Sitting of 1 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

        WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        Orders for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 July.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 8 July.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 July.

SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
Ordered,
That there be laid before this House a Return of correspondence between Mr. Attorney-General and the honourable Member for East Hampshire concerning the Serious Fraud Office, and related papers.—[Mr. Attorney-General.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Cross-border Security
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current position regarding cross-border security co-operation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Government continue to work closely with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to achieve further improvements in cross-border security co-operation. Both Governments recognise the importance of keeping existing measures under review and making further progress whenever possible.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what we need now is constitutional certainty? In the light of his answer, does he agree that Labour's recent discussion paper shows too amply to us all their cynicism about our current Northern Ireland talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that constitutional certainty is very important. It is represented by the Government's guarantee that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will not change without the consent of the majority of the people living there. That is reflected in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    It is alarming to find that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was reported in The Irish Times yesterday as confirming a report that Labour's policy on Northern Ireland is moving towards joint sovereignty or shared responsibility. The infamous policy paper "Options for a Labour Government" expressly acknowledges that such a change could not be achieved without imposing it against the will of the majority of Northern Ireland citizens.
    Mr. Maginnis: During the Prime Minister's recent welcome visit to Northern Ireland, did he advise the right hon. and learned Member that cross-frontier security co-operation is a mere figment of a fertile political imagination and that the continuing unresolved debacle over extradition is a more accurate measure of the perversity and carelessness of the Irish Republic?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We are disappointed with yesterday's statement that the Irish Government are not able to fulfil their commitment to amend their legislation in this session of the Dail. We will be seeking assurances that the Bill will be introduced early in the next session. Both Governments share a common concern to ensure that terrorists cannot avoid extradition by claiming that the crimes they commit are political, and both Governments wish to close a loophole revealed by an Irish Supreme Court decision in 1991.
    I do not share the hon. Gentleman's ultra-critical view of cross-border co-operation, and I have previously in the House commended what the Garda have done recently by way of substantial finds of munitions and weapons.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the first paragraph of the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not spell out that Northern Ireland is a integral part of the United Kingdom? Does not he also agree that, as long as the south of Ireland insists on its legal claims over Northern Ireland, we will have this question over Northern Ireland's constitutional position?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is correct. One of the reasons why I believe that it would be helpful to have a successor to the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that it would provide an opportunity to express, by agreement, a unambiguous statement of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I have said previously that I consider that those two articles in the Irish constitution are unhelpful to the process in which all participants in the talks last year were engaged.
    I hope that it will be possible for them to be changed in a way that will remove that obstacle.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reaction that he has just given, and that which the Prime Minister gave yesterday, to that academic document, which I understand is not a Labour party policy document and which I have never seen—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Ooh!] Those words are very clear—which I have never seen.

    1093
    Does the Secretary of State agree that his overreaction has more to do with the politics of the House than with the politics of Ireland?
    The Official Unionist brothers McGimpsey yesterday alleged that there was a plot between the Labour party and myself before the last election to stop the talks, in the hope that there would be a change of Government. The truth—which can be confirmed by the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—was that before the election we requested the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and his former leader to issue a statement saying that if there were a change of Government, the talks would resume on precisely the same basis, and that the hon. Member made that statement.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have signed an international treaty, called the Maastricht treaty, which commits the British and Irish Governments to an ever-closer union, not just of the peoples of both Irelands but of the people of 10 other countries as well, and that that is, in effect, shared sovereignty over a much wider range of issues than Northern Ireland; and that the implication——
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Gentleman has done very well with his questions. There are other Members seeking to ask questions.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that the implication of that treaty is that there will be an ever-closer union of the people of Ireland within Europe—from a nationalist point of view-and of the—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must now resume his seat. This is not a debate; it is Question Time. A number of Members are seeking to come in on this particular question.
    Mr. Hume: It happens to be a very important question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is why I am seeking cross-party interest in the matter. Will the hon. Gentleman now come to his point?
    Mr. Hume: Will the Government, instead of acting as a facilitator, be a Government and declare that their objective is to promote agreement—I underline that word—between the people of Ireland, the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Britain and Ireland, and convene talks for that, and tell the hon. Member for Antrim, North——
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I did not assert that the hon. Gentleman had seen the document "Options for a Labour Government". If I were him, I should feel that I ought to have seen it. A great many other people felt that they ought to have seen it before the last general election, because the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is reported as saying that the policy of the Labour party is
    "shifting towards joint sovereignty or 'shared responsibility'."
    Paragraph 7 of the document says:
    "Shared responsibility has been condemned as un-democratic—since it would have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland citizens."
    That is an anxiety-making statement and we are entitled to know—as is the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—whether that is the policy of the Labour party.
    1094
    As to the Government's policy regarding talks, everyone knows that we wish to resume those talks with all participants present, with a view to securing the agreement that was everyone's objective in April or March 1991.
    Sir James Kilfedder: Has the Secretary of State brought pressure to bear on the Government in Dublin to take urgent and necessary measures to apprehend IRA snipers who, operating from the safety of the Irish Republic, have killed a number of members of the Northern Ireland security forces? Surely it is time for the Irish Republic to introduce selective internment at the same time as it is introduced in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question raises profound issues of great difficulty.
    There is no evidence of which I am aware that the recent disgraceful killing of a soldier near Newtownhamilton was by a shot fired across the border. There is, however, no question but that the border is one of the greatest assets of terrorists of a republican character—in fact, it is their greatest asset. I make no criticism of the willingness of the Garda to bring all their resources to bear to the detection and arrest of people of that character. It may well be the case that they could do with more resources, but I emphasise that co-operation between the two police forces has never been better than it is at the moment.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that many in the House and outside it were disappointed at his overreaction and that of the Prime Minister on Tuesday? They welcome honest intellectual debate about some of the options that might move us away from the certainty—[Interruption.]—the certainty that the right hon. and learned Gentleman described today, and which represents sterility because there is no movement at all in the politics of Northern Ireland. If joint sovereignty were one of the options to be explored, surely it is legitimate that it should be on the table for people to discuss—just as much as the retention of Northern Ireland in its present form or even a united Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that if a debate is going on in the Labour party about whether a change in the constitutional state of Northern Ireland should be imposed against the wishes of most people living there, we should all know about it. That is what we want to know.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the document, "The future of Northern Ireland: A paper for discussion", produced by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. William Whitelaw? Is the Secretary of State aware that the introduction to that paper states that it is to be seen as
    "a comprehensive basis for further discussions"?
    There follows a whole host of possible options for the future of Northern Ireland including, in paragraph 40,
    "a partial or incomplete transfer of sovereignty"—
    of parts of Northern Ireland—
    "either in geographical terms … or in jurisdictional terms";
    in paragraph 42(a), the possibility of total integration of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom; in paragraph 42(b), a British Government declaration
    "To admit the possibility of change, either towards Irish unity or some form of condominium";
    in paragraph 42(c), the Government laying down

    1095
    "a theoretical path towards closer integration, and possible ultimate unity in Ireland";
    and in paragraph 42(e),
    "some form of joint machinery, either at inter-parliamentary or inter-governmental level"?
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that such discussion documents make a useful and positive contribution to debate on solutions to the Northern Ireland conflict? Will he confirm that his Government have imposed an Anglo-Irish Agreement on an unwilling majority? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the union of Ireland with Great Britain was imposed, and that not one Irish Member—not even a Northern Ireland Member—voted for the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and for the start of Stormont? Will the Secretary of State therefore repudiate the suggestion that such discussion documents are a recipe for disaster, although the Opposition accept that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has put his question.
    Mr. McNamara: I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that this croppy does not lie down before a pile of Tories behaving like that.
    The Opposition accept that the Prime Minister has provided us with a substantial menu from which we can choose a variety of disasters—both a la carte and table d'hÔte.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The document that the hon. Gentleman produces, as though it were a killer rabbit out of a hat, was a discussion document published without a contemporary expression of Government policy at that time. The Labour document was not published before the general election, and has not been published. We now have the reported confirmation of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the Labour party's policy is shifting towards "shared responsibility". The document asserts that shared responsibility can only be imposed against the wishes of a majority. Despite his lengthy intervention, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North carefully refrained from telling us whether that is his policy. We need to know.
    As I am answering a lengthy question, perhaps you, Madam Speaker, will allow me to raise another matter, which is not unapposite, from page 29 of the full document. Having stated that it would be possible fully to reform the economy of Northern Ireland by affirmative action, it goes on to say that that might reduce the differential between Catholic and Protestant emigration rates and that the Catholic-nationalist electorate of Northern Ireland would expand. There then follows a remarkable sentence:
    "However, such a transformation would take time and might have the unintended effect of reconciling Catholics to Northern Ireland's present status as part of the UK."
    Is that the Labour party's policy towards reconciliation? Will the hon. Gentleman condemn that and disown it or is it the case that reconciliation has to conform to the party's declared policy of unity in Ireland?
    Mr. McNamara rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Another time.
    Mr. Hunter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whereas cross-border security co-operation is invaluable, the sort of co-operation envisaged by the secret
    1096
    paper that is causing so much discussion amounts to a callous disregard for the democratically expressed wishes of the majority of Northern Ireland and, therefore, could not possibly be the foundation for a secure and better Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    Mr. Cryer: What about the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Anglo-Irish Agreement is an agreement on how two sovereign Governments who share a land border should co-operate. Nothing in the Anglo-Irish Agreement derogates from the sovereignty of the British Government. I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

