a question about this matter last month, to which I had a Written Answer from the noble Earl on 11th November (at col. WA14). I asked whether the Government's powers which had been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in 1986 were still valid. The noble Earl replied:
"Under Section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 the Government may, by order, prohibit in any specified area fishing by fishing boats unless authorised by licence … These powers could, therefore, be used to ban the use of drift nets or to license fishing for salmon and sea trout".
But he went on to say:
"The National Rivers Authority—which has a statutory duty to maintain, develop and improve salmon and freshwater fisheries—has similar powers".
I emphasise that word "similar".
He also said:
"It has a statutory obligation to license fishing for salmon and sea trout. It also has extensive powers to regulate salmon and sea trout fisheries both in fresh water and at sea".
When we had our debate on 5th November, the noble Earl said:
"Ministers have discretionary powers under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 to regulate sea fisheries, including fishing for salmon and migratory trout. It would be possible to use those heavy handed powers to license and, subsequently, to phase-out the driftnet fishery. However, there would be certain difficulties in that approach".
I would like to ask the noble Earl why he described the Government's powers on that occasion as heavy handed. It seems to me that those powers have existed for a very long time. Whether or not they are heavy handed depends on how they are applied. I do not see any reason why the powers themselves should be regarded as heavy handed. I would also like to ask him what the difficulties were to which he referred.
The noble Earl went on to say:
"The National Rivers Authority, which was created after the Salmon Act 1986 came into force, has a clear statutory duty to manage salmon fisheries. It also has the statutory powers necessary to implement all the measures proposed by Ministers in their report".—[Official Report, 5/11/92; col. 1591.]
The problem that has arisen is that the powers of the National Rivers Authority in this field, although they
1462
were described by the noble Earl as "similar" to the Government's, are in fact severely circumscribed, as was brought out in the debate on 5th November. I do not think that they are anything like as wide or comprehensive as the powers available to the Government under Section 4 of the 1967 Act. With regard to the NRA's obligation to operate a licensing scheme, I believe that some officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have claimed that the very existence of that statutory duty inhibits or constrains the exercise of powers by Ministers under Section 4 in relation to salmon fishing.
This amendment is intended to cure that difficulty and to clear up the situation. It would make it clear that if Ministers wished to make a salmon related order under Section 4 they could do so. They would not be prejudiced by the existence of the NRA's lesser powers and duty to control fishing by licences under the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act 1975.
I do not believe that there is anything new about this. The 1967 Act has applied to salmon since it came into force. Under Section 5 of that Act drift netting for salmon in Scotland is prohibited. Section 18 of that Act already refers to the NRA giving the authority's bailiffs powers to enforce orders of the sort to which my amendment relates. What I am trying to do is to ensure that the powers of fisheries Ministers to regulate salmon fisheries if they wish to do so—powers given to them by Parliament under this Act—are not artificially constrained or even apparently constrained by the existence of the less comprehensive local powers and duties of the NRA, and that that is so, whatever immediate or future management needs might be.
The amendment essentially clarifies the situation and makes sure that Ministers' powers are not diminished in the way it has been suggested. That is the whole point of my amendment, which seems to be a very simple one. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord has drawn attention to the respective powers of the Government and the National Rivers Authority in his justification for this amendment. He suggested that the NRA's duty to regulate fishing for salmon and migratory trout at sea by means of a system of licensing is a constraint on the exercise of Ministers' powers to license under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.
The suggestion is that Ministers cannot act because of the duty to license placed upon the NRA by statute. Let me make clear that this is not the case. The point is that Parliament has given the NRA the duty to maintain, improve and develop salmon and fresh-water fisheries. It is one of its primary functions. In contrast, Ministers' powers under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act are purely discretionary.
In order to carry out its functions, the NRA has available to it a range of powers. These include the power to restrict the number of licences which may be issued for fishing for salmon and migratory trout and the power to make by-laws prohibiting the use of

1463
specified instruments and restricting effort through controls, for example, on net lengths and times during which fishing can take place.
It is true that these powers are not totally unfettered. All are subject to confirmation by Ministers. Ministers must be satisfied that the measures proposed are justified and within the law. These powers have proved sufficient and they certainly cannot be described as being severely circumscribed, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said. I know that the noble Lord and other noble Lords may take issue with this, particularly in relation to the north-east coast driftnet fishery. I know that many noble Lords feel that the measures proposed by the NRA to phase this fishery out do not go far enough. But the fact remains that the measures proposed are consistent with government policy. Ministers asked the NRA to consider changes to the regulation of this fishery not because of constraints on their own powers but because the regulation of salmon and freshwater fisheries is the responsibility of the NRA.
The Government see no good case for interfering with the duties and responsibilities of the NRA. That is not to say that Ministers will never use the powers available to them under the 1967 Act. If we considered that there was a need for measures to regulate fishing for salmon and trout at sea which went beyond those which could be introduced by the NRA, we would not hesitate to act. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will feel somewhat more reassured. I hope also that in the light of my comments he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I am somewhat reassured. I understand that the Government are free and unconstrained, and if they believe that they need to act under Section 4 of the 1967 Act they can and will do so.
Before I finally decide what to do, perhaps the Minister will answer the two questions that I first put to him. Why did he describe the Government's powers as being heavy-handed and what were the difficulties he saw in using the powers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in our debate on 5th November I described the Government's powers as heavy-handed because the NRA already has sufficient powers to do what is necessary, and in particular to implement government policy. In that context it would be unnecessary for Ministers to use their powers under the 1967 Act. It is not unreasonable to describe those powers at present as heavy-handed. Circumstances may change, however, and we may face a situation in which it is appropriate to use those powers.
The difficulties to which I alluded on that occasion were several, but perhaps the most obvious is that Ministers exercising their powers under the 1967 Act would imply a dual licensing system. The NRA already licenses fishermen; Ministers have the power to license vessels and not individual fishermen. That
1464
would pose obvious complications. If the noble Lord wishes me to elaborate, I should be glad to do so by letter.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. In the light of what he said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("conditions)") insert:
("(a) after the words "sea fishing" there shall be inserted the words "(including conditions which do not relate directly to fishing)", and
(b)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Sanderson, I said at the Report stage that the Government would consider in detail the recent decision made in Banff Sheriff Court and would, if they thought necessary, bring forward an amendment at a later stage to confirm Ministers' powers.
The Government have now completed their consideration of that decision and have concluded that an amendment to Section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 is needed in order to support the new paragraph (c) of subsection (6). That enables Ministers to restrict time at sea whether or not a vessel is fishing. At the same time the amendment will serve to put the question of the scope of Ministers' powers to impose licence conditions under Section 4 subsection (6) beyond doubt.
The amendment modifies Section 4 subsection (6) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. That enables Ministers to impose licence conditions by specifying that licence conditions may cover non-fishing activities, provided that those licence conditions are necessary for the purposes of regulating sea fishing. The amendment serves to remove any argument that might arise in future as a result of the Banff decision that Ministers' powers are limited in the way suggested by that decision and cannot properly include licence conditions about non-fishing activity. It does not and is not intended to extend Ministers' powers to impose licence conditions but simply to confirm that such powers are not limited to the imposition of conditions on a fishing vessel only when it is actually fishing. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment. It puts beyond doubt the powers which Ministers have when vessels are fishing and when they are not fishing. In regard to the four degrees west line, over which the case was raised, the job of fishery protection officers will be made much easier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("In") and insert ("Before").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 vary the amendments which your Lordships accepted on Report. It was brought to my notice by government officials that the amendments contained small technical faults. Amendment No. 3 is important but whether it is a matter of grammar or emphasis I do not know. The amendment pinpoints the exact time at

1465
which new subsection (6D) is triggered. The word "in" might be interpreted as "while". The provision is intended to ensure that a scheme of decommissioning is considered before any general scheme of tying up is considered. I am grateful to those who made the suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, my name is associated with the amendment but I shall not repeat the argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were tabled after the Ministry had drawn our attention to defects in the amendment carried on Report. Does the request to table the amendments indicate a willingness on the part of the Government to accept the amendment as amended?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Radnor has moved this amendment which would eliminate an unintended practical consequence from the amendment which he successfully moved at the Report stage. As he has said, it has the effect of making that earlier amendment fulfil the purpose which he originally intended and to which this House, by a large majority, gave its approval.
The opinion of this House has been emphatically expressed; and I can tell your Lordships that it is not the Government's intention to seek to override that opinion either here or in another place. The scope for a decommissioning scheme will be kept regularly under review. Accordingly, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment which the Government—on the strength of the House's view as expressed last week—are entirely happy to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("(6) (c)") and insert ("(6C)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is slightly more complicated. Again, the error was pointed out to me by government officials and I am most grateful. After the Bill had completed its Report stage it provided that every time an individual vessel was licensed or the licence was reviewed decommis-sioning had to be considered. It was pointed out to me that 4,000 vessels must be dealt with and I imagine that, after my noble friend's assurance that vessels under 10 metres will also be included, there will be even more. That was not my intention or that of other noble Lords who put their names to the amendment.
By inserting (6C) any government are obliged to give due consideration to decommissioning before more general orders are put forward under (6) (c) relating to individual vessels which are dealt with one by one. That is what I intended to put across on Report. I am grateful for the consultations that I have had and to hear that in all probability the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again the Government are entirely content to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
Review of operation of Act
("Within the period of six months beginning with 1st January 1997, and after consulting such persons representing the interests of the fishing industry as the Ministers (within the meaning of section 22(2) (a) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967) may consider it appropriate to consult, those Ministers shall lay before each House of Parliament a report reviewing the operation of this Act and its effectiveness for the purpose of conserving sea fish.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at Report stage I undertook to bring forward a modified version of Amendment No. 10 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and this amendment fulfils that undertak-ing. It requires Ministers, after consultation with those representatives of the fishing industry whom they consider appropriate, to lay a report before Parliament within the first six months of 1997 on the operation of the provisions of the Bill and their effectiveness in conserving sea fish.
The amendment, as your Lordships will see, has been subject to some minor drafting changes. It has not been changed in principle and the only modification of substance to which I would draw attention is that concerning consultation with the industry. The amendment tabled on Report simply required Ministers to consult "with fishing industry organisations". Because the industry comprises a very large number of small interest groups and Ministers could have been challenged if they had failed to consult any one of these, the amendment enables Ministers to select those organisations representing the interests of the fishing industry which they consider it is appropriate to consult. The amendment will not in any way negate the consultation process but is simply intended to make it both practicable and meaningful. It reflects the normal practice of the fisheries Ministers as regards consultation with the industry. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the amendment which meets in every way the point which I was trying to make on Report. I am happy to see it before the House this afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I think it is appropriate for me at this stage to say just a few words about the Bill, and in particular perhaps, to summarise the ways in which it has improved during its passage through your Lordships' House. I would like to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the part they have played in bringing about that improvement.
This is a short Bill, with one central theme; namely, to give Ministers powers to restrict the time that fishermen may spend at sea in order to conserve fish stocks. But it is no less important for being brief. It also includes a number of other provisions which are targeted at improving the enforcement of the sea fish licensing system, and, in particular the time at sea restriction.
During the passage of this Bill we have made two broad types of change to it. First, and more importantly, we have expanded considerably the role of parliament in scrutinising the implementation of the effort control policy. Parliament will now have an opportunity, through the affirmative resolution order