    Law Officers
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for strengthening the powers of Law Officers as they relate to Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: None at present.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are not the ideas set out in the discussion document of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), particularly as they relate to future law and order enforcement in Northern Ireland, a breath of fresh air which the British people will welcome, as they want to see British politicians break the logjam in Northern Ireland? To confirm that, I must tell the Secretary of State that we have constituents in the north of England who spend their time patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland. They, more than any others, want the logjam to be broken. Should not all British political parties look constructively on the very good work that has been done by my hon. Friend?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We do not know—that is the trouble—whether the policy document constitutes fresh air, hot air or the declared policy of the Labour party. I believe that we are entitled to know that. The hon. Gentleman's constituents—[Interruption.] If I may attract the hon. Gentleman's attention. I assumed, in his favour, that he might be interested in an answer. The hon. Gentleman's constituents who serve gallantly in the British Army in Northern Ireland will want to know whether it is the policy of the so-called alternative Government that there should be imposed upon Northern Ireland, against the wishes of the majority—a constitutional change which would ensure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents had a much harder task on their hands when they next serve there.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best thing for the Law Officers and for the paper is for it to be published openly by the Labour party rather than be hidden and for the Leader of the Opposition to say where he stands and where his party stands and whether it is the same as where the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) stands?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: That would be interesting. It would also be interesting to know what connection this topic has with the Law Officers.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Given that 20-minute display of reconciliation and bipartisanship, and given the requests made by many authoritative institutions in Northern Ireland for a strengthening of the law against terrorism, will the Secretary of State assure us that when the royal commission reports, which will probably be next week, he will take speedy action on those matters, which have been in the pending tray for too long?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman refers to suggestions made recently by the Chief Constable for changes in the law. It is perfectly true that those are under consideration. They are bound, I would guess, to be considered by the Runciman royal commission which is reporting shortly. It would be sensible to see what that report says about those proposed changes. The law must be kept under review and any changes must meet the test of being effective in the control of terrorism and proportionate to the harm that is sought to be redressed. That is a test which would generally apply.
    The document has some relevance to the Army because paragraph 13 says:
    "Security would initially be the joint responsibility of the Great Britain and Irish nominees to the Executive Joint Authority. Responsibilities for the police force and the army would rotate between them."
    That is a good example of joint authority towards which the Labour party's policy is evidently moving.
    Mr. McNamara: I have a great number of replies to give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, though I thought that I was asking the questions. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) who asked Question 1 left after the reply from the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] I should have thought that he might at least have waited to hear the supplementary questions.
    Let me make the position of the leaked document clear. It was a discussion document. In my party, party policy is not made at the whim of official spokesmen, but by party conferences, after free discussion and properly gathered. The spokesmen have a duty to lead forward discussion—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman because he indicated that he wished to put a supplementary question to Question 2. I must ask him to put his question in relation to Question 2.
    Mr. McNamara: You have put me in a difficult position, Madam Speaker, because—[ Interruption.] I have had questions put to me by the Secretary of State and I thought that he wanted answers. I have questions to ask. Let me observe, before I put my question, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the point that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was imposed and gave the Irish Government the right to ask any question they wanted concerning the affairs of Northern Ireland.
    Coming to the question of the Law Officers and of legality, following last year's disturbances in the Lower Ormeau road on 12 July, has the Secretary of State had any discussions this year about re-routing the march from that highly sensitive area? Given that the Secretary of State told reporters on Monday night that the issue of parades had never been discussed at the Anglo-Irish conference meetings, will he confirm that he put his name to the last communiqué of the intergovernmental conference which stated:
    1098
    "The conference discussed a number of particular issues including … parades"?
    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman only have a selective memory and should we prefer Sir Hal Miller's?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman refers to an answer I gave to journalists on Tuesday. I understood that I had been asked whether there had been a discussion in London at the last IGC meeting about the route to be taken by the parade that took place on Saturday. That was how I was understood by journalists present. That was confirmed, incidentally and interestingly, yesterday in a question put by Eamonn Malley of Downtown Radio when I was in Antrim, who said that, on Tuesday, I had rightly said that there was no discussion of the route taken by that march in Belfast on Saturday. Of course, it is right that the general topic of marches and their effect on public order falls within the ambit of what is properly discussed under intergovernmental policies. That comes under what is agreed in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the most recent communiqué makes that perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to get out his muck rake again, he has chosen the wrong heap.

    Northern Ireland Electricity
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the privatisation process of Northern Ireland Electricity.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity has been a great success, especially in relation to the Government's objective of seeking to broaden and deepen share ownership. Two thirds of the shares on offer were allocated to the general public; that represents the highest percentage allocated to the public in any electricity privatisation.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, in which he has lauded the people who want to make a few quick pounds on the transaction. Does he share the concerns of the ordinary householder in Northern Ireland, of those in commerce and of those in industry about the terms of the sell-off? The high-cost, long-term contracts, the £50 million required for gas conversion at Ballylumford, the £100 million required for desulphurisation at Kilroot and many other aspects that were not previously revealed will lead to a very high acceleration of electricity costs in Northern Ireland. Is not the Minister now honour bound to withdraw the remarks and undertakings given by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who said that electricity prices in Northern Ireland would not rise beyond inflation before 1997? They have already done so.
    Mr. Atkins: I am sure that my predecessor, who is now Minister for Trade, will be more than happy to defend his position as and when he chooses to do so. I am sure that he can speak for himself. I reiterate that the privatisation was a major success for the Government and, above all, for the people of Northern Ireland. Many people bought shares. Over 50 per cent. of the shares allocated to the general public were allocated to Northern Ireland people and about 1,800 NIE employees also bought shares. It is worth making the point that registered customers applying for 300 shares or fewer, which represents 44 per cent. of the total, got their full allocation. All in all, this is an excellent

    1099
    story for Northern Ireland. It will help to ensure that in future, the benefits of competition, of the gas interconnector and the electricity interconnector and of other ways to generate power will contribute to a more efficient way in which to provide electricity to all who wish to use it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend noted that although in English, Scottish and Welsh privatisations, the industries concerned have had quite large restructuring costs, the productivity increase and money saved by the reduction in the number of staff and the improved efficiency in using fuel are now coming through and are leading to large decreases in the cost of electricity to consumers? Has my hon. Friend made any judgment about when electricity prices will start to fall in the same way in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes a jolly good point; I wish that I had thought of it myself. We shall look at that point. Although we have problems in Northern Ireland because of the peripherality of the Province, I hope that, in time, the benefits of privatisation will lead to the objective to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the Minister's praise for the flotation of shares in Northern Ireland Electricity, which was overwhelmingly oversubscribed and which attracted the support of hundreds of thousands of Northern Ireland investors, will he reconsider the flotation of shares in the proposed privatisation of the Northern Ireland Airports Authority for private individuals?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Of course, I share his desire to offer possible shares in the airport to as wide a range of people as possible. The problem is that it is a relatively small flotation. The advice that we have from the specialists is that a flotation would not be the most cost-effective way to carry out the process. None the less, the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter will cause me to ask questions as severely as I can. If there is a way in which to carry out such a flotation, I should like to do so.

    Government Housing Initiative
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many properties were purchased under the Government's housing initiative announced earlier in the current year (a) by the Housing Executive and (b) by housing associations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: As a result of the housing initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was able to purchase 141 properties with its £3 million allocation, while the housing associations—including the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Association—purchased a total of 599 properties with their allocation of £15 million. That represents a total of 740 houses purchased under this initiative, and is, yet again, an excellent good news story.
    Mr. Dowd: I welcome that statement by the Minister, but is not it patently clear that, while those initiatives have been taking place, the numbers of people on the housing waiting lists and homeless in Northern Ireland have been
    1100
    increasing? Given all the demographic information about the increasing housing need that will occur in the Province in coming years, is not it patently obvious that the actions that the Government are taking are no more capable of meeting the problems of housing need and homelessness in Northern Ireland than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about Northern Ireland, he would know that the Housing Executive is one of the most authoritative and capable bodies, probably, in the western world. It is respected—
    Mr. Dowd: Not according to the figures.
    Mr. Atkins: Most certainly; the hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance. He ought to talk to his own Front Benchers, who will confirm the view across the divide in Northern Ireland that it is an entirely respectable and reputable body which does an amazingly good job. The hon. Gentleman ought to consider very carefully before' he casts slurs on that body. This announcement, providing more houses for people who would otherwise not have them, shows just how much the Government, whether at national or at Northern Ireland level, care about the problem that the hon. Gentleman is flippant about.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Minister aware that certain areas of Northern Ireland have lost out in this scheme? It appears that that has happened because of the lack of housing associations in certain areas. In view of what he just said about the Housing Executive, could not a better scheme have been devised, giving people in those areas where there are no housing associations an opportunity to purchase or sell their homes through the Housing Executive? Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that that should have been done?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman always speaks with great authority on housing matters. I understand his concern about his constituency. Certainly, as part of this exercise, we shall look closely at ways in which we can build on and improve the present position. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to take up particular points over and above what he has suggested today, I should be more than happy to do so.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the report published by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on the tens of thousands of people who are living in substandard accommodation? Has he considered the Rural Housing Association's report on the dirft of people from rural areas into towns and cities because of the lack of housing in rural areas? What is the Minister doing in the way of housing initiatives to stop the substandard houses from falling down around the people and to stop the mass exodus from rural areas because of the shortage of housing?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman, who normally speaks with great authority on these matters, is painting a picture that does not seem to fit in with the truth. We are in no sense complacent about the need for rehousing, particularly in the case of rural areas, but the Housing Executive's efforts, both in the past and in its plans for the future, are directed specifically towards such areas. Although we are never complacent about what has to be done, I believe that the Housing Executive, with the

    1101
    resources that the Government are putting its way, is making a pretty good pitch at the problem about which the hon. Gentleman talked.

    Exports
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the present level of support provided by the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit to Northern Ireland industry for the purpose of promoting exports outside the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Atkins: Both agencies offer a range of export services to Northern Ireland industry, and in the financial year ended 31 March 1993 business worth in excess of £120 million was generated as a direct result of these activities.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating those marketeers who recently have been very successful in winning millions of pounds of export orders for Northern Ireland? Will he seek to ensure that IDB and LEDU make available such assistance as is necessary through export credit guarantees, small firm loans, and so on, and will he undertake to make representations for overseas development aid where that would be helpful?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is at the forefront in helping both agencies to attract foreign business and encourage companies in his constituency and other constituencies in Northern Ireland to expand. His point is understood. I am in constant communication with my predecessor in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who is now the Minister for Trade, with a view to encouraging the sort of things for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important to build the confidence of business men in Northern Ireland and that the Opposition spokesman, by his performance this afternoon, has shown that nobody would have any confidence in his policies?
    Mr. Atkins: I could not agree more.
    Mr. Stott: I am not tempted to follow the Minister down that path; there will be a time to do so.
    Notwithstanding the achievements of the two agencies, to which I pay tribute, the Minister will be aware that the Public Accounts Committee recently concluded that perhaps more than half the new jobs established by LEDU may have been created at the unnecessary cost of displacing existing workers. The report also recommended that both LEDU and the Department of Economic Development continue regularly to seek ways to measure and record the extent of dead weight and displacement.
    Given the stringent minimum standards that the Government have recently set for the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency, will the Minister tell the House why he is not applying the same tough tests to LEDU's activities?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's compliments to the agencies; he knows what they achieve. Of course, nothing is perfect in this world, and mistakes were made in the way in which LEDU operated. As a result of the investigation, a number of the changes that
    1102
    were recommended by the Committee have now been implemented. I invite the hon. Gentleman, if he would like to do so, to see for himself exactly what LEDU has been achieving and to learn of the detailed changes that have been made. He can rest assured that the points were well made by the Committee and have been taken into account.