1467
procedure, to consider the Government's proposals on every occasion that they wish to reduce the number of days at sea allocated to all fishermen or to specified groups of fishermen. And we should not forget that this change to the Bill stands together with a commitment from the Government, made before both Houses, that we will not bring forward orders to reduce time at sea unless we are satisfied that other member states, which share our stocks, are also taking effective steps to meet their MAGP targets.
Parliament will also have greater access to information on the operation of the provisions of the Act. First, the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal will report annually to Ministers on its work and Ministers will lay that report in the Libraries of both Houses for all to see and consider. Secondly, Ministers will be required to review the operation of the entire Act and report the results of that review to Parliament by the middle of 1997. I believe that these provisions will improve markedly the role of Parliament in the scrutiny and implementation of fish conservation policy.
In the context of the package of measures of which this Bill forms a part, we should also not forget that as a result of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor—and modified in detail but not in principle today—the Government must continue to consider decommissioning alongside the other measures for conserving fish stocks.
The second group of changes that we have made will improve significantly our ability to enforce the licensing system and days at sea restrictions. We have clarified what will count as evidence in proceedings before the courts in relation both to documents used in Scottish court proceedings and to data produced by satellite, or automatic recording equipment. The latter will be of particular benefit in monitoring and enforcing the activities of vessels which usually land and tie up abroad. And, today we have approved an amendment which clarifies the Ministers' licensing powers under Section 4(6) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. Laws which serve to regulate sea fishing and conserve fish stocks are of little benefit if they are widely disregarded and if they cannot be enforced. The changes that we have made to the Bill will improve significantly our ability to enforce the law in the particularly difficult area of sea fish conservation measures.
The Bill has received very thorough scrutiny in your Lordships' House and I believe it is a better Bill in consequence. I thank your Lordships for that and I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in these debates, in particular my noble friends Lord Selborne, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Radnor, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Gallacher, (whose courtesy I always appreciate) and the many other noble Lords whose contributions, without exception, have been so useful, and who will, I hope, forgive me for not mentioning them all by name. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Earl about the Bill. It has been improved in your Lordships' House as a result of a great deal of work, some of it undertaken —I am happy to say—on a joint basis because of the community of interest which arose on the Bill. That community arose from the many representations made to us by the fishermen's organisations. Rightly or wrongly, they saw the Bill as being potentially of great importance to them and saw it also as a Bill which could have a serious effect on their capacity to earn a living in what is a very dangerous occupation.
I hope that the amendments made to the Bill in your Lordships' House have to some extent allayed those fears. I entirely accept what the noble Earl said about the changes that we have made to it. I am grateful to all who have supported us in our attempts to improve the Bill. I believe that it is a better Bill. I sincerely hope that the objectives of the Bill will be fairly accomplished and that when the review, which has now been incorporated in the Bill, takes place some years hence, there will be a feeling that your Lordships' House has played a part in helping the fishing industry to come to terms with the common fisheries policy of the European Community.
I add a special word of thanks to the noble Earl for his courtesy and his ability in dealing with the Bill at all times.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, who is regrettably unable to be present today, I should like to say that my noble friend believes that the Bill has been much improved in this House. He hopes that the amendments will commend themselves to another place. He would like to thank warmly the noble Earl for the care, courtesy and consideration with which he has handled the Bill.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I echo those brief speeches and add my thanks to my noble friend for his courtesy and for his help. I hope that in the future, by whatever means, we do not run out of fish because then we shall really be in trouble. I am sure that the Bill will help towards conserving fish in what is a very difficult situation.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made and thank the Minister for the way in which he has handled a difficult Bill, which has been altered to good effect. I also believe that it will strengthen the hand of UK Ministers when they come to review the common fisheries policy next year.
I hope that it will ensure that the Hague preferences are left intact and that relative stability, which is at the base of the original agreements, will also be left intact. Perhaps with satellite monitoring being introduced we shall be able to save some money on fishery protection which may well go to increasing the decommissioning scheme.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Act,

Car Tax (Abolition) Act,

Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Act,

Durham Markets Company Act,

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Act.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Offences to which this Part applies]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 33, leave out paragraphs (e) and (f).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. They are technical amendments that are intended to tidy up Part I of the Bill and to make the way in which the Bill operates slightly clearer.
At Second Reading and in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked why paragraphs (e) and (f) of Clause 1(3) were necessary. They were included in the Bill for good reason. But I have since looked at the paragraphs again and in order to show that I am not—as the noble Baroness suggested in a moment of uncharacteristic flight of fancy—being intransigent, I find that I agree with her. Amendment No. 1 seeks to remove those two paragraphs, (e) and (f).
The purpose of the paragraphs was to cover conspiracies and attempts in this country to commit the equivalent of Group A offences in another country. In order to keep the offences in Group B, I have proposed two amendments, Nos. 3 and 4, to Clause 5. Those amendments will mean that those conspiracies and attempts which are formulated in this country but which are intended to take effect overseas will be treated as though their objective had been in this country.
That will make it clear that in a case, for example, where there is a conspiracy in this country to steal property in France, the conspirators can be charged with "conspiracy to commit theft", rather than being charged with some convoluted formula about conspiracy to commit actions in France which, if they had been committed in England and Wales, would have constituted theft.
With the two amendments to Clause 5, the provisions in Clause 3(2) and (3) would become ambiguous. They might—on a perverse reading—lend substance to the noble Baroness's other flight of fancy when she suggested at Second Reading that we might be able to prosecute Mexicans who had committed fraud in Mexico at Snaresbrook Crown Court.
I hasten to say that that prospect would be of substance only if we amended Clause 5 in the way in which I propose, without at the same time making the
1470
amendments I have proposed to Clause 3, which puts the matter completely beyond doubt. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his recantation. For every sinner that repenteth there is rejoicing in the House of the Lord, and indeed in the House of your Lordships.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the philosophy behind the noble Lord's remark. I would only point out that it was not a question of the sinner repenting. It was merely a question of the intransigent seeing that there was substance in what had been said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Questions immaterial to jurisdiction in the case of certain offences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert:

("(5) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to any charge under the Criminal Law Act 1977 brought by virtue of section 1A of that Act.

(6) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to any charge under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 brought by virtue of section 1A of that Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Conspiracy, attempt and incitement]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 4, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 and insert:
("(5) An offence which is an offence of conspiracy, by virtue of this section, shall be treated for all purposes as an offence of conspiracy to commit the relevant Group A offence." ").
Page 4, line 41, at end insert:
("(5) Where a person does any act to which this section applies, the offence which he commits shall for all purposes be treated as the offence of attempting to commit the relevant Group A offence." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Confiscation orders]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, I must point out that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 6 on the principle of pre-emption.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 7 has the same vice as Clause 24. The vice that is detected on our side is that without the amendment a defendant in a certain class of criminal case may be stripped of his entire property on the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he has benefited from drug trafficking or on an assessment of the amount by which he has benefited.
I respectfully suggest that it is a lamentable and increasing tendency in recent legislation that first principles are forgotten. The first principle for which I contend is that no one should be subject to effective forfeiture of his entire property without a clear, unequivocal demonstration that he had, on a criminal standard of proof, benefited from crime.
Section 2 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 allows a court, in assessing the proceeds of drug trafficking, to make certain assumptions as to the value of the benefits the drug trafficker has received. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 will entitle a court to strip a defendant of his entire substance on a mere balance of probabilities. I suggest that it is worth recalling that, if a defendant fails to disgorge the profits or, much more likely in practice, is unable to disgorge the profits because they are not available to him, he is subject to imprisonment in default. Therefore it is not simply a question of financial forfeiture on the balance of probabilities only; it is a question of imprisonment.
If the subsection were to stand unamended, the absurd and indeed vicious consequence would be that to establish guilt of drug trafficking would require proof beyond reasonable doubt—the normal criminal standard—but to expropriate property intimately connected with that guilt would simply require a conclusion on the balance of probabilities.
Those are not lawyers' niceties; they are fundamental issues. We on this side detest and abominate the vile offences of drug trafficking and laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking. But it is precisely when the offences are vile that we need to be most cautious and scrupulous. We should not overthrow the first principle for an expedient, however immediately seductive and attractive expediency may seem. It is for those reasons, I hope briefly expressed, that I ask the noble Earl to reflect again on the cast of this specific subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I do not feel able to support the amendment. Let me make a comparison. Suppose a burglar enters my house, breaks into my safe and makes off with the money that he finds there. The burglar is caught, prosecuted and convicted. If I bring proceedings to recover my money I do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt exactly what has been stolen. The civil standard of proof applies. The issue is: what was probably in the safe was, on a balance of probabilities, taken. That is so even if I add to my claim the value of a picture which was missing at the same time but which was not included in the indictment for burglary.
I now turn to the case of the drug trafficker. Let us suppose that he has been convicted and that proceedings are taken to recover from him his ill-gotten gains. Why should the drug trafficker be in a more favourable position than the burglar? Both have committed crimes; in each case the issue is the same. In the one case: was there any money in the safe and, if so, how much? In addition, was my picture taken? In the second case: has any drug money been received and, if so, how much? Why should the drug trafficker be in a better position than the burglar? Why should the drug trafficker be able to say, "prove my ill-gotten gains beyond reasonable doubt" while the burglar is only able to say "prove my ill-gotten gains on a balance of probabilities"?
In my view it is not correct to argue that the criminal standard of proof should apply because a confiscation order may extend to the proceeds of a previous drug trafficking offence for which the
1472
defendant has not been convicted. In my example the burglar had not been convicted of stealing my picture. But I can recover judgment against the burglar on a balance of probabilities notwithstanding that he has not been convicted of stealing my picture. I invite your Lordships to take the view that the clause as drafted is correct.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has just said. I have only this to add: I have had some practical experience defending a drug dealer in Birmingham where this position arose. He was convicted. It is right in the public interest that my noble friend the Minister should resist this amend-ment. I can see no fundamental injustice in the clause as it stands. If I thought that there were, or that it were contrary to the public interest, that would be quite another matter. It is a very serious matter dealing with a serious social evil. I hope that your Lordships will feel that the clause as it stands makes a welcome contribution to the suppression of this evil.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as I understand it, we are not concerned with the burden of proof which lies on the prosecution. That has not been altered. We are concerned purely with the standard of proof. We are not concerned with the standard of proof in a criminal case because the criminality has been established. We are concerned purely with the task of proving that the defendant has benefited from the drug trafficking and the amount of such benefit.
It is right to bear in mind that the obligation to prove on the civil basis on the balance of probability varies in its weight according to what has to be proved. It is put very succinctly by Lord Justice Denning, as he was, in Baker v. Baker, 1951, quoted in Cross on Evidence in the last edition at page 148:
"It is of course true that by our law a higher standard of proof is required in criminal cases than in civil cases, but this is subject to the qualification that there is no absolute standard in either case. In criminal cases the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but there may be degrees of proof within that standard. So also in civil cases, the case must be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of probability within that standard. The degree depends on the subject matter. A civil court, when considering a charge of fraud, would naturally require for itself a higher degree of probability than that which would be required when asking if negligence is established. It does not adopt so high a degree as a criminal court even when it is considering a charge of a criminal nature, but still it does require a degree of probability which is commensurate with the occasion".
The issue in this particular matter will be determined by a judge who will fully appreciate the degree of gravity of what has to be established. I see no risk of any injustice occurring to the defendant, for want of a better term, and I too resist this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is worried about this clause as indeed was his noble friend, Lady Mallalieu, before. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brightman and Lord Ackner, and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, for saying that they thought that the words in the Bill are correct and that those in the amendment would be undesirable. With those formidable howitzers, if I may so put it, the