    Security
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation on Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Since I answered a similar question on 22 April, there have been 10 deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland—eight civilians and two soldiers. The Government remain committed to the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, whichever organisation perpetrates it, through the even-handed and energetic enforcement of the rule of law. For as long as terrorist violence continues, it will be met with a firm and resolute response.
    Mr. Luff: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I invite him to join me in paying tribute to the security forces, who daily must deal with that tragic situation. Does he feel that their task is made easier or more difficult by the kind of ideas that are being touted around by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), in secret?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I endorse the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to the security forces. The vast majority are very young men and women. We ask them to make discretionary decisions that carry very heavy sanctions if they get them wrong: if they get them wrong one way, they may be court-martialled; if they get them wrong another way, they may be prosecuted; and if they get them wrong another way, they may be dead. I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the amazingly high standard of their performance.
    We have rehearsed the second part of my hon. Friend's question fairly fully this afternoon. I would add only that anything that contributes to any uncertainty about whether the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will change without the consent of the majority of those who live there must make the task of the security forces harder.
    Mr. William Ross: When the Secretary of State and the Minister of State visited Magherafelt and Coleraine in my constituency last week, they had an opportunity to see the results—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will the House settle down? It is very difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ross: When they visited Magherafelt and Coleraine in my constituency last week, they had an opportunity to see at first hand the results of the IRA's managing to penetrate the security measures that have been taken. Were they both very much impressed, as I was, by the efforts that are being made by local people to repair and replace buildings?
    Will the Secretary of State take a careful look at the cost of rebuilding, the question of betterment and all the other problems that revolve around the replacement, refurbishment and repair of damage done by terrorist bombs? We

    1103
    sometimes feel that good money is being thrown after bad to repair buildings that it would probably be better to knock down and rebuild.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the qualities of his constituents following those outrageous attacks. I recently visited Coleraine, where I met the hon. Gentleman, for the third time since the bomb in November. I know the scheme about which he is talking. I realise that it is very attractive and that it offers great potential for the town of Coleraine. The hon. Gentleman has already, very fairly, alluded to the importance of maintaining the distinction between repairing and compensation for damage, and betterment of property. It may be enough to say that I fully recognise the strength of feeling that he represented in his question this afternoon.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to assure the people of Ulster that this Government are totally committed to the Union? Will he also point out to them that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has a plot to ditch them? The leader of the Labour party should either support that betrayal of the people of Ulster or sack his spokesman.
    The Prime Minister: The Union is vital for all parts of the United Kingdom. It has the democratic approval of the people of Northern Ireland and we in the Conservative and Unionist party stand four-square behind it. I am aware of the opinions that have been attributed to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I believe that he has proposed "shared responsibility", which
    "would have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland's citizens."
    Frankly, I think that that is appalling. The hon. Gentleman also complains that progress in Northern Ireland could strengthen the Union, and he certainly appears to regret that. I assume that can mean only that the Labour party has abandoned its manifesto commitment to consensus and that it wants to promote a united Ireland through economic deprivation. If those are the Labour party's policies, they are cynical and shameful and are a betrayal of democracy and of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John Smith rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Settle down now.
    Mr. Smith: Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down and listen not only to answers but to questions, too—all of you.
    Mr. Smith: Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded of £97 million in Britain's biggest ever tax fraud involving Nissan UK and that, during the period in which the fraud was perpetrated, Mr. Octav Botnar gave £1 million to the Conservative party, will the Prime Minister invite the Conservative party to repay that sum to the Inland Revenue?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House and the whole country will notice what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not have to say about his party's policies for Northern Ireland. If his fundamental concept is that we should clean up British politics, I agree. We should, for a start, have rules that no donor can buy votes at a party conference, that no donor should buy votes for the selection of party candidates and that no donor should buy votes for the selection of a party's leader. It is that sort of action, not his sort of smears, that demeans British politics.
    Mr. Smith: The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not answer the question.
    Does not the Prime Minister accept that, as First Lord of the Treasury, his principal responsibility is to the British taxpayer? Should he not be encouraging action to recover money of which the Revenue has been defrauded? Is not that a more important responsibility than defending the finances of the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, for I have told him before, that where tainted money has been provided to the Conservative party, we will replace it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now have the grace to accept that. So far as Mr. Botnar is concerned, no doubt the Inland Revenue will pursue that matter. It is a matter for the Inland Revenue.
    Mr. Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar?
    The Prime Minister: I have no idea whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar around 10 years ago. I am not responsible for that.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to read the report by Ernst and Young entitled "Inward Investment in the 90s—Maintaining the United Kingdom's Lead"? If so, does he agree with its recommendation that one of our main advantages—the flexibility and cost of our labour force—would be placed in considerable jeopardy if we were to accept the social protocol and that that would further undermine the country's lead in attracting inward investment, which we need to maintain the recovery?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. Our system for encouraging inward investment is second to none. We have received far more inward investment in this country as a result of the policies followed by this Government and their immediate predecessor than any other country in the European Community. Because of those policies, we remain the preferred location for investment in the Community by

    1105
    Japan, the United States and many other countries. Policies of excessive social costs and excessive regulation would damage that inward investment and the jobs created by it.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Prime Minister, recognising the importance to the north-east and to shipbuilding in Britain of the Swan Hunter shipyard, take steps today to make it clear that the frigates that were built by the yard can be completed at the yard? Will he tell the Government of Oman that he has done that, as that would indicate to them that he is confident that the yard can complete the Omani order for which it has tendered and which would otherwise be lost to Britain?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman touches on a very important matter. I very much hope that it will be possible to complete the three type 23 frigates at Swan Hunter. The Ministry of Defence is in negotiation with the receiver. Some more detailed work remains to be done, but I suspect that those discussions will be concluded very shortly indeed. If and when agreement on the terms for completing the type 23s has been reached, I will of course ensure immediately that the Omani authorities are informed of that fact. Once Swan Hunter has found a buyer—that is one of the matters of concern to the Omani Government—and is back on a secure financial footing, there is no reason whatsoever why, among seeking other orders, it should not begin once more to tender for orders from the MOD.
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bates: Would my right hon. Friend agree that excess bureaucracy and over-regulation stifle initiative and efficiency, not only in British industry but in the police force in its battle against crime and the criminal? Is he aware of the remarks made two weeks ago by the chief constable of Dorset police when he pointed out that, for the most simple arrests, the average police officer is required to complete 23 forms and, in the most complex cases, that figure rises to 47 forms? That takes the average police officer off the beat and puts him behind a desk for half a day on average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such excessive bureaucracy exists, that the average police officer feels deep frustration about it and that it is a source of bewilderment for the public and a source of delight for the criminal?
    The Prime Minister: I did see the chief constable's remarks and I am aware of the extent of the bureaucracy facing many officers in the police force. It is partly for that reason that we are seeking to deregulate so substantially. The whole purpose of the series of reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend is now taking forward is to ensure that we have a modern, professional and effective police force with the powers that it needs to deter crime. I share the concerns that are expressed by my hon. Friend and felt by the police force. That is why we are seeking to reform
    1106
    and modernise the police force, so that it can concentrate on the job that it is really there for—catching criminals, not filling in forms.
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chisholm: Has the Prime Minister seen the report which was published this week by the Day Care Trust, which is funded by the BBC's Children in Need, which analyses the poverty trap faced by a large number of Britain's 1·3 million lone parents and which advocates that income spent on child care should be substantially disregarded in calculating income support or family credit entitlements? Does the Prime Minister support that proposal? Would he prefer to boost the supply of affordable child care, or does he regard child care as one of the byways of politics about which he said on Saturday he would prefer not to be asked?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at the record of the care and the support that have gone into child care over recent years. Expenditure on families with children now totals nearly £13 billion, a rise of three quarters during the period since the Conservative Government came to office in the late 1970s. The hon. Gentleman would be better served offering support for some of those policies rather than misrepresenting other people's reports.
    Mr. Devlin: As today is the end of the first six months of the single market which this country and the Government did so much to bring about, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to explain to the people of the north of England the benefits of the single market and re-emphasise the Government's commitment to unfettered markets and free trade?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no doubt, not just in this country but in countries all around the world, that free trade increases the volume of trade and, with it, the volume and levels of prosperity. We certainly see within the European Community the increasing advantages of the single market. I am delighted that it was concluded during our presidency of the Community, and I hope that the general principles of free trade will win through in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations that we are currently in the midst of.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Prime Minister recognise the widespread concern and anger of people in the north-west, particularly those on low pay—such as nurses and firemen, whose pay was limited to a 1·5 per cent. increase—at pay increases that were announced by the privatised monopoly, North West Water? It increased payments to its chief executive and management by 43 per cent. in the past year and by 506 per cent. during the recession, over the past five years. Of course, they also have their share options. Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn such action by that privatised industry?
    The Prime Minister: It is not a matter for me to condemn. My responsibility across the public sector is to make sure that we retain proper control of costs, not least to ensure that we provide the services that the public want and not least to ensure that we are able to retain within the public sector the levels of employment that are necessary. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on that rather than parade yet again his politics of envy.
    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent judicial comments and public concern about the absence of a power for the courts to send persistent juvenile offenders into secure accommodation? Does he agree that it is essential for the courts to have such a power? Does he agree further that the Opposition's refusal to support giving such a power to the courts shows that they totally lack commitment to the fight against crime and that, far from being tough on crime, they are tough only on the victims of persistent juvenile offenders—victims whom they would continue to allow to suffer?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend clearly knows, one of the sectors in which the greatest increase in criminal statistics can be found is in crimes against property by youngsters, largely between the ages of eight and 18. It is for that reason that we are looking at the method of dealing with offenders and, in particular, finding secure accommodation for them. It is our intention to provide such accommodation.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Prime Minister aware that ABB Transportation Ltd. is the last surviving company manufacturing railway carriage body shells in Britain and that it recently announced 532 redundancies among the employees at its York works and a further 364 at Crewe and Derby? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that situation has arisen because of a haemorrhaging of orders in the run-up to railway privatisation? Will he do something to stop the next round of job losses, which would mean the closure of the York works and the end of Britain's ability to build railway carriage body shells, which we should be left to import from abroad at yet further expense to our balance of payments? When will we have more orders?
    The Prime Minister: I find it very strange, on some occasions at the Dispatch Box, to be criticised by Opposition Members for the fact that we appear to have too large a deficit, while on other occasions I am urged to spend more and more money—usually for some particular interest of the hon. Member concerned. I regret very much the job losses at ABB. However, ABB, like every other enterprise in this country, must find its way in the marketplace.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next 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 5 JULY—Opposition Day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The continuing closure of coal mines", on an Opposition motion.

Motion relating to the payment of the coal subsidy.

Motion on the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order.

TUESDAY 6 JULY—European Parliamentary Elections Bill, Committee stage—first day.

Motion on the Special Grant Report (No. 8) (HC 724).

WEDNESDAY 7 JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.

Motion on the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme.

THURSDAY 8 JuLY—Estimates day (3rd allotted day).

Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on occupational pensions and on the Department of Social Security's grants in aid to the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service and to the Maxwell Pensioners' Trust; followed by a debate on the Department for Education's expenditure plans 1992–93 to 1994–95.
Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 9 JULY—Debate on tourism and deregulation, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 12 JULY—Finance (No. 2) Bill, report stage—first day.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 7 July at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Committee A, document No. 4146/93 relating to air transport relations with third countries; Committee B, documents Nos. 4077/92, 4527/92, 6497/92, 7632/92 +CORI—I assume that "COR" is Eurospeak for "correction"—and 8679/92 relating to the abolition of frontier controls and the completion of the internal market.
[Wednesday 7 July:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 4146/93, civil aviation; relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 79-xxiii.
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 4077/92, 7632/92 +COR1, and 6497/92, abolition of border controls; 4527/92 and 8679/92, internal market. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 24-xiv (1991–92 ), HC 79-i (1992–93 ); HC 24-xv (1991–92 ), HC 79-i (1992–93 ); HC 79-vi (1992–93 ), HC 79-xiii (1992–93); HC 79-ii (1992–93 ); HC 79-vii (1992–93).]
[Thursday 8 July:
Estimates Day
1. Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: administration and miscellaneous services, in so far as it relates to policy issues concerning occupational pensions and
1110
to the Department's grants in aid to the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service and to the Maxwell Pensioners' Trust.
The first report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1992–93 on the operation of pension funds: the recovery of assets ( HC 189) is relevant.
2. Class VII, Vote 8, Revenue support grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office services, etc., England; and Class X, Department for Education, in so far as they relate to the Department for Education's expenditure plans 1992–93 to 1994–95.
The first report from the Education Committee of Session 1992–93 on the Department for Education's expenditure plans 1992–93 to 1994–95 (HC 305) and the first special report of the Committee, Session 1992–93, containing the Government's observations on the First Report (HC 695) are relevant.]
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Can he find time in the near future for a debate on the continuing evidence, to be found in the recent report of the citizens advice bureaux, that too many customers still get a raw deal from their banks? He will know that there is continuing concern, especially about the deal that small businesses receive. I expect that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome an opportunity to express their concern.
I should also like to remind the Leader of the House that our case for a debate on the Government's public expenditure programme is much strengthened by a view expressed strongly this week at the British Medical Association conference—that Government policy on the national health service is leading to a waste of money on massively increased bureaucracy. This money should be available for patient care—something that may not be unrelated to the fact that there are now I million people on hospital waiting lists.
Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement on the action that the Government plan to take following the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report showing that more than 3 million people in this country have lost the right to vote because they are not on the electoral register and that, in some areas, the proportion is as high as 20 per cent. of what should be the eligible population? He will recall that, before the last election, the Government spent £750,000 of taxpayers' money encouraging those people who might have left the United Kingdom 20 years ago to register to vote. They spent substantially less on encouraging people who live here to be on the electoral register. We believe that such a level of under-registration is a serious threat to democracy, and would like to hear that the Government will do something about it.
Mr. Newton: On the first question, I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have looked with interest at the report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and will wish to give it their consideration. However, I cannot promise an early opportunity for a debate in quite the terms that the right hon. Lady sought.
On the question of public expenditure, I note what she says. In my statement, I announced some proceedings on the Finance (No. 2) Bill—I hope that the Third Reading

1111
will not be delayed too long—and that may provide some opportunity for the observations of the sort that the right hon. Lady evidently wishes to make.
So far as the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is concerned, I remind her that the Government undertake advertising each year to persuade young people and others who may be less likely to register in some circumstances to register. We are currently conducting a thorough review of electoral registration, and expect to be able to report the findings of our working group to the political parties and local authority associations in the autumn. We will then consider any changes to registration procedures that may be needed and undoubtedly the right hon. Lady's representations—if I may use that neutral word—can be considered in that context.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend provide a debate on equal opportunities in politics as soon as possible? Surely, at the very least, the Equal Opportunities Commission should be investigating a parliamentary selection procedure that would exclude at least 50 per cent. of the population from applying for a seat in the House.
Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, you may have read with at least as much interest as I the reports of a Labour party proposal to have women-only short lists for parliamentary seats. That does not seem to be a way of encouraging women into politics that will be welcomed even by many women in view of its implications. Clearly, it is a form of positive discrimination of a sort that many people would feel is wrong, whichever sex they may be.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Could the Leader of the House tell us whether there is any scope for an early debate on parliamentary procedures? He will know that it is well over a year since the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) brought forward the Select Committee report on reforming the sittings of the House.
Obviously, it would make sense, if we are to change the procedures, that such changes should take effect a t the beginning of a new Session, and therefore it is essential that we have an early debate. Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that the recent press reports that the parliamentary Labour party has taken such a proposal will not affect changes to the parliamentary procedures being brought forward at an early stage?
Mr. Bob Cryer: Let us hope it is true.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is in a better position than me to know whether it is true—perhaps he might care to tell us.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will know of the efforts that I have been making to advance the prospects of those proposals. He has noted what I found to be a discouraging report in The Independent last week, that the parliamentary Labour party had effectively voted to block the proposals that were put forward. I am not in a position to confirm precisely that that decision has been taken. It may be that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would like to tell us something about it.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 2240, concerning
1112
the decision of the Kent education authority to adopt a hostile and spiteful attitude to those schools that may wish to consider opting out.
[That this House notes with concern that one of the first acts of the new Lab-Lib controlled Kent Education Committee at its first meeting on Friday 18th June was to change policy on grant maintained schools, from one of adopting a neutral stance towards schools seeking to opt out of County Council control to vigorously encouraging them to stay within it; further notes that Lab-Lib 'members also voted to object to applications to opt out'; regards this change of policy as an attack upon parental rights and school based democracy; and urges all schools in Kent, whether within or outside LEA control, to be alert to this new hostile policy.]
Can he arrange for an urgent debate on this subject, so that the House will have a chance to debate and show up those Labour and Liberal-controlled local education authorities that are acting in such a spiteful and vindictive way?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government entirely agree that hostility to grant-maintained status by any local authority is something that we deplore. The whole basis of the policy is that it is for the parents to choose how their children's schools are managed. Therefore, I understand my hon. Friend's concerns.
Although I cannot promise a debate specifically on that matter, he will recall that, a few moments ago, I said that the second half of next Thursday, an estimates day, will be a debate on the expenditure plans of the Department for Education for the next year or two. I do not think that he will have to stretch things too far to get his comments in order in that debate.
Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate, or at least a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security, on poverty in the United Kingdom? Recent reports have shown that the gap between the haves and the have-nots in Britain is wider than it has been at any time this century. Millions of people are living in abject poverty as a direct result of the Government's policies. Will the Secretary of State come to the House to make a statement on that disgraceful state of affairs?
Mr. Newton: I have three points to make in answer to the hon. Gentleman. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be here to answer questions next Monday. Secondly, my right hon. Friend issued yesterday an extensive press release that provides considerable information about the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Thirdly, I reject the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the figures, and I speak about the subject from experience. The figures show, of course, a widespread increase in general living standards.
Mr. John Biffen: Can my hon. Friend recollect any occasion when the reputation of Parliament has been enhanced during the month of July? Does he not think that, in terms of sound political planning, that provides an overwhelming case for an early recess?
Mr. Newton: I hesitate, in view of my right hon. Friend's experience in the role that I currently fulfil, to question his implicit judgment that no such month can be

1113
found. I do not think that we did too badly last July, but he may attribute that to the fact that we rose, I believe, on the 15th. I am afraid that I cannot hold out any such prospect this year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for wondering aloud whether he may have had a concealed motive for his question.
Mr. David Trimble: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the lengthy exchanges during Northern Ireland questions this afternoon? During those exchanges, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) failed to clarify his position on newspaper reports that Labour party policy was moving towards joint authority for Northern Ireland. In light of that, if the Labour party requests an Opposition Supply day, or a half Supply day, during which the Labour party and its leader could clarify the policy, will the Leader of the House facilitate that request?
Mr. Newton: I would be tempted to do so, were such an unlikely request to be made. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the postponement of a debate last week, there is the prospect of a further debate on Northern Ireland matters before too long.
On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I was not present throughout Northern Ireland questions, but I gather that there were extensive exchanges on the matter to which he refers. I was in the Chamber during Prime Minister's questions, when the most conspicuous exchange on the subject amounted to the Leader of the Opposition deciding to leave Northern Ireland aside.
Mr. James Pawsey: My right hon. Friend announced a debate on education next week. Could he advise me whether it is in order to make reference during the course of that debate to the activities of the All Souls Group and the impartiality of civil servants? May I draw his attention also to early-day motion 2239 which specifically refers to that group?
[That this House notes with concern the existence of the All Souls Group, whose members are, and have been, consistently hostile to the Government's educational reforms; notes that a number of senior officials and former officials of the Department for Education and other government departments are members of the All Souls Group; and urges the Cabinet Secretary to investigate the aims, nature and membership of this group to establish whether its activities are consistent with the political independence of civil servants.]
Mr. Newton: I am a little short of being persuaded of the need for an inquiry into the group. I understand that the group has existed with the participation of civil servants for about 50 years, and is a discussion group on educational matters. I am advised that the group takes no position and produces neither reports nor minutes. If my hon. Friend wishes to dispute those propositions, I am sure that he will be in touch with me in other ways.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could the House have a debate on the Government's policy on pay, during which they could explain why they are interfering in public sector pay and limiting people—for example, members of the fire service—to 1·5 per cent. wage increases? At the same time, the Government do nothing about other public
1114
services, such as the privatised water authorities. Recent pay increases in the Yorkshire water authority have taken the salary of Sir Gordon Jones to over £150,000. If Sir Gordon and all the other board parasites were to go home, it would not affect the functioning and operation of Yorkshire Water. Time should be found to debate the greed, prejudice and self-interest of those pillars of Tory policy.
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I cannot undertake to provide time for the debate that he wishes to have. I will merely observe that the Government's approach to public sector pay has been an important ingredient in the policies that are now manifestly producing economic recovery.
Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Disabled Persons (Services) Bill is on the Order Paper for tomorrow. Support for independent living is a basic principle of Conservative philosophy. This measure would not entail an additional penny of Treasury expenditure but would offer better value for existing expenditure. The passage of the Bill would be very extensively welcomed by disabled people and by local government. Given that the Bill has all-party support and has been approved in another place, will the Government give it a fair wind to enable it to complete its legislative passage?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's interest in these matters is well known and much respected. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has several times set out the Government's approach. We very much share the aim of ending discrimination against disabled people, but see many practical problems in the approach contained in the Bill. We believe that the right approach is a programme of education and persuasion, backed up by more specifically targeted legislation.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In view of the recently adopted, although slightly imperfect, concept of openness within the Council of Ministers, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week about the meeting to be held tomorrow in Brussels about aspects of structural funds allocation within the Community? I understand that the Minister for Industry will deputise for the President of the Board of Trade, who will be absent through illness. Does the Minister appreciate how important those negotiations are for areas such as the highlands and islands and Merseyside, which are seeking objective I, and other areas seeking objective 5(b)?
Mr. Newton: A few years ago, I had a brief experience of such matters as a Minister with responsibilities for regional affairs and the structural funds, and I appreciate their importance. I cannot undertake to arrange a specific statement at a specific time, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will keep the House informed in the most appropriate way.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week about animal welfare? That would enable the House to discuss the latest report of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which shows that cruelty is increasing at an

1115
alarming rate. We in this country think that we are kind to animals, but we are not. A lot of people should be barred from owning them.
Mr. Newton: The House respects my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in animal welfare. Were I to respond favourably to every request that he makes, however, we would probably have a debate on animal welfare once a week. I cannot give him the promise he seeks, but I will bear his request in mind.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible to have another debate, in Government time, on party financing, given the widespread public concern that the Conservative party is in receipt of stolen money and, in another case, money from a very dubious source? Is it not important in a democracy for political parties to make it clear where their money comes from, although I can understand the reluctance of the Conservative party to do so? Can we have a debate as quickly as possible, before the summer recess, because it is a very important subject that should be debated yet again, in view of the latest details to emerge?
Mr. Newton: A small opportunity might arise, curiously, during the debate on the estimates next Thursday, when we shall debate, among other things, the action taken by my right hon. Friend to help the Maxwell pensioners. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues will tell the House that the Labour party is returning the Maxwell money to help the Maxwell pensioners.
Mr. Barry Field: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French and German Governments have slashed their social security payments to such an extent that they are now way below the generous benefits that we pay?
During business questions, my right hon. Friend referred to an EC document on immigration, which we are to debate next week. May we have a full debate on the subject, especially in view of the fact that the French and Germans have considerably tightened their immigration regulations and in view of the very real fear in this country, especially among the elderly, that there will be economic migration within the EC and into this country by people who wish to take advantage of the very generous benefits structure here?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, who clearly has considerable support from other hon. Friends, will of course know that the House has recently approved new measures on asylum to prevent abuse of our system. My hon. Friend mentioned France. According to reports in yesterday's newspapers, Germany too is taking action to restrain the growth of its social security budget, which it believes cannot be afforded and which could undermine the system as a whole.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Leader of the House take a look behind him and note that the score this afternoon is approximately men 30, women one? Does he realise that many viewers watching Parliament on television believe that it is high time that all political parties took in hand the gross under-representation of women in Parliament?
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that all political parties—I think I am right in saying that—have in recent years been concerned to do all that they reasonably can to increase the number of women in Parliament. The issue that was raised earlier was in reference to a particular proposal which has, I understand, been considered by the parliamentary Labour party, but which I think few women would regard as a sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the Local Government Commission and, in particular, on the need for it to restore historic county boundaries? Is he aware that there is a popular demand for Bolton to be moved from the redundant Greater Manchester council and included in Lancashire where it belongs?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate on that matter, but I welcome the opportunity to stand here as a sort of public conduit for the comments of hon. Members from various parts of the country, which Sir John Banham will no doubt carefully note.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Leader of the House recall that it was 10 years ago yesterday that I was fortunate enough to come second in the private Members' ballot, and that he was the Minister who opposed my Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people? Does he also recall that he said that education and persuasion were the only ways to deal with some people's disgraceful attitude towards the disabled?
As that policy has failed, may we have a statement next week on the Government's attitude to discrimination against disabled people, which will give them an opportunity to review the whole issue?
Mr. Newton: On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, as a Minister at the Department of Social Security, will be answering questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity to raise the matter with him.
As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I well recall that I was the Minister with responsibility for disabled people on that occasion. I also recall the arguments. I dispute the suggestion that substantial progress has not been made in the intervening 10 years in advancing the cause of disabled people and removing discrimination against them—and, indeed, in greatly improving the benefits available to them, an issue with which I have been very much involved.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a further debate on standards in public life, and will he use my early-day motion 2197 as the basis for such a debate?
[That this House calls upon the Leader of the Opposition to issue an order to his staff not to interfere with the investigations being carried out by the media into the scandal of nepotism and corruption on Monklands District Council; regrets that Mr. Murray Elder, Chief of Staff in the Leader of the Opposition's office, should offer a constituent in Airdrie employment with Labour-controlled Edinburgh Council, paid for out of the public purse, on condition that the constituent would keep quiet and not record his

1117
complaint on television; and furthermore believes that Mr. Murray Elder should be dismissed for engaging in an attempt at a Watergate-style cover up.]
Would not such a debate give us the opportunity to disclose more information about the two telephone calls made from the Leader of the Opposition's private office in order to effect a cover-up of Labour's growing scandal on Monklands district council?
Mr. Newton: That is one of a number of matters on which we daily await comment either from the right hon. and learned Leader of the Opposition or, on some occasions such as this afternoon, from the right hon. Lady who is the deputy Leader, but we simply go on waiting. Perhaps we can raise our hopes in the light of my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the future of the civil service, because of the Government's avowed intention to reduce it from 500,000 to 10,000? Does he not agree that the British civil service is still a unique institution, the least politicised and the least corrupt in the world? Once it has been undermined, market-tested, privatised, contractorised and effectively destroyed, it can never be rebuilt.
Mr. Newton: I do not know on what the hon. Gentleman rests all that. The changes that have been made—for example, in the creation of executive agencies—are widely seen by many civil servants as offering new opportunities for doing exactly what civil servants want to do, which is to deliver efficiently and effectively a first-class service to the public.
Mr. James Hill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that we all want the Olympics to come to Manchester. That raises the problems, on which I hope he can find time for a debate, of ticket touting, the printing of false tickets and even of someone going to the extent of taking one person to Wimbledon for £50,000.
This is growing into an industry to which the law is no deterrent, and it is time that it was thoroughly examined. Not only do these people not pay tax, but they put the money into their pockets, they are not part of working society, and none of the money is used for the improvement of our state system. We must crack down on such people before the Olympics come to Manchester.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's view is widely shared, and I shall draw his representations to the attention of my right hon. Friends. My hon. Friend mentions the Manchester bid. I had the good fortune to be present at the reception given earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for members of the International Olympic Committee to try to advance that bid further. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the Manchester Olympics bid flag is flying in Downing street.
Mr. Edward Gamier: Despite the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), will the Leader of the House find time this month for a debate to highlight the need for a bypass around the village of Theddingworth in my constituency? That village is on the A427 from Market Harborough to Lutterworth.
1118
The villagers and residents in and around the village are fed up with lorries going through their garden walls, the vibration of heavy traffic and the filth and dirt that is associated with it. There is a tremendous need for a bypass, which is recognised by everybody except the Liberal-Labour county council. May we have a debate on that at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am sure that he will carry not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North but all hon. Members with the thought that the House would enhance its reputation by staying on an extra day to debate that bypass.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study early-day motion 1874 in my name, entitled "Croatian Army Atrocities"?
[That this House recognises the horrific consequences of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and condems the perpetration of massacres against civilians by all sides whether they be Serb, Croat or Muslim; is appalled by most recent reports of Croatian Army atrocities against Muslim civilians in Jablenica, Vitez, Jelinak, Armici, Zenica and many surrounding villages which have been witnessed by officers and men of the Cheshire Regiment and calls on Croat authorities to end, forthwith, attacks against local civilians; calls for all regular Croatian Army troops to withdraw from Bosnia-Herzegovina; and simultaneously urges Her Majesty's Government to discusss, with other Members of the Security Council, an appropriate response by the international community.]
So far, it has received the support of 98 right hon. and hon. Members. In view of today's disturbing news of threats by the Croatian army against the United Nations battalion in Mostar and the decision to withdraw that battalion, will he consider making time available next week to discusss sanctions against the Republic of Croatia?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot promise to find time for that debate as things stand at present. I think that all hon. Members will understand why my hon. Friend has thought it right to raise that matter. He knows that the whole House shares his condemnation of the continued fighting and the atrocities being committed in Bosnia.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Given Britain's changing and volatile military commitments overseas, will my right hon. Friend try to find time to debate the importance of ending the plans to merge the Gordon Highlanders with the Queen's Own Highlanders and, at a stroke, find a cost-effective solution to the constraints of Army manpower and ensure a future for two of the finest regiments of the British Army?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that we are expecting shortly the publication of further defence estimates. That will be followed in due course by a further debate, although I cannot promise that it will be before the summer recess. I cannot promise a separate debate in quite the terms my hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the proposals by the BBC to have a reunion for all those who were involved in the great train robbery? The minimum cost of air flights is about £1,000, or £4,000 first class, and heaven knows

1119
what hotel accommodation during the filming would cost. My surgeries are constantly visited by senior citizens who find it difficult to meet the cost of the licence fee. They will see it as a totally outrageous waste of money.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend well knows that the BBC is independent of Government. It has been a long-standing principle that Ministers do not intervene in matters of programming policy. However, I understand that the BBC's own guidelines for factual programme makers stipulate that criminals should not profit from their crimes, and that would normally preclude the payment of fees or expenses for programmes dealing specifically with crimes for which people have been convicted.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What date has the Leader of the House pencilled in for our next foray into party political contributions? On that matter, has he ever discussed with any member of the Cabinet the £1 million contribution of Mr. Botnar to the Conservative party?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect me to start talking about conversations I had with other members of the Cabinet across the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House. The first part of his question was a bit uncharitable, in view of the trouble I took to arrange the debate on Members' interests for which he had been pressing me for so long. The first part of his question was just about the ultimate triumph of hope over expectation.

Student Unions
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I would like to make a statement about the reform of student unions.
As the House knows, we have sharply expanded the number of students in higher education and established a new framework for the sector. We have also established a new further education sector, with a record increase in student numbers. We recently issued our draft charters for further and higher education for consultation. The charters will promote informed choice and a high standard of service in further and higher education. Our student union reforms will similarly reinforce choice.
The Government have already abolished the closed shop in the trade union sector. Our reforms will apply the voluntary principle to student unions throughout Great Britain. We will give students the power to choose for themselves what collective involvement they want. I believe that the whole House will support me in emphasising the voluntary principle for students. Students should have the right to opt in, to decide for themselves.
At the same time, we believe that the taxpayer should not be expected to support, through campus unions, activities which are unaccountable, whether financially or democratically, or which represent essentially political activities on campus. We must protect individual students and their clubs and associations from victimisation.
I therefore propose to bring forward legislation to implement a three-part reform of student unions. First, I plan to limit the purposes for which universities and colleges can pass money received from public sources to their campus unions. All students will retain access, if they wish, to a core of essential campus services, and universities and colleges will be able to support them through their campus unions with public funds if they wish, although they may provide those services directly themselves and not through campus unions. All other campus union activities will be placed on an opt-in, voluntary subscription basis.
Secondly, my general policy will be that the approach which I have outlined will avoid public funds being used for affiliations to organisations such as the National Union of Students or other campaigning organisations. If campus unions wish to affiliate to any such organisations, the fees should be paid from private sources.
Thirdly, student unions should be more accountable and fully representative. We shall therefore provide for institutions to develop and implement codes of practice governing the conduct and behaviour of their campus unions.
In preparing the proposals we have taken careful account of universities' and colleges' concerns about essential student services, and. we shall continue to do so. I am minded to identify welfare, catering, sport, and representation of student interests within the institution as core services for which student unions may receive public funding. I intend to ensure that the core services are accessible to all students.
For other activities, it will be up to students to decide what collective involvement they want. Our intention is not to impede students' activities, but to limit the purposes for which student unions can spend public money.