1473
noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a little lonely but he must not worry about that. We have all been in that position. It is merely that probably he is not right on this occasion. Perhaps I may explain the reasoning behind this matter so that the noble Lord knows.
The purpose of subsection (2) of Clauses 7 and 24 is to make perfectly clear what standard of proof is applicable in confiscation hearings under both the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The standard to be applied was not stated on the face of those two statutes, but it was always intended that it should be the civil standard. The absence of any provision on the face of the legislation did lead to some uncertainty in the courts, and that in turn led to a legal challenge in the Court of Appeal. That court found that the standard applicable was the criminal standard.
Subsections (2) of Clauses 7 and 24 just seek to restore the situation to that which it was intended to be when those Acts were first brought in. To omit that provision would undermine the aims of the confiscation legislation. We should not delude ourselves as to the practical effect which these amendments would have. It would be a lot more difficult for the courts to confiscate the profits of drug trafficking or criminal conduct from convicted drug traffickers or criminals. These criminals—after all, they are proven criminals—would stand a much greater chance of keeping their illicit gains. Worse than that, it would actually provide an incentive to participate in criminal activities because the ability to retain the money would be seen to be that much greater. The amount of money at the disposal of criminals to fund further drug trafficking or other crimes would also be increased. The proceeds of drug trafficking would remain in circulation. Crime would be seen to pay.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said and that he and his noble friends intensely dislike drug trafficking and all its proceeds. I know that in his and his noble friend's mind there is no question of the amendment seeking to benefit the traffickers, but that is what would happen. He said that the provisions would strip a defendant of the entire substance of his property. Let us think about that for a moment. Drug traffickers and those who participate in other profitable crimes are notoriously skilled at concealing their profits. That is why the Government have made such strenuous efforts to combat money laundering. The noble Lord's amendment would undermine all that. It would certainly encourage money laundering and make it even more difficult for the law enforcement authorities to detect drug trafficking, let alone remove its profits.
It is unrealistic in this context to expect the prosecution to prove to the criminal standard of proof that assets derive from criminal activities. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will know, where earnings or property have been legitimately acquired, the defendant will have the opportunity to prove to the civil standard that that was the case. I really do believe that it is right that both the defendant and the
1474
prosecution should face the same standard of proof —in other words, the civil standard, as is the case in civil proceedings.
I recognise that your Lordships know this, but I must make it perfectly clear that any person who is accused of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct will be convicted only if he or she is proved guilty to the criminal standard—in other words, beyond reasonable doubt. The person is then guilty. What we are concerned with here is what assets that guilty person has which are the proceeds of crime. That is much more in the nature of a property dispute than a criminal trial. I suggest that that is the reason why the civil standard of proof is the correct one.
I am grateful to the two noble and learned Lords (with all their authority and experience of the courts) for saying that they agree that these amendments should not be accepted. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, might also agree that this time the sinner should repent, but it is on the other side of the House.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. The tone of his remarks was generous—as always, in my brief experience. His last words referred to guilty persons. I simply observe that guilty persons also have rights.
In respect of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, perhaps I may suggest that there are two distinctions. First, this is an integral part of the criminal process and, secondly, one does not normally find imprisonment in default in civil actions. In all the circumstances, I accede to the noble Earl's request and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("that applicable in civil proceedings.") and insert ("a balance of probabilities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned not with what the Bill does, but with the words that it uses to explain what it does. In Committee I ventured to say that whereas every person is required and expected to know the law—and in particular, the criminal law—there is a correspond-ing duty upon Parliament to make the statutory criminal law as easily understood by the ordinary citizen as may be. So the question arises: does the ordinary citizen better understand the words in the Bill,
"The standard of proof … applicable in civil proceedings",
or does he better understand the words "a balance of probabilities" if that is, indeed, what the civil standard of proof is?
The matter can be tested easily. The noble Earl could ask his friends and relations, his taxi driver or his chauffeur, "Can you tell me the standard of proof that is applicable in civil proceedings?" and the answer would probably be, "Would you mind saying that again? I do not quite understand the question." But if the noble Earl were to say, "Do you understand what is meant by 'a balance of probabilities?"', the likely answer would be, "Yes, I think that I understand

1475
that." So why cannot those simple words, clearly understandable, be part of the Bill? Why are the Government being coy? Is it that they do not want the ordinary citizen to know that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal statute is being whittled or chipped away and they therefore wrap it up in words which they hope the ordinary citizen will not readily understand?
That is not playing fair with the ordinary citizen. If he is expected to know the law, it is the duty of Parliament to make the law understandable in the plainest possible terms. The Bill does not achieve that in this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very sorry that I could not be here for the Committee stage. If there is any repetition on my part of thoughts that were expressed then, I must apologise.
I have some sympathy with the amendment. Each statute should be clear within itself. Its meaning should be self-contained so far as possible. However, here we have what is really a form of legislation by reference. One cannot find out what is "applicable in civil proceedings" without looking elsewhere—not even in this case to another statute—because, so far as I remember, the burden of proof in civil proceedings has not been laid down by statute. It has been developed mainly by the common law courts over the centuries. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, it is an expression of the balance of probabilities. We know that, so why can we not say so? The amendment would not lengthen the wording of the Bill. It is simply an ideal way of expressing what we have in mind. Therefore, subject to what my noble friend the Minister may say—and I shall, of course, listen to what he says—I have some sympathy with the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Renton, I have no sympathy with the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to the "ordinary citizen" about 12 times in his speech. However, we are not concerned with the ordinary citizen; we are concerned with the convicted drug offender. The ordinary citizen is not a convicted drug offender. Both before he has been convicted and after conviction, the drug offender receives legal advice. He is represented. There is certainly no ambiguity in this affair. As I see it, it is a mere matter of semantics and, with respect to my noble friend, the Bill as drafted seems to be perfectly plain, perfectly clear and wholly adequate.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he answer this question? Does he agree that there are occasions when a person, not a drug addict but, in the context of the views he expressed, an ordinary citizen, may be wrongly accused under the Bill and may have to defend himself? Is it not as well that that person should know what the burden of proof against him will be?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, there are two answers. The first is
1476
that we are not concerned with drug addicts but we are concerned with convicted drug offenders. Well, that is a sufficient answer.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in the private fight on the other side of the House. I simply observe that I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Airedale's desire that our statutes should be expressed in terms clearly understandable by the ordinary citizen. I am bound to observe that the first six clauses of this Bill would be wholly unintelligible to the ordinary citizen, and he would only be taken by surprise if we suddenly changed tack on Clause 7.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I too have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I like these things to be as simple as possible because it makes it much easier for simple Ministers to understand what they are supporting and putting forward. Curiously enough, I also have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who said that this is not a matter dealing with the common man but it is dealing with a convicted drug offender and criminal.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, says that he finds this extremely complicated. But statutes are com-plicated; and, if I may say so, I cannot take responsibility for the need to make them complicated. He will know that any form of drug legislation is wildly complicated. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the Government are not seeking to conceal the true meaning of the clause or its effect from the public. What we are talking about here is not altering the effect of the Bill but merely changing the words.
The provision as drafted uses a commonly accepted form of words. It is an established drafting convention to refer to the standard as the civil standard, and it is a convention that has been used without difficulty in previous legislation. It has been used in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 which also relates to drug trafficking and there has been no problem there. Indeed, were we to move away from this convention, it could well cast doubts on the interpretation of the phrase when it is used in other statutes. Consistency, I know, is something that my noble friend Lord Renton would hold dear to.
The law is, regrettably, a complicated business. We may not like that fact but we cannot dispute it. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we should do all we can to simplify the law wherever possible. I appreciate the intention behind his amendment, but I cannot accept that the proposed change would be helpful. Other than the common man of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—who I fancy would find a great deal more difficulty in understanding the remainder of the Bill than that particular phrase—everyone in the courts of law knows this meaning. I suggest that they are the best words to use, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I straight away agree that there are many precedents for the form of words in the Bill, but surely

1477
it must be our intention always to try to improve on our statute law and not always be bound by precedent. However, I realise the position my noble friend finds himself in, and would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that he might not wish to press this amendment on this occasion.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that I referred to the "ordinary citizen" five times, and that we are not dealing with him but with a drug offender. I began my speech by saying that the ordinary citizen is expected to know the law. I did not say that drug offenders are expected to know the criminal law. The noble Earl brought in drafting convention, which the draftsmen like to follow. That is all right as long as you are quite sure that you are applying the convention in the proper place.
My noble friend Lord Wigoder points out that so much of this Bill in the early parts is incomprehensible to the ordinary citizen. It seems a pity not to seize the opportunity of a chink of daylight in the Bill to make it comprehensible to the ordinary citizen by using the simple words suggested in the amendment. However, upon the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