1121
Through the institutions' codes of practice, I aim to ensure that campus unions follow democratic practices, and to prevent political bias in their allocation of resources. If individual students, or individual student societies, consider that they are being discriminated against or unfairly treated by their campus union, they should be able to seek redress. The codes of practice will therefore provide for a person outside the institution to whom individual students and societies can appeal.
For both core services and codes of practice, my intention is that universities' and colleges' decisions should be based on prior consultations with their students, and fully publicised thereafter, in line with charter principles.
Universities and colleges will be able to retain any savings from reductions in their support for campus unions and will be able to redeploy them for the benefit of students, whether collectively or as individuals. The reforms will not in any way affect the level of public funding available for students.
The new powers that I have described will be exercisable in parallel by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to consult on similar reforms. In this way we shall be able to allow appropriate variations to suit local circumstances.
The proposals follow an extended period of consultation with students, universities and colleges. We shall begin further discussions shortly with the universities and colleges, and with student representatives. I am issuing today two consultation notes, for response by 1 October, on the detailed implementation of our policy for the core services and the coverage of codes of practice. I shall be looking to all parties to implement the reforms constructively. Those consultation papers, and a factual note setting out the proposals, are being placed in the Vote Office today.
The Government recognise that students are vital to the future well-being of this country. They should be encouraged to exercise their own choices and their own judgments. The reforms that I have outlined today will ensure that they can do so. On that basis, I hope that the proposals will be widely welcomed by the House.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Well, well, is that not typical of the Government? They prattle on for two to three years about a change of policy. The Secretary of State made a Tory party conference rant last October. Now, on 1 July, the Government make a statement to the House which will affect 1 million students in higher education and 2·5 million students in further education, and ask for comment by 1 October. It is contemptible. Every time the Government seek to consult on education matters, they do so during the summer. It is just not good enough. All student unions would benefit from a clarification of their legal status—there can be no argument about that—and operational procedures, but smashing up the wide range of services that they provide is not the way to go about it.
The Government's survey showed that less than 2 per cent. of total student union incomes were spent on political activities and that 70 per cent. of student unions spent less than 0·5 per cent. of their income on such activities. The Secretary of State is now seeking to waste parliamentary
1122
and ministerial time on the matter. How many university vice-chancellors and college principals have complained to the Government about the operation of student unions? The Department's own report made it clear and confirmed in 1989 that many student unions are charitable bodies. Why cannot we make sure that all student unions are charitable bodies and subject to charitable law? What is wrong with the NUS proposal for a register of student unions, to operate in the same way as the certification officer for trade unions?
At a time of financial restraint coupled with expansion, what is being done to ensure that student unions in smaller higher education colleges and in the further education sector are able to provide services of equal value to those of student unions in larger colleges? Why have not the Government followed the Opposition's request for the National Audit Office to prepare a report on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which student unions use public funds? The NAO is Parliament's watchdog for the spending of public money, so why have we not used our own watchdog to produce a report, to allow the Public Accounts Committee to investigate, inquire and report back to the House?
If student unions can propose a conscience clause for individuals opting out, why is that not good enough for the Government? A student union clause for opting out of a local student union is not good enough for Ministers. If student unions can propose secret ballots under independent scrutiny by the Electoral Reform Society, why is this not acceptable to the Government? For many years, the NUS has had no individual members, and is converting itself to charitable status.
Does the Secretary of State's statement and proposals protect the ability of the NUS to provide, for example, bulk purchasing arrangements for the stocking of student union shops so that they can avoid being ripped off by spiv suppliers and can provide economy and value for money for students?
The NUS has asked for ballots on affiliation every three years. Not every student union is affiliated to the NUS. What is wrong with ballots on affiliation every three years? If the NUS is so unrepresentative, why do Ministers bother to consult it? Why do they bother to consult a body that they claim is so unrepresentative?
Mr. Bob Dunn: Quite.
Mr. Rooker: We have heard now from a former Minister at the Department for Education that clearly he does not want to go even that far.
From my experience as a governor of a college of further education for more than 20 years before I became a Member of the House, I know that student unions are the most appropriate and effective means by which student views can be taken into account. The Secretary of State's short statement allows for no effective consultation in July, August and September, and that is unacceptable. I want answers this afternoon to my questions to the Government so that there can be meaningful consultation during a period when, as with the House, colleges and universities will, in the main, be in recess.
Some student unions have campaigned, for example, for wider access for students—only to be told by admission tutors that such campaigns mean unwarranted social engineering. Does that count as political campaigning by

1123
students? We must know the margins of the areas into which the Government are seeking to corral student unions.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals admits that in terms of cost-effectiveness alone but also efficiency, welfare, information, advice and counselling, sports, and support for academic, religious, cultural, artistic and—yes—political and religious groups is best conducted by students unions. If that committee does not see a problem and is not complaining to the Government, calling in the police or cutting off funds, why are the Government taking that upon themselves?
Sheffield student union organises help for 26 local campaigns, such as Crisis at Christmas. Is it political to provide breakfast in the cathedral? It may be nasty party politics to Tory Ministers, but it is what Jesus Christ would have done. That activity is funded by the surplus from the student union's trading activities—activities that are buttressed and supported by about 15 per cent. of its total funds being public funds. It spends the rest of those funds on programmes for women's safety and facilities for international students. Will they be cut by the Government's proposals?
Will student unions that run late-night minibus services and that provide safe transport for women's groups be restricted? The student union in my constituency runs unicare, in co-operation with the police. It is funded by the Home Office and deals with crime and safety. Will universities be prevented from running operations such as that?
Having looked at the cost-effectiveness and the crumbling state of our education funding, Manchester university students union has concluded that it wishes to campaign not for a loan system, but for a graduate tax. Is that political? Will it be prevented from putting its case for a decent funding system for higher education? Will it be corralled by this?
Many of the examples that Conservative Back Benchers will use when I sit down—for convenience I have distributed the brief from which they come to my hon. Friends—relate to activities as far back as 1989. Many others relate to activities around late 1991 and early 1992 when my party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party were campaigning to encourage students to get on the correct electoral register and to ensure that they were registered for the correct proxy and postal votes. Yes, we did target students, as did the Tory party; we make no apology for that. The Government forced students to deregister because of the poll tax, so it was crucial to ensure that they did not lose the right to vote.
I recently visited a university that has been successful. It had provided a safe haven for students and students had been taking food to Bosnia. The vice president, who had been so active in the student union, had just accepted a commission in the Army and the president had just been positively vetted for a job at GCHQ—the Government communications headquarters. That is an example of the student unions in the 1990s. They are professional, employ professional staff and provide professional services.
Why on earth are Ministers seeking to waste parliamentary and ministerial time with this contemptible system of consultation, which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be meaningful? Student unions are spending
1124
their time trying to keep students alive and well fed because of the stress that they are under. It is an absolute disgrace that this statement has been made today.
Mr. Patten: What the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said puts the capital R into the word "rant". We have probably seen a parliamentary record since the response to the statement was longer than the statement itself. It is one for the "Guinness Book of Records".
The hon. Member for Perry Barr has misinterpreted entirely the fundamental principles underlying the reforms—the freedom of association and the freedom of choice for individuals. It is the sort of thing to which the European convention on human rights correctly refers. It is totally wrong, as a matter of high principle, for people to be forced to join an organisation that they do not wish to join and, through that membership, to be forced to accede to campaigns of which they do not approve.
The statement was short and the consultation period is long. We have a three-month period for consultation, until 1 October, and many of the hon. Gentleman's questions are referred to and answered in the two consultation papers that are in the Vote Office this afternoon.
I welcome one thing—only one thing—that the hon. Gentleman said, and that is his welcome for the fact that we need better codes of practice and greater accountability within our student unions. The hon. Gentleman represents part of a university city, as I do, and we all know that periods of student unrest, demonstrations and troubles on campuses come and go rather like the cycle of spots on the surface of the sun. We must be prepared at any stage for the problems that can arise if there is inadequate supervision of what goes on in student unions.
The hon. Gentleman referred to proposals for opting out, put forward by the NUS and others. Opting out, with a conscience clause, denies those students access to services which should be theirs, as of right, on campus.
The Government's proposals this afternoon protect a core set of services to which all students have access, whether those services are provided through a campus union or directly by the universities themselves. There may be market testing. That is something that we may wish to encourage. Opting out denies access. There is a clear division between what people should reasonably expect institutions to provide and what they should reasonably expect to pay for out of their own pocket.
That leads me to two specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Perry Barr at the end of his lengthy set of questions. I have always believed that charitable work should be funded from the pockets of individuals and should not be funded through taxpayers' contributions.
Although the hon. Gentleman did not name the university to which he referred in his second question, those services provided by some campuses and some student unions—for example, the provision of late-night buses for women and similar services—are well within the core services as set out in the consultation paper.
I shall return to the point with which I began. I believe that it is right that universities, whether through campus unions or direct services, should provide the core of essential services—welfare, student representation, sport and catering—but I do not believe that outside that core it is right that, in a late 20th century democracy, uniquely in this country, young people should be forced, without any redress, to join an organisation.
Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend speaks rightly about high principle. Does he believe in the principle of university autonomy, and does he think that his proposals are consistent with that principle?
Mr. Patten: Yes. I know that my hon. Friend speaks with authority as a former Minister with responsibility for higher education. I see no interference whatever with university independence and autonomy. We are setting out proposals so that, in future, there cannot and shall not be flows of public funds towards organisations that are involved in political campaigning, whatever its nature.
Mr. Don Foster: Today's statement is nothing more than a well-gnawed bone thrown to appease the Secretary of State's Back Benchers who are disillusioned by the failure of his other education reforms.
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how the proposals will improve services to students? How will the proposals raise quality in further and higher education? How does he believe that those proposals will restore his tarnished image? If he is concerned about the alleged misuse of public funds, he would do better to look closer to home at the £35 million that he has wasted on this year's key stage testing.
Mr. Patten: The improvement for students in higher and further education is contained in the consultation charters that are out at the moment, to which we are expecting responses from universities, further education colleges and students themselves. In the first instance, that is where we will see a greater improvement in services available to students. It is critical that the consumer voice has as loud a hearing as the producer voice.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the political activities of the National Union of Students have damaged the image of students throughout the country? His statement today will be welcomed by thousands of students of no party and even by some in the Labour party.
Mr. Patten: The National Union of Students and any other student body of whatever political or non-political sort have a perfect right in a free society to associate together and to campaign, but they cannot and should not be funded by the taxpayer. That is totally wrong in a free society.
I shall repeat to my right hon. Friend what I said earlier. It is totally wrong that anyone, in a free society, should be forced, without redress, to join any organisation whatever.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Secretary of State has criticised the National Union of Students for funding its political activities out of public money. Is it not the case that people who live in glasshouses should not get undressed with the light on? Was it not just last week that the officials' Box was packed with civil servants when we debated political funding? So it is, to put it mildly, two-faced to talk about that.
Secondly, how can the Secretary of State possibly distinguish between what is political and what is of benefit to students? Is it okay to give them Ovaltine for tea, but not for them to campaign against drugs? Where will he draw the line? It is quite impossible.
1126
Furthermore, just as students go down, the Secretary of State provides a consultation which has to be answered before they go up again.
Mr. Patten: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to study carefully the proposals in the two consultation papers which are in the Vote Office this afternoon. I also recommend the hon. Gentleman, whose views on education I respect, to reflect very carefully on the way in which public money is used in education. It cannot be right for public money to be used for campaigning for political activities. There have been enough complaints in recent years about activities in the universities of Lancaster and Bradford and in other universities. It cannot be right that those funds should not be isolated quite clearly from the core of public funds which go, equally quite rightly, to funding services which students have a right to expect.
Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be widely welcomed, because it treats students as adults? A period of 12 weeks in which to make a response to a statement which has been signalled for years is quite reasonable. I commend him for what he says within the statement. Students will be reassured by what he has said about care and welfare services. Will he also take on board the fact that we on this side of the House are reassured by what he has said about public accountability and responsibility?
Mr. Patten: This is a very carefully balanced package, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. I believe that public accountability is critical and that it is right that there are proper codes for the election of officers in student unions in campuses in the 800 different higher and further education institutions. I also believe it absolutely right that students or individual organisations who feel disaffected by their treatment, or discriminated against, should have the right to seek redress from someone who comes from outside those institutions—in other words, an ombudsman for individuals or organisations. That is the proposal.
Mr. Greg Pope: I know that the Secretary of State is more interested in ideology than in common sense, but perhaps he would address himself to the practical problem of splitting political activities from the core functions. It might be quite difficult to prevent political activities from creeping into even the core functions that he has defined to the House this afternoon.
For example, a disabled students society might wish to campaign for better access in an academic institution. Is that political? Also, individual student unions have lobbied the Government very successfully over the Railways Bill and privatisation about keeping the students and young persons rail card. Clearly, that is a political activity in that it relates to a Bill that is going through the House. Yet the Secretary of State says that student unions will continue to have representational activities. Is that not political? What safeguards can he give to ensure that students unions will be able to do that?
Is it not a fact that, in the end, the right hon. Gentleman is appealing to his own Back Benchers and their neanderthal right-wing instincts rather than providing students with decent services?
Mr. Patten: There is nothing wrong with individual students campaigning, if that is what they wish to do, and providing the funds for campaigning organisations. There is everything wrong, I believe, with political campaigning

1127
being funded by taxpayers. The hon. Gentleman will find set out very clearly in one of the two consultation notes in the Vote Office descriptions of the way in which these differences can be drawn.
Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the fire and slaughter that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) poured on his statement this afternoon would suggest that my right hon. Friend was leading the student world into the world of the gulags? In fact, the reverse is true: he is leading the student world into a dimension of freedom, which is entirely appropriate. In the university culture, voluntarism is the principle of freedom, and my right hon. Friend is to be warmly congratulated on this reform and especially on combining with it the continuation of the fundamental welfare benefits for all students. He has pulled off a remarkable double that can only benefit the student world.
Mr. Patten: I am glad that my right hon. Friend thinks that we have the balance right and that the principles underlying the balancing act that we have announced are strongly founded.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State understand that his statement will be given a particular welcome by Northern Ireland students at the two universities in the Province? Does he further understand that the situation in Northern Ireland is worse than that elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because not only do our own students attend those universities but a large percentage come from the Republic of Ireland—more than 2,000—whose fees are paid by the British taxpayer? Does he realise that those students from the Republic influence the control of the student unions in both universities, which do not reflect the opinions of Northern Ireland students? Does he understand, therefore, that we in Northern Ireland particularly welcome the idea of voluntary opting into student unions and hope that it will apply equally throughout the United Kingdom and not only Great Britain?
Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman will probably have heard me say towards the end of my statement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will consult separately on arrangements in Northern Ireland. My statement referred to Great Britain. I will certainly draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the right hon. Gentleman's feelings and to the strength of those feelings.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing proposals that are based on the fundamental right of the freedom of association. Will he confirm that the objectives behind his proposals are to extend freedom of choice to students, to ensure the continuation of the services that are currently provided, to ensure that students have access to those services arid to stop student unions from doing and saying some extraordinary and extreme things in the name of all students—be it supporting a gay wedding at Lancaster university, supporting extremist organisations or victimising Conservative societies? This is a long overdue but extremely welcome reform.
Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's warm welcome and answer, yes, yes, yes and yes to each of his questions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is not it particularly sad and pathetic to see an Education Minister reduced to pushing around students because he is having so little success in pushing around teachers? Does not the Secretary of State understand that any attempt to curry favour with the neanderthal tendencies in the Tory party will crumble to dust like the rest of his initiatives? Does he understand that, as he is no longer responsible for university funding in Scotland, many of us find it slightly surprising that no Scottish Minister is present to listen to this latest folly?
Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is issuing his own strong support for the proposals this afternoon.
Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. Friend spoke of choice. Is he aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is disturbed that it will have less choice in the nature and quality of student officeholders with which it has to deal because the likelihood is that the sort of students who will have the most incentive to opt in will be those who hold politically extreme views? It is right for my right hon. Friend to seek greater accountability, but will he hesitate before proceeding with some of the reforms, as Sir Keith Joseph did in 1983?
Mr. Patten: I hope that students who are actively interested in student welfare, from whatever part of the political spectrum they come, will involve themselves. I hope that the measures that I have announced this afternoon, should they be approved by Parliament, will to a great extent depoliticise much of the activity of past years on too many campuses.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that one of the choices facing an increasing number of students, particularly in London, relates to whether they can afford to finish their courses in view of the particular problems that the capital presents, with high rents and very spread campuses which entail much travelling? Is he also aware that if a union is based solely on volunteers, those very valuable welfare services from which many students, and particularly mature students, have derived great benefit when attempting to balance those harsh economic choices will be diminished?
Mr. Patten: We are conducting a review into student hardship at the moment and I fully appreciate what the hon. Lady says about the difficulties of students in high-cost housing areas, be they London, Oxford or other areas on the south coast. However, the hon. Lady should appreciate that, in 1993–94, the combined value of the grant and loan is 40 per cent. higher than it was in 1989–90. There is no evidence whatsoever that access to higher education is being inhibited.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the long-overdue end of the neanderthal system whereby students could be forced to join a union and taxpayers' money could be used for totally irresponsible political campaigning. Will my right hon. Friend assure the vast majority of sensible and moderate students that, by these measures, student unions will not in any way be hindered from carrying out their legitimate activities and, instead, will be made more accountable, more democratic and more effective?
Mr. Patten: The word "neanderthal" seems to be flying around the Chamber a lot this afternoon. I can give my hon. Friend exactly the assurance for which he asks. The result of the reforms will be that there will be such codes of practice in the 800 higher and further education institutions in this country so that they will be, to borrow my hon. Friend's words, more accountable and better governed, the auditing procedures will be better and individual students and organisations will have rights of redress to those outside the institutions to rule whether their rights, individually or corporately, have been inhibited.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many observers outside the House will recognise the proposals for what they are—the culmination of a very nasty and vindictive attack on the National Union of Students. If affiliation fees are to be paid in future from private sources, will the Secretary of State tell the House where those private sources are to come from when he has managed to reduce so many students to a state of total and abject poverty?
Mr. Patten: It is surely up to individual students to decide whether to make a contribution from their own pockets to political parties and political campaigning or, indeed, to charitable activities. I have always thought that the basis for charitable activity is giving from one's own pocket, not recycling taxpayers' funds.
Mr. Bob Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that I fully support the statement that he has made today because it is based on voluntary membership and not coercion. However, can he go a little further and explain to the House what, if any, public funding will be used by students and by student union organisations? There is great concern among my constituents and among many people in the country that taxpayers' money has been used for political purposes in the past and may be used for such purposes in the future.
Mr. Patten: There will be a rigid accounting division under the proposals set out in the consultation paper. That will prevent any crossflows of funds between moneys which have been provided by the taxpayer for proper services—and I believe that this will be welcomed by students and parents alike—and money which is being spent on political and other campaigning.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Secretary of State take note of the fact that students, the parents of students and ex-students throughout the country will note that this is the first Government to be so authoritarian that they cannot tolerate students behaving like students?
If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about public accountability, why does he not pay more attention to the fact that the decisions of public companies, in respect of their contributions to the Tory party, affect the whole of Britain? The Government's excessive concern over student unions is grossly disproportionate. They should be announcing today that there will be rigid accounting procedures to examine those contributions to the Tory party. Will not people in Britain think that the proposals announced today are laughably disproportionate?
Mr. Patten: Company law is to look after company expenditure and company accounts. We are considering
1130
the question of making sure that taxpayers' funds are properly accounted for and are not used for improper political or other campaigning purposes.
Sir George Gardiner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for many years, countless students have been calling for the adult freedom that he is now offering them and that, equally for many years, countless taxpayers have been unable to fathom why they should indirectly be required to subsidise political campaigning? In proceeding with the legislation, will my right hon. Friend keep open the doors of consultation not just with students' unions but with students' associations which, for many years, have been pressing for this long-overdue reform?
Mr. Patten: Of course I will do exactly that. I give my hon. Friend that reassurance. My hon. Friend referred to students being treated as adults. One of the remarkable things about the 1980s is the way in which the Government made it possible for many more adults to enter further and higher education, and they themselves have their own clear views about some student union activities.
Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that, for many of us who have been students and members of students' unions in our day, it is as much part and parcel of college and university life to be part of a student union as it is to be part of a library and a students' facility? Instead of encouraging people to opt out, we should be encouraging more people to opt into their responsibilities. Students' unions are organisations in which people can cut their teeth and do much good for local communities as well as for their universities and colleges. In Liverpool university, John Moores university and Liverpool institute of higher education there are many fine examples of student unions providing for the student body and for the people who live in the areas around them.
Mr. Patten: It is a very good thing that students should involve themselves in the community around John Moores university and so on and that they should involve themselves not only with money but with their own time in helping other people in the community. However, the proposals that I have put before the House ensure that the core of services that students, be they those who have just left school or adults, can reasonably expect when they go to university or further education institutions are available. What is disbarred is the expenditure of taxpayers' funds on political campaigning. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
Mr. Gerald Malone: When my right hon. Friend considers the codes of practice that he has referred to, will he try to ensure that student bodies have an obligation to uphold freedom of speech on campuses rather than destroy it, as many of them have done? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the outrageous scenes that we have seen in the London School of Economics and at Lancaster university, where political meetings were disrupted, were stopped, especially when such occasions are usually moderate? I remember such a meeting that was addressed by our right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford.
Mr. Patten: Our right hon. and noble Friend knows how to look after himself on such occasions. Not only my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was

1131
recently treated with grave discourtesy in a London institution. My hon. Friend puts his finger on the matter. It must be right that speakers can visit universities and colleges of further education and be guaranteed a fair and reasonable hearing. There are provisions in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 for that to happen. It is very much part of the consultation process that the codes of practice which emerge will ensure that in future such disgraceful scenes are militated against as much as possible.
Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State might be interested to know that, in my Opposition education role, I have visited almost all Scottish universities in the past year. On no occasion did a vice-chancellor or a university staff member remotely complain about student bodies. Their main concerns are quality in education, increased student numbers and the "pile 'em high, teach 'em cheap" philosophy of the Government. Given that the situation in Scotland is unique in that there is harmony and uniformity of purpose between students and university administrators, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that those unique and special circumstances in Scotland will bear fruit when he discusses them with university vice-chancellors?
Mr. Patten: Of course, discussions will take place, through the consultation mechanism, between vice-chancellors of Scottish universities and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I entirely agree that we want an improved quality of service for students and that the student voice should be heard more. So also should the employers' voice be heard, and that is why we recently published for consultation draft charters for further and higher education. I am pleased to say that the response thus far has been very positive indeed.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that student unions and the National Union of Students to which they have been affiliated have been brought low by constitutions which have been unsatisfactory and undemocratic? For example, at the former Ealing college of further and higher education a quorum of only 50 was required out of a total of 8,000 or 9,000 students. That enabled a small group of students to take enormous decisions in the name of everybody else and to spend everybody else's money, which of course was taxpayers' money. Is not that where it all went wrong? Will future student bodies be charities, properly accountable to charity commissioners? Will core services be run by students or by universities for students?
Mr. Patten: Core services can be run either in whole or in part by the universities, by further education colleges or by student unions on an agency basis on behalf of the
1132
universities or further education colleges to which substantial sums of money flow. It is critical that elections to campus unions take place by secret ballot, and it is critical that there be a minimum number of people voting to ensure that sabbatical officers and others are properly elected. That is why we are proposing that there should be a quorum of at least 33 per cent., and that is set out in the consultation document.
Mr. Gary Waller: I too regretted the rant that we heard from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), because it tended to undermine some hon. Members' genuine and reasonable concerns and reservations about some aspects of the proposals. Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that, in recent times, the NUS has gone a long way in cleaning up its act, that it has applied for charitable status which would preclude involvement in political activities, and that most of its work is involved in student welfare issues? Will he assure the House that, during the consultation period, he will listen very closely to concerns which are expressed to him so that the legislation that emerges is for the benefit of all students?
Mr. Patten: Of course I will do that, and of course I welcome any efforts on behalf of the National Union of Students to clean up its act, to borrow my hon. Friend's phrase. It is applying for charitable status. That is a matter not for me but for the charity commissioners. However, it is also the duty of the Government to ensure that in future, should there be a resurgence of the activities that have occurred in the past in the National Union of Students, there is a clear legislative framework to prevent such activities from happening again and being funded by the taxpayer. That is why we are making the basic and fundamental change that I propose.