One Stop Shops
4.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, with the leave of the House I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place about a major new strategy to establish One Stop Shops for the delivery of business advisory services.
"I have been reviewing government support services for business, in conjunction with a steering group consisting of my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Employment, my noble friend Baroness Denton the small firms Minister and representatives of chambers of commerce, training and enterprise councils, the Confederation of British Industry, local authorities, the National Training Task Force and Business in the Community. We have looked particularly at the needs of established small and medium sized firms. We all wish to ensure that these firms have access to world class support in the areas of information, advice, counselling, development of business skills, exporting, technology transfer, innovation, design and other services.
"There are already numerous schemes to help business provided by Government, and the other organisations. These schemes are run by a wide variety of bodies. Some are excellent; others less good. But they all suffer from three main weaknesses. First, the profusion of advice of varying quality makes it difficult for business to know what is available and where. Second, many schemes are narrowly defined and more supplier
1478
than customer driven. Third, many businesses which could benefit from the help available are not even aware of its existence.
"We need to tackle all these problems.
"That is why I have decided to establish a number of pilot One Stop Shops for business. I have today published a prospectus seeking competitive bids to establish up to 15 such shops in England. I have arranged for a copy to be sent to all Members of the House. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office.
"A key aim of the One Stop Shops is to simplify the present confusing array of support services. To win, a bid must demonstrate a real and effective partnership to which all the main local providers of business support services are committed. I am asking the training and enterprise councils to draw together bids but it is a requirement that other key providers such as the Chamber of Commerce, enterprise agencies and the local authority where it is active in support activities, should be fully involved. I am confident that private sector companies will wish to demonstrate support.
"Each bid for a One Stop Shop must show how it will provide a wide range of high quality services, both those available locally and, using modern technology, those provided in other parts of the country or even outside this country.
"My department is committed to playing its full part in the One Stop Shops. The shops will be the main local point of access to and promotion of all DTI services. I am ready to consider imaginative ideas about how this might be achieved including proposals for co-location and, subject to any legal constraints, sub-contracting of services.
"I cannot anticipate the nature of the bids I shall receive or the scale of the resources that local organisations will offer to put behind them. I can however indicate that I have made provision within my own budget for an initial sum of up to £3½ million to fund the winning bids in the first year. I look to local contributions to augment this figure. I hope to see a move to a position of self-sufficiency as rapidly as possible.
"My department will also be working with the pilot One Stop Shops to develop a new diagnostic service as promised in our manifesto. This will help businesses to analyse in depth their strengths and weaknesses and the options open to them and to identify the help they need. This will be a new and important service to be provided by One Stop Shops.
"Bids must be submitted by 29th January. Winners will be announced in mid-March and the pilots will get under way as soon as possible thereafter.
"If the pilots are as successful as I expect, it is my intention to develop a national network of One Stop Shops across England.
"Madam Speaker, the publication of the One Stop Shop prospectus marks an important further step in our long term strategy to improve the support we provide to business in this country.

1479
"We must have a single point of access to services which must be of the highest calibre. One Stop Shops will achieve this and pave the way for a radical overhaul of business support arrange-ments in each area of the country. This will improve the competitiveness of our companies and provide a springboard for the development of our local and national economies."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. I note with pleasure her active involvement in the project, which means that some rare common sense has at last emanated from the Government.
I welcome the Statement particularly because the concept of One Stop Shops has featured in the Labour Party policy since 1991 and was repeated in our election manifesto. It was conspicuous by its absence in the Conservative Party election manifesto.
We are pleased that the Government have at long last adopted this perfectly sensible and constructive idea. Is the Minister aware that we share the Government's view that the present system is overdue for reform? It is an irrational and ludicrous state of affairs that there are five departments which offer 34 assistance schemes in relation to small enterprises, many of which, as is now conceded by the Minister, are defective. Why have the Government taken so long to work out an alternative policy?
Will the Minister recognise that however successful pilot schemes are—and we wish them well—they have to be seen in the context of the utterly disastrous situation afflicting small and medium-size enterprises by reason of the recession and the failure of government policies? Is she aware that colossal numbers of collapses have taken place? The figures have increased by almost one-third in one year, with horrendous consequences for individuals and families. Is she aware that the failures are currently running at a rate of well over 1,000 per week and that many more failures can be anticipated? There are additional problems that daily confront small businesses. The problems with banks have been highlighted in the past few days and there is also a problem of late payment on the part of larger enterprises.
Is it not right that helpful though the announce-ment is, it is but the mildest of prophylactics in the context of the deadly recession that afflicts us all and most notably small businesses?
Does the Minister appreciate that it is the economic policy or failure of it on the part of the Government that represents the fundamental cause of the problems that confront small businesses? When a major industry closes down—for example British Aerospace in Hatfield, with thousands of jobs lost; Cammell Laird in Merseyside yesterday; British Rail when it announced 5,000 redundancies; or the Post Office, when it announced 16,000—the consequences are dire
1480
for those who are made directly unemployed and for the small firms and corner shops which supply those local families.
We on these Benches await with greater interest a Statement on industrial policy that will deal with Britain's manufacturing future, if the Government are capable of offering one.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I support almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said. I agree with the noble Lord's comparison of the minute approach of detailed experimental help to the more serious situation which we all face. We are all aware of the dire situation with which businesses and small businesses in particular are confronted.
In view of our fears, we can thank the Government for doing something, however small and however ill-defined, which we have all requested for so long. It is true that such a proposal was mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto. It was also mentioned in the Liberal Party manifesto. Doubtless, noble Lords have read that and know well what was stated, and therefore I will not quote it.
A short time ago noble Lords heard an interesting debate concerning advice centres and law centres. This measure endeavours to provide something of the same kind to small businesses. It is not necessary that they be small businesses but most large businesses have their own arrangements and the small businesses need help. They need help for the reasons that are very clearly stated. There are far too many schemes in too many directions. There is a wide variety of bodies, some of which are excellent and some of which are less good. The profusion of advice of varying quality makes the situation difficult and many businesses do not know what to do.
If One Stop Shops are to be effective they could be very useful and therefore we unreservedly welcome the effort to do something along those lines.
The Statement suggests that the experiment will consist of 15 One Stop Shops with an expenditure of £3.5 million. The mathematics (which I have done without a computer) suggest that £230,000 will be available per centre. I do not know whether that amount will be enough; it has to last for a year and other contributions may be made; but it does not seem to be very much. If an advice centre is to be effective, four or five skilled people at least should give advice. I wonder whether this scheme will be like others that we have seen week after week from the Government, which have been very good ideas that have been entirely spoilt by not having enough money.
The Statement says, "my department is commit-ted". I hope that the One Stop Shops will be able to give advice from all departments. There are many matters apart from DTI business which concern most businesses, and co-ordinated and unconflicting advice ought to be available. One of the difficulties is that one has to go to many different departments in order to obtain information. If this scheme is worked out well, it will be a very good one. If it is not, it will be window dressing and we shall then chase the noble Baroness for something more. I hope that it will be very successful.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Donaldson, for the welcome that they have given to the scheme. Everyone in your Lordships' House probably recognises the important role that small and medium-sized firms will have to play in the economy in the coming years. This is a way of harnessing them. I note that ownership of the scheme was claimed from both Benches. We are delighted to say that this is a scheme which will be customer-driven. It is in its pilot stage, because we want it to identify the needs of businesses. We do not want the centre to decide what they are. The pilot schemes will be worked upwards not downwards. We are listening to and working with local businesses.
I suspect that it is inevitable that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will meet the business under-takers. Although unfortunately small firms are going into liquidation—we recognise the difficulties that that causes to people—I must point out that there are midwives about. In the first nine months of this year, 320,000 new firms were started. There is obviously still a great spirit of enterprise and ambition in the country, which bodes well for the future of our economy.
The noble Lord also mentioned late payment. I am well aware that that causes great concern to small businesses. They are at the end of the spiral. Much was done towards solving that problem in this year's Budget. We continue to consider the matter. I have already put £90,000 into trade associations, whose members include large and small firms, to look at possible solutions and methods of good practice. I am not convinced that legislation is the answer, nor is the small firm's lobby. It is difficult to bring one's customer back to the order book after one has taken him to court.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked about the size of the DTI's funding. I agree that it is not sufficient to cover the whole of the pilot scheme. We believe that the partners will also bring resources to it. The DTI's contribution is made to ensure that the scheme takes place. We are convinced that the private sector will become involved in the scheme which will become the major conduit for conversations with small and medium-sized firms. The aim will be to produce full co-ordination between central and local government regulation of business which it has not always been easy for businesses to reach.
The noble Lord asked about the climate in which the companies would grow and use the advice. I point out that interest rates are down by eight points, inflation is under control, and the future will lie with small firms. Large firms will continue to chase productivity if they are to be globally competitive. That is why we are focusing upon the growth area of small and medium-sized firms. The one-stop shops will aim to have their skilled advisers alongside the companies with growth intentions.
In the past month I have seen too many small firms try to re-invent the wheel. It is expensive and slow. There are few hurdles that small firms come up against that someone has not already been over 100 times. It is important to have an advice system which allows
1482
minimum hesitation at the hurdle and tells people how to get over it and on to the next stage. This initiative is not a short-term one. It is a major strategy to develop advice and support to a key part of our economy.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say a word or two about recruiting? High-grade staff will obviously be needed for the centres. In particular, will she say a word or two on the delicate question of what will be the approach to salary levels? I suggest that we want comparatively few people of the highest calibre and so a fairly generous approach to possible salary levels is important. Secondly, it was not clear from her Statement whether the advice that the centres will give will include legal advice. Thirdly, perhaps I may say how nice it was to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, over the fact that my noble friend is to have a major say in the operation of the scheme. That is the most reassuring thing about it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for their kind comments. I have the advantage in that I have probably made some of the mistakes we are trying to prevent small firms making. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and perhaps I may reassure him, that the excellence of the advice and the advisers is the key to the success of the project. We see the professional advisers in the one-stop shops as undertaking the role of key account managers in a sales team. They have a complete relationship with and understanding of their customers and help them through all stages of growth. Recruiting and rewarding the advisers will be part of the pilot schemes and the prospectus. Pilot schemes will be using the infrastructure of advice that already exists. The scheme is not one which throws out the baby and starts again. It is designed to bring together the many excellent areas of advice that already exist, to use the best of them, and to build them up where there are gaps. Whenever a business has a need the solution, or access to the solution, should be provided quickly.
On legal matters, when I said "private sector", I should perhaps also have said professional areas. The ability to access the small firms and for small firms to access advisers will be an important part of the scheme. We believe that the legal and accountancy professions will in due course be working through the one-stop shops. With the explosion of small businesses in the 1980s, we saw a new generation of small business owners who do not live in the same street as a lawyer, bank manager or accountant. There is a great need to help them in the areas in which their skills are not finely honed, in contrast to the skills with which they set up their businesses. The one-stop shops will aim to do that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene again. I note that the pilot scheme is limited to England.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, yes.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are Scotland and Wales not to be part and parcel of the scheme? If not, why not? I do not believe the Minister answered the point about legal advice—I may have missed her answer—and how solicitors and barristers will be recruited. Will they be part and parcel of the consortium that will be put together or will they be recruited independently? If there is a consortium, will there not be a problem about payment, because the payment to lawyers is not inconsiderable?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hesitate to become involved in a debate about lawyers' rewards. I did reply to my noble friend by saying that the one-stop shops would be an obvious source of advice. It will be a matter for the partners setting up the shops. They will talk with their customers and with lawyers as to the best way to identify and provide for the needs. Some may come up with one idea and others with another.
On the question of Scotland and Wales, of course they are not left out in a derogatory sense. The amount of work on the subject being done in Scotland is an example to all of us. They have made great strides. Both Wales and Scotland will look at the issues separately. This is initially a pilot scheme in England. Perhaps the lessons from it will be used in those areas, and it is probably relevant to say at the same time that there will be an input for Northern Ireland from the lessons that we learn.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 18 [Offences in connection with laundering money from drug trafficking]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 40, leave out ("suspects") and insert ("believes").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. Some of the arguments I wish to advance will also be relevant to the subsequent amendments, Nos. 11 and 12, so I shall not repeat them when we reach those amendments in due course.
At Committee stage this matter was raised and it caused me a little concern. In the intervening period the noble Earl has been good enough to write to me, but I am bound to say that I am still troubled by the provision as it stands at present. As it is drafted, Clause 18 inserts in connection with offences to do with money laundering the following provision:
"A person is guilty of an offence if … he knows, or suspects, that another person is engaged in drug money laundering … the information, or other matter, on which that knowledge or suspicion is based came to his attention in the course of his trade, profession, business or employment, and … he does not disclose the information or other matter to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable after it comes to his attention".
It is the words "suspects" and "suspicion" that continue to trouble me because I am not sure that I know precisely what they mean. Other legislation, for example, Section 22 of the Theft Act, making it an offence to handle stolen goods, speaks of "knowing or
1484
believing". This amendment in effect seeks to follow the Theft Act in that way, not only because it is clearer but because it would seem that to import suspicion into the criminal law is to bring in a state of mind that, frankly, is too low for a criminal offence which in this case carries a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment. Juries are warned day in and day out in criminal cases that suspicion is not enough. One can quite see that "suspicion" is a difficult concept for a jury to grasp and it is difficult to define.
There are other reasons, of course, for not deciding to find somebody guilty merely because they have a suspicion upon which they fail to act. It is all too easy to prove a suspicion but it is very difficult indeed to refute it.
This line of reasoning in effect imparts an objective test, whatever the noble Earl may subsequently say, when in fact the test should be a subjective one. The likelihood is that the prosecution in a case involving a clause of this nature would simply say: "Well, on the facts he should have suspected and you can therefore conclude that he must have suspected". What the prosecution ought to be able to prove, and what it ought to be required to prove by this legislation, is that a person is guilty only if he knew or believed that what was happening was that the person whom he was assisting with his money was engaged in drug laundering.
I apologise for repeating this because it is a matter that I raised at Committee stage. The proposed offence will make things very difficult too, for example, for the conscientious bank employee. At what stage should he cease to feel that he must report payments which may appear to be unexplained at the outset? Should he take the cautious view? If this clause remains unamended, it would seem that virtually any sizeable sum—which may be even as low as £2,000 —should attract his suspicion. But, of course, it would fall far below him knowing or believing that the person who paid the money in had been involved in drug money laundering.
There is a danger that if the clause is left in this vague way, the relationship of trust between banks and their customers may well be undermined. Those working for banks would feel obliged under this legislation to report even quite small moneys, with the result that confidentiality and trust must in time be eroded.
I hope that the noble Earl, notwithstanding what he said on the last occasion and what he has written to me, may reflect on the matter further. It seems to me that the test that is applied under Section 22 of the Theft Act is one which works well and without difficulty. I am repeating myself, but I think it is important. This provision seems to set a state of mind which is too low for a criminal offence of this gravity. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I must confess to a mild degree of disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who indicated how he would improve the clause during Committee and had the initiative to put down an amendment to improve it, has withdrawn the

1485
amendment. I should have preferred to see what he proposed, namely "reasonable grounds to suspect". However, he probably withdrew it because the phrase clearly imports the objective test and it is therefore much easier to establish.
What is proposed here is clearly, without any doubt, a subjective test, and the judge who is obliged to sum up to the jury will explain and impress that upon the jury. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that as drafted this is anything other than a clear indication of a subjective situation.
The word "suspect" may be omitted from the Theft Act, but it is included in two Acts which are companion Acts to this Bill. Section 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 has the side-note:
"Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking".
That section specifically provides that:
"A person is guilty of an offence if [he] knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of drug trafficking".
Section 14(3) again deals with that situation.
Closer to the Bill is the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Section 24 has the side-note:
"Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking".
It provides among other things that:
"if a person enters into or is otherwise concerned in an arrangement whereby … [another person's] proceeds of drug trafficking … are used to secure that funds are placed at [that person's] disposal, or … are used for [his] benefit to acquire property by way of investment, knowing or suspecting that [that person] is a person who carries on or has carried on drug trafficking … [he] is guilty of an offence".
So there is no novelty in introducing the word "suspects" into this type of legislation. On the contrary, it would be very odd, in my respectful submission, if there suddenly popped up the lesser obligation "belief" in this Bill with the two analogous Acts involving the obligation only to establish suspicion. In my respectful submission, this is all part and parcel of a laudable approach to try to make the life of the drug trafficker more difficult than it has been hitherto.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, with very great temerity I venture to suggest that the analogies given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, are not appropriate in this case because they are not offences the essence of which is the concealment of information. They are totally different offences dealing with, for example, the retention of funds and other such matters. The essence of Clause 18 of the Bill we are now considering is the failure to disclose information. There is one very good analogy for that which is much closer than that of the noble and noble Lord, Lord Ackner, and it is contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Section 18(1) of that Act states:
"A person is guilty of an offence if he has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance…fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information'.
I believe that that is a close parallel with Clause 18 in the present Bill under discussion where a person is said
1486
to be guilty of an offence if he "knows or suspects" a certain matter and then does not disclose the information about that.
It is very curious indeed that, although no one could regard drug trafficking as other than a serious offence, it is perhaps not as serious as offences of terrorism. One would have assumed in the public interest that the appropriate standard of proof had been inserted into the Act that dealt originally with the failure to disclose offences of terrorism.
The provision in Section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of knowing or believing is still subjective—I respectfully submit that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is correct about that—but it is nevertheless a higher standard of proof than the use in Clause 18 of this Bill of the rather weak word "suspects", which I submit is capable of leading to misconstruction and in due course to miscarriages of justice. I therefore support the noble Baroness on this amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am sorry that I have disappointed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in not tabling again on Report the amendment that I tabled in Committee. I have to confess that the reason I have not tabled it again is that I was convinced by the argument adduced in the letter from the noble Earl which he has kindly sent me since the Committee stage and which has been helpful to me. However, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was not impressed by the reference of the noble Baroness to the Theft Act. What I should like the Minister to tell us, if he can, when he replies is the following. How is it that an alleged receiver of stolen goods is not guilty if he merely suspects the goods to be stolen, but only if he knows or believes the goods to be stolen, and yet under this Bill in this clause an offence is committed by mere suspicion? That is a distinction which I find difficult to understand.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as a mere layman I warmly support this amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has argued so well. It seems to me essential to avoid the possibility of injustice. The word "belief" in the context of the clause in question implies a subjective assessment that the probability of someone else having been involved in the illegal activities in question is in the order of 50 per cent. or above; whereas the word "suspicion" could imply the subjective assessment that the probability of that other person having committed the crime is as low as 10 per cent. or even below. Therefore the person concerned—that is to say, the person who holds the suspicion—may accordingly be most reluctant to risk wasting police time and even more reluctant to risk smearing someone who is more likely than not to be innocent.
I imagine as a layman that it will be extraordinarily difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone was suspicious, should that person deny the charge. Nevertheless there is a real risk that someone may unjustly be sent to prison for five years merely for not acting on a slight suspicion. I hope that Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 will

1487
be agreed to. I had imagined that Amendment No. 12 would be spoken to at a later stage but the noble Baroness has indicated that she intends to speak to all the amendments up to and including Amendment No. 12 now. Therefore this might be the moment to speak to that amendment too.
If there is a strong case for Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 11, there must be an overwhelmingly strong case for Amendment No. 12 because here we are dealing with an offence which can lead to a sentence of not five but fully 14 years' imprisonment. Someone can be sentenced to 14 years in prison simply for failing to suspect an offence even when he or she is deemed to have reasonable grounds for not suspecting.
The Government seem to have forgotten that there are many people in this world who simply happen to be good natured and trusting and who are highly reluctant to believe ill of their fellow men. To the stern and censorious this may be counted as a character defect, but it is surely not a crime and still less a crime deserving 14 years' imprisonment. Therefore I hope that even if Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are not pressed to a Division—assuming the Government do not agree with them—perhaps Amendment No. 12 will be.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said we must be good natured and trusting. We are dealing here with money which has been obtained by the processes of drug trafficking. That is a serious matter. I do not think we can afford to be too good natured and trusting over that.
The offence in Clause 18 of failing to disclose knowledge or suspicion that another person is engaged in drug money laundering is intended to ensure that reports relating to money laundering are made to the police so that they can be evaluated and investigated. It is the police who ought to do that. The police, the prosecutors and the Government would much prefer that suspicious transactions are reported than that people should be prosecuted for failing to report what to them seem to be just suspicious circumstances.
The main purpose of the mental test which is used in this clause is to ensure that suspicions as well as knowledge of money laundering are reported to the police so that the police can investigate the suspicious matters as well as what one might describe as things that are more likely to be known, with the result being that there will be a greater likelihood of money launderers and drug traffickers being brought to justice.
If we are to substitute "belief" for "suspicion", we would take quite a large step towards undermining this objective. It would remove the incentive for anyone to report what they thought was suspicious and it would therefore reduce the number of reports which were made. The test of belief is far nearer to that of actual knowledge and to apply the test of belief to this offence would risk damaging the whole of the reporting system. This could only benefit the money launderers and the drug traffickers and it would be detrimental to law enforcement. The concept of suspicion is not new in the context of money
1488
laundering legislation: it has been operating perfectly well under Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 since its introduction in 1987.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that it is much harder to prove "knowing" or "believing". Of course it is. That is why we consider that "suspicion" is the right word. One must remember that it is a defence for the defendant to show to the civil standard of proof—not the criminal standard—that he had a reasonable excuse for not reporting his suspicions. It is for the prosecution to prove to the criminal standard not that the defendant ought to have suspected but that he did suspect that the person was a drug money launderer. The prosecution also has to prove to the criminal standard that he did not disclose his suspicion to the police or to the supervisor.
There are a great many ways in which the defendant can defend himself. Many institutions have esta-blished internal reporting systems which are known as "reporting up the line". Staff do not have to make a choice between going to the police with what might be a completely unfounded suspicion or of doing nothing. They can report up the line. They have a defence under subsection (5) that they reported the matter to their supervisor. Bank employees, who are the most likely to be affected by the measure, will be encouraged by the inclusion of the defence of reporting up the line to make reports to their supervisors for further consideration rather than to make them direct to the police. We do not expect, therefore, any significant increase in the number of reports being made to the police as a result of the provision.
We believe that where a person—who may be a bank employee —considers that a transaction is suspicious the onus ought to be on him to report it to his supervisor or to the police so that they can take the necessary action. They are skilled in investigating such matters. It should not be up to the bank employee himself to wrestle in his own mind as to whether his suspicion is reasonable or unreasonable.
I know that this is a subject which is close to the noble Baroness's heart, but I hope that she will realise that we are trying here to eliminate the sources of profits from drug trafficking. That can only be done if the utmost care is taken in respect of all such transactions. If a person is suspicious of such a transaction, it is right that he should report that suspicion to his employer or supervisor.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say why we should be harder on people who fail to disclose information about drug traffickers than we are on people who fail to disclose information about acts of terrorism?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the two are not comparable. I am trying to explain to your Lordships that the world of drug dealing is a very rough world and there are rich proceeds. We are trying here to remove the proceeds of this particular crime, whereas

1489
terrorism is an act. In this case we are trying to remove the proceeds by which people benefit from what they have done.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Earl finally sits down, can he say whether the police have been consulted about the proposal? Do the police really want their time taken up by people coming to them with suspicions which have no foundation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I visited the National Criminal Intelligence Service only this week. Its members are deeply concerned to obtain every possible item of information in order to reduce the possibilities for and proceeds of drug trafficking. I do not believe for one moment that there will be a flood of new reports to the police. What will happen is that bank employees who are anxious will go to their employers saying, "I think that there is something funny here". If the employer thinks that that is a matter which should be reported to the police he will do so and the police will welcome that.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported the amendment, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder, Lord Airedale and Lord Monson. I, too, shall have something to add when I come to the amendment which has been referred to.
I am afraid that all that has been said so far, and in particular what has been said by the noble Earl, has confirmed my concern about this aspect of the Bill. We are all in agreement that it is desirable that, where there are shady transactions, people should report them so that the police can carry out their investigations and, one hopes, apprehend drug traffickers. However, I am concerned at the noble Earl's suggestion that the amendment would in some way undermine an incentive to report. I can only pause there to say that it is a curious incentive to report which imposes an obligation of this nature on someone who has no more than a mere suspicion and provides that if he fails to make the necessary report he faces a sentence of imprisonment of this magnitude.
There is nothing in the amendment which is proposed which would in any way stop or discourage suspicious transactions being reported. Where one imports suspicion into legislation of this kind the danger is that one provides an element of hindsight, so that by the time the drug trafficker has been caught and by the time the person who failed to pass on the information comes to be tried as a result of this clause of the Bill it will be all too easy for people to point, with the knowledge of hindsight, and say, "Of course he was suspicious. Look at the circumstances".
Having heard the noble Earl's argument, I remain firmly of the view that suspicion is too low a standard in a clause of this nature, which is designed for a purpose which we are all agreed is desirable. In my submission, belief is a much more appropriate standard.
If the Bill had gone even part of the way towards meeting my objection—for example, if it had suggested that the bank employee had wilfully disregarded his suspicion because he did not want to
1490
know—that might have been more acceptable. But to leave the matter in this way, with mere suspicion being all that the Crown has to prove at the end of the day when the other facts are all known, is wholly unsatisfactory.
I do not propose to test the opinion of the House at this stage, but this is a matter which I hope to raise with the noble Earl between now and the final stage of the Bill. I hope that even at this stage a change of heart may result. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 18, line 38, leave out ("Drug Trafficking Offences Act") and insert ("Act of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a drafting matter. I do not think that it is necessary in subsection (2) to spell out in full the title of the 1986 Act. If the words "the Act of 1986" are satisfactory for subsection (3), I imagine that they are equally satisfactory for subsection (2). I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is always anxious to make legislation clear. We have tried to do exactly that by using the words which we have included in the Bill. The noble Lord wants to truncate those words and use only the words which he has set out in the amendment. The noble Lord's method of making the matter clear is to remove the clarifying words which indicate which Act is meant and to insert instead the words "Act of".
If the noble Lord were to ask the average man in the street —whom he likes to consult periodically—to read Clause 18(2) amended as he proposes and then asked him to which Act that referred, I fancy that the answer would be, "I do not know". Then the noble Lord would say, "If you look back two pages to subsection (1) you can find out". We thought that that would be rather complicated and it would be better if the words were repeated here in the same way as in Clause 18(1).
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not understand that argument at all. I shall read what the noble Lord said in Hansard tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Confiscation orders]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Assisting another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Concealing or transferring proceeds of criminal conduct]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("having reasonable grounds to suspect") and insert ("believing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken in part to this amendment, as has the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The provision troubles me particularly. Perhaps I may beg the indulgence of noble Lords by referring to Section 28. It deals with

1491
concealing or transferring the proceeds of criminal conduct. Subsection (2) of the new section, if not amended, will read as follows:
"A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of criminal conduct, he—

(a) conceals or disguises that property; or

(b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction,

for the purpose of assisting any person to avoid prosecution for an offence to which this Part of this Act applies or the making or enforcement in his case of a confiscation order".
As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has already indicated, on conviction on indictment this carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years.
Following the Committee stage, the noble Earl was good enough to write to me about this clause and the concerns which I had expressed about the words:
"having reasonable grounds to suspect".
Noble Lords will appreciate that the amendment again makes the provision one of "knowing or believing" that the property was part or proceeds of another person's criminal conduct.
I anticipate that the noble Earl will say that this clause is modelled directly on Section 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, that the test is an objective one and that that forerunner section has not caused any difficulties; it was accepted by Parliament when the 1990 Act was debated. He will probably go on to say that the objective test is lower than the subjective one, but in the case of this offence it was seen as justifiable because it is an element of the offence that the concealment or transfer of property is done with the intention of avoiding prosecution or the making of a confiscation order, and it cannot therefore be committed unintentionally or unknowingly.
I return to the provision as presently drafted. I wonder why on earth it is necessary for suspicion to be imported in that way if the Crown has to go on to prove that the person who knows, or has these reasonable grounds for suspicion, realises that it is being done for the purpose of assisting somebody to avoid prosecution for an offence under this Act. It seems to me to create a wholly unnecessary difficulty. It imports suspicion, which, as I have already indicated, is a nebulous and tenuous concept and one which may be difficult for a jury to grasp, being capable of a great many interpretations.
The clear words "knowing or believing", coupled as they are in that section with the need for the prosecution to prove that the person is guilty only if he realises that he is assisting somebody to avoid prosecution for an offence under this Act, would seem to me to make the matter quite clear and leave little room for doubt or difficulty. I wonder whether the noble Earl, particularly in relation to this section, which carries a very long penalty of imprisonment, would consider making the amendment that I seek. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in responding to Amendment No. 7, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us that under the clause in question the prosecution has to prove that somebody in fact suspected that an offence was being committed which they failed to report and that there was no question of the prosecution seeking merely to prove that he or she ought to have suspected it. The noble Earl was absolutely right so far as Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 11 are concerned. But he is not right—he did not claim to be right—so far as Amendment No. 12 is concerned, because under subsection (4) (b) somebody can be sentenced, theoretically at any rate, to 14 years' imprisonment merely for being careless or excessively trusting.
Let us suppose that someone is alone in a house late at night. Someone he knows slightly rings the bell and comes in rather breathless and bedraggled, saying, "I am going away on a week's holiday", or "I've got to move my lodgings". He then says, "I've got a couple of hundred pounds here that I would like you to conceal in your bottom drawer for a week or so until I can get straightened out". The trusting man replies "Yes, fine", then the money turns out to be the proceeds of a burglary. Is that man to be sentenced to 14 years merely because he trusted his friend and has not reported to the police that he came in rather late and in a breathless state? It seems to me quite wrong, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in her very disarming way, told me what I was going to say and what I would be likely to go on to say. In some ways she almost made my speech for me. Nevertheless, I shall try to explain to her the reasons why we apply the mental test of "reasonable grounds to suspect" to the offence which is created by Clause 28. The noble Baroness correctly surmised that I would say that, except for the fact that it bears on the proceeds of criminal conduct rather than the proceeds of drug trafficking, the offence of concealing or transferring the proceeds which is created by Clause 28 is identical in all its elements to the offence under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The mental test of "reasonable grounds to suspect" has been used in that offence without difficulty since it was first implement-ed. It would not make sense for two almost identical offences to contain different mental tests. It would also be confusing for the courts.
I shall try to explain, if I may, why the text of "reasonable grounds to suspect" was applied to the offence in Section 14, and hence to the offence in Clause 28 of the present Bill. The offence in Section 14, and also in Clause 28, depends upon the fact that the laundering of the proceeds was undertaken for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or the making or enforcing of a confiscation order. Therefore, the offences cannot be committed unwittingly, in the belief that the activities of concealing or transferring were done for perfectly legal reasons. Obviously, they could not. If that were the case, the offence would not

1493
have been committed. For this reason, it was considered perfectly acceptable to apply an objective mental test of suspicion—that is, that the defendant had reasonable grounds to suspect. "Belief" is a stronger opinion or conviction than just suspicion, and therefore it is harder for the prosecution to prove.
I suggest that we should not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve by this offence and the earlier 1990 Act offence which it reproduces. We are essentially creating an offence of concealing or disguising property which is the proceeds of criminal conduct where the express purpose is to assist the original criminal. The Government believe that this offence must be allowed to catch any person who deliberately acts in this way where he or she knows or ought to have suspected—that is, that he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect—that it is the proceeds of criminal conduct.
We must be careful not to make the prospect of bringing forward a successful prosecution so difficult that the offence becomes unworkable and launderers are able to salt away their profits.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to avoiding prosecution. That is a difficult issue upon which I should like to take advice and then to write to her.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's indication that we can at least discuss the matter between now and Third Reading. On hearing him advance his arguments for maintaining the clause in its present state, it appears that if the prosecution managed to prove that the person has acted in order to assist someone to avoid prosecution under this part of the Bill, it would follow directly that that person must know or believe that the property he is dealing with is the proceeds of criminal conduct. If that is right, to import into the definition the necessity for having reasonable grounds to suspect appears to me to be an unnecessary diversion which may cause difficulties.
I appreciate that the Minister looks at all the amendments from a point of view which is different from mine. I go back to the Bar and people say to me, "Has the House of Lords gone mad? How are we to deal with this legislation?". That is one of the reasons why I advanced those arguments. However, if as the Minister has indicated he will be good enough to look further at the matter between now and Third Reading I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 31, line 21, leave out ("his") and insert ("that person's).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the amendment is to resolve a possible ambiguity. The last word of line 15 on page 31 is the word "he". Line 21 contains the word "his". One might suppose that "his" is intended to refer back to "he" in line 15. But I do not believe that it does. I believe that "his" in line 21 refers back to "any person" in line 19. If that is right, my amendment resolves that ambiguity. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a technical drafting amendment which needs a technical response. The
1494
noble Lord says that it is not clear to which person the "his" refers. The intention behind the clause is that the "his" refers to the person immediately previously mentioned in the clause; that is, the "any person" to whom the noble Lord referred in line 19 who is being assisted by the defendant to avoid prosecution or the making or enforcement of a confiscation order. Even if there is an ambiguity here, I do not believe that substituting "that person" for "his" will improve the situation. It would suffer from the same drawback. Indeed, it might even make things worse in that by introducing again the word "person" it could strengthen the argument that it refers to the first mentioned "person" in line 12 of the clause.
Clause 28 reproduces for the proceeds of crime the offence in Section 14 of concealing or transferring the proceeds of drug trafficking. The formulation about which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is concerned has caused no confusion that we are aware of so far in relation to Section 14. However, I shall consider what the noble Lord said. I like to think that he is misguided —I mean that in the most generous way—and that perhaps the noble Lord is not quite correct. I shall certainly ensure that his comments are looked at to make sure that the Bill is as clear as possible.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I prefer to be not quite correct to being misguided. In view of what the Minister said I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Meaning of "inside information"]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 34, line 45 leave out ("prospects").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it appears to me that the present wording of Clause 33(2) is far too wide. Subsection 1(a) already defines "inside information" as, inter alia, information referring to the issuer of securities, which is clear enough. It is also reasonable that inside information should include information relating to a company's business but not necessarily its business prospects. The reference to "prospects" makes the definition of "inside informa-tion" far too wide and would embrace almost anything; not only matters having a direct bearing on the business of the company but also those indirectly. It would embrace not only the activities of the company's competitors but also industry trends and even the state of the economy generally. Such a consequence of a meaning of "inside information" cannot be right or appropriate. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are two possible constructions of the effect of the amendment. The first is that it would narrow the scope of what is inside information because the word "prospects", which the amendment would delete, has the effect of including information which would not otherwise be caught. For example, it might be argued that deleting "prospects" would have the effect of restricting the inside information to information which is about a company's current business but not its future business.
But there is an alternative view; it is that the amendment would not achieve its intended effect

1495
because information about a company would include everything to do with a company including its business prospects.
In our opinion, the second view of the amendment is probably the better. So at best, the amendment would introduce ambiguity into the legislation; at worst, it would have the reverse effect to that which is intended by broadening what is caught as inside information.
Having said that, it may be helpful to explain why the Government included the reference to business prospects in the legislation. It is included because the Government believe that it is essential for our insider dealing legislation catch as inside information information which, while not relating directly to a company, would nonetheless be likely to have a significant effect on the price of its shares. An example of information in this category might be important regulatory decisions and information about a company's major customer or supplier. Information of that kind is caught by the existing insider dealing legislation and it would represent a very significant narrowing of our legislation if a provision to equivalent effect were not carried forward here.
We sought to do that by including the provision that information which may affect a company's business prospects can be inside information. The word "prospects" was used because it is also employed in related legislation. Thus, Section 146 of the Financial Services Act, which sets out the information which has to be included in listing particulars before securities may be admitted to trading on the Stock Exchange, requires publication of all information required to allow assessment of the assets and liabilities, financial position, profits and losses and prospects of the issuer of the securities.
Including information in listing particulars of course ensures that information is made public. It is therefore very closely linked to what information is and is not inside information. Assessing whether information relates to a company's business prospects is not therefore a new idea and the test that information should have to relate to a company's business prospects is an appropriate one.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full reply. I shall read it with great care and discuss it with those who advise me. It appears to me that the question is whether my noble friend's earlier remarks were as convincing as his later ones. I shall read carefully the whole exchange in order to be certain whether we need to proceed further at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 34 ["Insiders" and "tippees"]:
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 35, line 7, leave out ("a tippee") and insert ("the direct or indirect source of the information was an insider").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 relate to a secondary category of person who may be guilty of the offence of insider dealing. We need to take care with the wording of this part of the
1496
Bill, bearing in mind that in the most serious cases the applicable penalties, following conviction on indict-ment, are up to seven years' imprisonment or a fine or both.
Clauses 34 and 35 make it clear that the liability to prosecution extends not only to a person who takes advantage of inside information by dealing in securities which are price affected, but it extends also to a person who obtains and acts upon information, the direct or indirect source of which is an insider.
The Bill describes that secondary category of person as a "tippee". That expression was strongly criticised and ridiculed on Second Reading and again in Committee. When my noble friend Lord Caithness replied to a number of amendments in Committee, he accepted the mood of the Committee and undertook to look again at the drafting of Clauses 34 and 35.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are very similar to those which were drafted by my noble friend Lord Renton and which I moved in Committee. Since that time the wording has been scrutinised and slightly rearranged by parliamentary counsel. The amend-ments before the House are the result of that scrutiny.
I emphasise that the substance of this part of the Bill is in no way changed by the amendments. It is only the terminology that is improved. The provision is restated in plain English and avoids the import of jargon onto the statute book. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, I thank my noble friend Lord Windlesham for moving amendments in Committee which I had tabled although I could not be present to move them. I also thank the Government and parliamentary counsel for the slight adjustments which have been made. I agree that they improve the drafting.
Your Lordships may think that perhaps there is nothing more for me to say, but I shall say more about this matter because for the first time in my long experience in Parliament the amendments raise a very interesting point on the use of modern colloquial jargon; let us call it slang for short. Even when it becomes a term of art within a small section of society, slang will not be understood by the rest of society for whom at large we are legislating. Therefore, as far as possible we should avoid slang.
Another disadvantage attaches to slang. It may be well understood in one part of society by one generation. However, even that part of society using it as a term of art in trade or business may find that in a later generation it is no longer used. We should legislate in the long term if possible.
The word "tippee" is ambiguous. It may be used in several different but limited circumstances. It is derived from the word "tip". A "tip" is a word in standard English but it is used to describe the projecting end of a pointed object; for example, on a pencil. In colloquial English it has several different meanings. For example, it can be used to describe a gratuity—a tip to a taxi-driver. It can be used as advice or suggestion; for example, a tip as regards making a bet on a horse race. Therefore, it is not only slang but it is ambiguous slang which needs to be avoided.

1497
This group of amendments shortens the Bill as well as improves its drafting. Therefore, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham and others for pursuing the matter.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I appreciate the gracious way in which the Government have conceded defeat on this important issue. This matter will give the greatest satisfaction to all those who were my fellow "perturbees".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we come to the final demise of the elegant word "tippee". I have no doubt that my noble friends read the references in the books to which I referred previously. I found the arguments of my noble friend Lord Windlesham overwhelming and I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 35, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Dealing in securities]:
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 35, line 33, leave out ("tippee") and insert ("that the direct or indirect source of the information was an insider").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Defences]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 36, line 20, leave out ("if") and insert ("although").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I drew your Lordships' attention to Clause 37(3) in which there is rather strange use of the word "if". There is a double "if", if one reads on from the introductory sentence into subsection (3) (b).
I was grateful to my noble friend for saying that he rather agreed with me and that he would take it away and look at it again. I was surprised to receive suggestions as to an amendment which is now before the House. I hope that this may solve the problem of having too many "ifs" in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I find my noble friend's argument totally convincing. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 36, line 32 at end insert:
("(6A) Prior to the Secretary of State making any order under section 47(3) to bring any part of this Part into force, the Treasury shall publish guidance as to what conduct, in their opinion, does and does not constitute the offence of insider dealing for the purposes of sections 35 and 36 and of the defences under this section, and generally as to the interpretation and meaning of this Part.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. It has been my view—and I expressed it in Committee—and that of the CBI which advises me that much greater clarity is needed in the legislation as regards certain of the key words, terms and phrases used in this part of the Bill.
Today I received a letter from a group calling itself the 100 Group, which is a group of finance directors of the largest UK-quoted companies. That group has expressed great anxiety about the lack of clarity to which I referred.
However the Minister views the amendments, I propose to send him a copy of the letter that I received today to assist him to see how very important this matter is. While the aims of this part of the Bill are well understood and supported in principle, the sanctions for breach impose criminal liability with a loss of career and reputation at stake for those found guilty and even for those accused but not found guilty. The amendments seek to deal with those problems.
In Committee, when we debated whether Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill, my noble friend turned down my suggestion that we should have examples in Schedule 2 of the Bill of the matters that concern people and on which the Bill is not clear. My noble friend told me that it was not suitable to include it in legislation. Since then my attention has been drawn to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in Schedule 2 of which there are 10 pages of examples of exactly the kind I suggest may be usefully included in the Bill. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend that he may care to think again about the matter.
My noble friend also said when we were debating whether Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill, that the Government were considering issuing guidance. If we are not to have examples in the Bill, the guidance will be so important that the need to publish it should be written into the Bill. That is the substance of Amendment No. 19—to ensure that guidance covering the ground of the amendment be included in the Bill.
Having included that in the Bill, we also need to be certain that the Bill instructs the courts that the guidance should be relevant to a defence in the event of people being charged with insider dealing. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 20. In order to make that important matter —of grave concern to important City practitioners—clear, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take time to spell out the specific points in the Bill which require to be addressed in the guidelines. I did something similar when we were debating Clause 37 stand part in Committee. My noble friend the Minister kindly wrote at length to me on the matters I raised. I am grateful for that letter but the points concerned were different from those that I seek to include in my argument today.
In particular, I propose that the guidance issued by the Treasury should address the following issues, many of which cover the same points as are raised by the 100 Group to which I referred. First, it needs to cover the meaning of the phrase, "specific or precise" in Clause 33(1) (b). Secondly, it needs to cover the meaning of the phrase, "has not been made public" in Clause 33(1) (c). For example, is information known only to two persons "made public"? Can those two persons be outside the UK? Indeed, can they be anywhere in the world? Can the information only be available outside the UK and still be public? What if the information is available only in a market researcher's or analyst's report costing a significant

1499
amount? Answers to all those questions should be made clear, preferably in the Bill or at least in the Treasury guidance, which is the substance of my amendment.
Thirdly, what is the meaning of the phrase "significant effect" in Clause 33(1) (d)? For example, in the option market on the Stock Exchange a significant effect can occur much more easily than in the cash market. Fourthly, relating back to Amendment No. 14, what is the meaning of the phrase,
"may affect the company's business prospects",
in Clause 33(2) (a)? That should also be covered by the guidance notes.
Fifthly, what is the meaning of the phrase "relies on" in Clause 35(2) (b) and Clause 35(3), and the phrase "effected through" in Clause 35(3) (b)? Sixthly, there should be included the meaning of the phrase,
"otherwise than in the course of",
in Clause 36(1) (a). I consider that it should be made clear that the information provided "in the course of" or in connection with employment and so forth should be excluded from potential liability if the individual lacked the intent to enable someone to deal to make a profit or to avoid a loss, or he had an obligation under his employment and so forth to disclose the information (for example, to a regulator) or it is part of his employment duties, for instance, meetings with analysts.
Seventhly, there should be included the meaning and effect of the exemption for dealers whose information is market information in paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 2. What is and what is not market information? Who is and who is not a dealer? What is reasonable and what is unreasonable for the purposes of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3(1) and 3(3) of the schedule? According to the Treasury background paper sent to consultees when the Bill was published, that exemption is intended to cover situations such as bought deals, building up a stake in a company possibly before a takeover bid, acquisitions in the course of a takeover, adjusting the book in advance of the publication of a recommendation and hedging operations.
All those are fine examples of conduct which should not be caught by the insider dealing offences. I regret that I am unable to draw that interpretation, or any interpretation, from the present wording of paragraph 3. As previously argued, those examples should be specifically cited in the Bill or at least in the Treasury guidance. Likewise, it is not apparent as to why the example given by the Treasury in the same commentary of conduct not within the exemption—namely, front running—so falls. Again, I accept that such conduct should be outside the exemption and capable of amounting to insider dealing. However, where is that made clear in paragraph 3?
It all boils down to the meaning and interpretation of the word "reasonable" in paragraph 3(1) (b) and the provisions of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3. I regret to say that the present wording of the Bill is not at all transparent or easy to follow.
I informed my noble friend the Minister of my proposals for points in the Bill to be explained in the Treasury guidance. Therefore I should be grateful if he can either give assurances that the examples will be so included or explain why individual examples will not be so treated. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. His list of items which will require some form of guidance before they can be readily understood by people involved in this field, indicate that, as it is presently drafted, this section of the Bill is fraught with uncertainty and is a potential bonanza for the lawyers. It is unfortunate. We know the history, or something of it, from what was said at Second Reading in that this part of the legislation was introduced with very considerable haste and perhaps without an adequate consultation process.
The result is that unfortunately the essential ingredients of the offence are not now contained in the Bill itself. While that is the most desirable course, if we have got past a stage where the offence itself can be clearly spelt out within the Bill itself, then the next best thing must at least be to have from the Treasury some proper guidance as to who or what activities are intended to be caught by these provisions. For that reason, I support this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the noble Earl is aware, there has been a great deal of disquiet about the lack of consultation as regards this part of the Bill. I join with the noble Baroness in expressing my anxiety about that and for the need for some very clear guidance. I am not quite clear how the noble Earl is going to proceed and whether he is hoping either to reply today or in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, before the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl can set that out. We must avoid at all costs a bonanza for lawyers. I know with what sincerity the noble Baroness would be filled with disquiet if that situation were to arise. As I said, I very much hope that the noble Earl can assist us in giving some indication of when he is prepared to respond to the series of questions which have been put to him.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hoped that I had made it clear during Committee stage that incorporat-ing guidance in the legislation was not without considerable difficulties and with good reason. Either the examples would have to fall clearly on one side or other of the boundary between what is and what is not prohibited—in which case they would not serve any useful purpose—or they would confuse the boundary between what is and what is not prohibited.
I have to say to my noble friend that the amendment he proposes goes further than that. It would allow the wording of the statute to be overridden expressly or even by implication, in the guidance. In effect it would provide the Executive with the power to legislate without any involvement by the legislature. Some people think that to be a good idea but the great majority of people would think that that was a bad one. I do not believe that that is what my

1501
noble friend intended or what the noble Baroness sought to support. That is the effect of my noble friend's amendment.
Perhaps I may move from the amendment to the detailed examples raised by my noble friend. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of the matters. The first point concerned where information is specific or precise. It is clear when information is precise: it has to be exact. Alone therefore it might well have had the effect that, for example, information that there was to be a huge dividend increase would not be capable of being inside information. It would have been necessary to know also the quantum of the increase. The word "specific" is intended to deal with that situation by ensuring that information about, for example, a huge dividend cut can be inside information while ensuring that mere rumour and untargeted information, is not.
The next points related to when information has been made public. In particular, my noble friend asked whether information can be regarded as having been made public if it is known to only two people. It is hard to imagine how it could be considered to be so. Two people hardly constitute the public in any conventional sense.
Turning to the points about where the information has been published, there is nothing in the legislation which suggests that publication has to take place in the United Kingdom. Given the way in which information can move around the world today it is very difficult to conceive of situations in which price-sensitive information is available abroad but which cannot be obtained in this country.
The next example related to information available only in a market researcher's or analyst's report which is available only at a considerable price. It is quite possible for information to have been made public through such reports. If information which had to be paid for was not published, then there would be very little published material around.
The questions then turned to what constitutes a significant effect on the price of securities. That will depend on the facts. It is generally recognised that what constitutes a significant change in the price of gilts will be different from what is a significant change in the price of company shares.
The approach taken in the Bill—that is specifying that information must be such that it will have a significant effect on the price of a security, but not trying to put any sort of arbitrary figure on what constitutes a significant effect—is one which has worked well in our existing insider dealing legislation. There is no reason to think that it should not continue to do so.
Turning to a company's business prospects, the worry here is to ensure that inside information includes information which does not relate directly to a company but which nonetheless is likely to have a significant effect on a company's share price. Examples might include the bankruptcy of a major customer or supplier and a regulatory decision which will have a major impact on the company.
1502
The next example that my noble friend gave concerned the involvement of a professional inter-mediary in a transaction. The effect of Clause 33(3) is that transactions are caught where a professional intermediary is acting as a principal —that is to say, the securities are acquired from him or disposed of to him or that he acts as an agent in the transaction. The transaction takes place through him.
Turning to the comments about the restrictions on the disclosure offence, the effect of Clause 37(3) is that there is no offence where someone discloses information that does not intend someone to make a profit or avoid a loss by dealing. The limitation built into Clause 36 itself provides that disclosure in the course of one's employment is not caught.
The final points related to the exemption for market information. First, what constitutes market informa-tion? Schedule 2 paragraph 3(2) contains an extremely detailed definition of market information. It is information about one or more of the following: the fact that securities of a particular kind have been or are to be acquired or disposed of; the number of securities being acquired or disposed of; the price of the securities; the persons involved in the acquisition or disposal. Secondly, who is a dealer? He is someone who deals. Dealing itself is defined in considerable detail in Clause 32.
Finally, my noble friend asked me what is reasonable and unreasonable behaviour when it comes to dealing in securities. It is correct that the schedule does not lay down exhaustively the circumstances in which it is reasonable for someone to deal.
At Committee stage my noble friend put forward an amendment which would have specified circum-stances in which he thought that behaviour was reasonable. However, I explained then that the effect of the amendment would be to open the doors to conduct—for example, front-running a large order —which it is generally accepted that this legislation should prohibit. That comes to the nub of the argument. It illustrates precisely the difficulty in providing exhaustive provisions in this area of the Bill.
This schedule provides a clear steer about what is to be taken into account when assessing a particular set of circumstances. In particular, that in considering the matter, account should be taken of the information the person possessed, the circumstances and capacity in which he obtained the information, and the capacity in which he deals. The examples referred to of bought deals, stake building and the like, are well-established and respectable City practices, and accordingly it is difficult to conceive that they would not be considered to be reasonable activities within the terms of the legislation.
In responding to the amendment, the Government have referred in detail to the examples raised in the debate. It has also been made clear why we cannot support the amendment for the two very good reasons that I set out at the beginning; namely, the difficulties involved and the unprecedented power it would give to the Treasury.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and to my noble friend, that there are a number of

1503
discussions continuing at present. We understand some of the difficulties. My honourable friend is to meet the CBI in the very near future (although I understand that the date I gave to my noble friend in a letter has now been put back at the request of the CBI). I assure your Lordships that we are fully aware of the anxieties. We are trying to meet them, but in a way which is practical and logical and one which does not cause us more trouble than is anticipated.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their support. I thank also my noble friend the Minister for replying so fully to my amendments. I am not surprised that the amendments are not perfect. It would be most unlikely that they would not let some terrible cat out of the bag if they were not amended by my noble friend the Minister.
Returning to the points at issue, although my noble friend kindly gave me his immediate explanations of the points that I raised, he did not say whether they would be the sort of things that would be included in the guidance. Before we deal finally with this matter, I wonder whether he could give us some idea of whether they might be included or whether the sort of things that will be included in the guidance will be different.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to my noble friend on that point. It is too early for me to give him a definite response to his anxieties because, as I said earlier, the consultation is taking place at the moment. These points are being raised in the consultation. I shall be in a position to let my noble friend know more only at the end of that consultation.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. It is a pity that, because we shall have the Third Reading before Christmas, your Lordships will not have the benefit of the results of the discussions that will take place. Those discussions may in their turn lead to other ideas for clarifying the Bill. There are two points. First, there is a lot of detailed explanation of particular phrases such as those that I have been trying to cover and, secondly, when it comes to clarifying the provisions, part of the difficulty is the way in which this part of the Bill is drafted. There could well be a need for it to be considerably tidied up, but that will be out of the hands of your Lordships and will have to be dealt with in another place. I only hope that it will be dealt with adequately there. That is as far as we can go now, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before seven o'clock.

  NAGORNO-KARABAKH: RELIEF GRANTS
  NAGORNO-KARABAKH: RELIEF GRANTS
  ISRAEL: NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME
  ISRAEL: NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME
  CFE TREATY: IMPLEMENTATION
  CFE TREATY: IMPLEMENTATION
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
  PARLIAMENT HILL SCHOOL
  PARLIAMENT HILL SCHOOL
  SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TABLES
  SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TABLES
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS: PAY FREEZE
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS: PAY FREEZE
  MOTORWAY SERVICE AREAS
  MOTORWAY SERVICE AREAS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990: SECTION 143 REGISTERS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990: SECTION 143 REGISTERS
  ROYAL NAVY VESSELS: REFITTING AND REPAIRS PROVISION
  ROYAL NAVY VESSELS: REFITTING AND REPAIRS PROVISION
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION, ARTICLE 100c: VISAS
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION, ARTICLE 100c: VISAS
  MAGUIRE FAMILY: MAY REPORT
  MAGUIRE FAMILY: MAY REPORT