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:

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1933.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1993.

Osteopaths Act 1993.

Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

London Underground (Jubilee) Act 1993.

Dawat-e-Hadiyah Act 1993.

Orders of the Day

  Law and Order
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  4.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I very much welcome this opportunity for a debate on law and order. Five weeks ago today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited me to become Home Secretary. It is an office which I feel deeply privileged to hold. It is an office which confers the capacity to touch the life of every citizen in our country. The first duty of any Government is to maintain law and order. I want to do all that I can do to fulfil that duty. It is an immense responsibility. There is much to be done.
  The day after I took office, I met the Lord Chief Justice. I went on to see representatives from all parts of the system, the courts, prison and probation service as well, of course, as the police. Within my first few working days, I visited New Scotland Yard where I saw the excellent work that the Commissioner was doing to launch Operation Bumblebee across London. I saw for myself in Croydon how the work would be taken forward in a busy police station. I have been out with police officers on patrol in Brixton. I was also able to attend a meeting of the police community liaison group there. These encounters gave me the opportunity to listen to the concerns of those at the sharp end of the fight against crime and to their views about how we as a Government should respond to those concerns. As long as I remain Home Secretary, I intend to continue to listen and to take whatever action is necessary to deal effectively with crime.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I know that many people will appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's vigorous programme of getting out to meet people, listening to what they have to say about their concerns, and responding to them. Will he please take the earliest opportunity to visit Warwickshire and address himself to the question of trespass and new age travellers? As he knows, there have been four utterly scandalous episodes in my constituency. Because of deficiencies in the existing law, the authorities do not have power to take the necessary action to deal promptly with these abuses. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please ensure rapid and energetic Government action to remedy the situation?
  Mr. Howard: I am aware of the concern about the activities to which my hon. Friend refers. These are to be found not only in Warwickshire. We have already published consultation documents setting out proposals to deal with such matters. I am re-examining those proposals to ensure that they go far enough and that there is nothing further that we should include in the package that I intend to bring forward as soon as time permits.
  What I have heard so far has reinforced much of what I already knew. People feel that they are faced with a seemingly relentless rise in crime. It is true that, this year, recorded crime may be rising less quickly than in some recent years; it is true that it may have risen virtually year in, year out, in all the decades since the war; it is true that it may be rising across the advanced industralised world.
  1134
  These may be the facts, but we should take little comfort from them. Above all, they offer nothing to the thousands of people up and down this country whose lives are disturbed, and sometimes ruined, by crime.
  One of the worst aspects of the remorseless rise in crime is that people start to accept it as inevitable. They feel a sense of helplessness, a belief that nothing can be done about crime. I do not believe that it has to be that way, and, as Home Secretary, I have two very simple and straightforward goals. First, I want to help to create an atmosphere in which it is criminals who are frightened—and not members of the public. Secondly, I want to make local communities feel that we can act together to do something about crime. We will do that by taking a long-term approach to crime, by attacking it from every quarter.
  We have to recognise where crime begins. I do not mean that we should listen to woolly-headed theories that society is at fault and criminals are not to blame. Of course not—we can leave that nonsense to others. I mean that we should recognise that we must do more to teach children the difference between right and wrong. We must teach the importance of accepting responsibility for our own actions and of considering the consequences for others. If we do not do so, the services for which I, as Home Secretary, am responsible—police, prisons and probation—will simply be left to pick up the pieces. And picking up the pieces is no substitute for getting things right in the first place.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that people up and down the land are increasingly concerned about the very high proportion of dwelling house burglaries and crimes of violence committed by offenders who are very young indeed? Will he accept that the Government's decision to provide more secure training places will be widely welcomed? We must crack down hard on juveniles who are convicted of serious crimes.
  Mr. Howard: I understand the concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's question, and I accept entirely the point that he has made. As he knows, we intend to take action to deal with that problem.
  Sir Anthony Grant: While we are thinking about the question of juvenile crime, there is a matter to which I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to address his mind. I am told that one of the ways in which young people get launched into crime is through school truancy. People involved in education in my constituency tell me that the existing law is quite inadequate to enable them to deal with the problem. Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Education, look very carefully into the law on this matter? Once young people think that they can get away with absenting themselves from school, they are on the path to crime.
  Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has raised an important question which goes right to the heart of the matter. It chimes in exactly with what I have been saying about the influence that can be exerted on children in schools and about the importance of taking the right steps at a very early stage.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Home Secretary may be aware of the fact that, last Friday, people burst into a public house in my constituency and sprayed machine-gun

  1135
  bullets round the premises. Machine-guns have been used in the constituency on at least two occasions—once in a street and once in a pub. On Tuesday, the body of a young man who had been tortured and then murdered was found. It is highly probable that all these incidents are related to the high level of drugs activity in the constituency.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) made a point about young people. It is with real sincerity and real feelings that I refer to the great importance that the Home Secretary must attach to the link between crime and drugs in areas such as mine. If he is not prepared to look properly into the underlying issues—I refer, for instance, to the massive profits involved in drugs—and take consistent action, he will merely repeat the folly of previous Home Secretaries, who, having said that they intended to deal with the problem, simply allowed the violence to continue to increase.
  Mr. Howard: I agree that we must look very carefully at the relationship between drugs and serious criminal offences. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that one piece of legislation that we brought before the House in recent years, which has resulted in increased sentences for drugs offences, was opposed by his party. Perhaps he ought to consider which way he voted on that occasion.
  There is no point in politicians or newspapers or anybody else calling for a return to old-fashioned morality and respect for authority if we do not know how it is going to be achieved. It must start at home, and it must also be taught in our schools and by all who work with and care for children and young people. Above all, it must be taught by example. That must be our goal. But however successful we may be in achieving it, the results will be long-term. Meanwhile, we have a duty to do everything we can to tackle crime. The police know this only too well. They meet this challenge bravely and well. As a society, we depend upon them to do so. We must never take them for granted. I will never take them for granted.
  We face a formidable agenda for change for the police service. On Monday, I published my proposals for reorganising the police to establish the foundation for the service into the next century. Yesterday, the Sheehy inquiry published its conclusions on police pay and responsibilities. We are consulting on revised police disciplinary arrangements. We expect the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice to be published very soon. That, too, will have implications for the police and for the way they go about their work.
  The police have been striving to do what we ask of them within a 30-year-old system. It cannot be right that chief officers do not have the freedom to manage, to decide whether to spend money on more manpower or more equipment to enable their forces to perform more effectively. It cannot be right that there is no mechanism for properly rewarding the most outstanding officers. Nor can we be confident that the current legislative framework or the way the criminal justice system operates helps the police to do their job well, rather than frustrating their efforts on our behalf.
  The proposals set out in our White Paper earlier this week are intended to make it easier for the police to concentrate their efforts on tackling crime in ways that reinforce the mutual reliance of police and public.
  Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I have been asked by the farmers in the
  1136
  Dover, Deal and Folkestone area to congratulate him on his appointment, express their full support for him on this issue and say that they are concerned that we should have adequate policing in country villages, backed up by tough trespass laws and tougher sentencing?
  Mr. Howard: I have already expressed my view on the need for tough trespass laws. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of rural crime, which has been overlooked much too often in the past.
  As I take forward these changes to lay the foundation for all members of the police force to give their best, they can be sure that I will listen to and act on their concerns. I am particularly determined that our police officers should have the necessary protection from the dangers that they face on our behalf day and night.
  I will always be ready to listen to positive proposals on action that we can take to reduce the risk of attack or protect the police from injury. That is why I recently announced that we will test the new expandable side-handled baton. If it protects police officers, particularly women police officers, from attack, they will have it. I have also given the go-ahead for trials of three other types of baton in the Metropolitan police.
  Above all, we need a total strategy for dealing with crime. I believe it should have four main strands. First, we must do all that we can to prevent crime; secondly, we must do all that we can to help the police to catch criminals; thirdly, we must ensure that when criminals have been caught, they are tried fairly and speedily; fourthly, we must ensure that, if they are convicted, the courts have all the powers that they need to deal with them appropriately and effectively.
  The first strand in our approach is crime prevention. We have already done a great deal to develop crime prevention thinking and practice. We have established the safer cities programme and will build on its success by creating up to 40 new projects. Those new projects will aim to engage all the skills and resources of local communities. I have a good deal of sympathy with those who regard crime statistics with deep scepticism. But such statistics afford a basis for comparison. In the first nine months of security improvements on a housing estate by the Bradford safer cities project, there was a 31 per cent. drop in domestic burglary. In Salford, there was an 80 per cent. fall in domestic burglary in 1,000 homes where security improvements, property marking and crime prevention advice were given.
  Of course, still more needs to be done not only in our inner cities but in rural areas, such as that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). which are suffering increasingly from the attention of highly mobile criminals.
  Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly mentioned the problem of crime in the inner cities. One of the reasons why Conservative Members are so delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) promoted to Minister of State in the Home Office is his agricultural knowledge. There is a tremendous problem in the countryside with rustling, stealing farm equipment from farm land and the horrible epidemic of attacks on horses in the south of England. I hope that my hon. Friend

  1137
  will bring his knowledge of agriculture to the Home Office, which will be most useful to those of us who represent agricultural communities.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will bring his experience of the countryside and agricultural matters to bear on those problems.
  There is a view in some quarters that property crime is not so serious. I believe that that approach is wholly wrong. Burglary is one of the most appalling crimes. To me, it is a crime of violence. It destroys people's sense of security in their own homes. That is why our crime prevention work emphasises the precautions that individuals can take to make the lives of burglars harder. That is why I fully endorse the Metropolitan Commissioner's priority for anti-burglary work through Operation Bumblebee. Operation Bumblebee grew out of a dialogue between the Metropolitan police and the public, who made it clear that burglary was among their prime concerns. I saw that dialogue first hand when I visited Brixton.
  Of course, dialogue of itself does not crack crime—action does. As the White Paper on the police emphasises, tackling crime cannot be left only to the police. There needs to be help from the public. The concept of partnership between the public and the police is central to our approach. It is the second strand that I mentioned a moment ago. People must play their part, acting as the eyes and ears of the police, passing information to them and responding to their calls for help. People must also be prepared to give evidence in court.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give sympathetic consideration to the point about the disclosure of witnesses to the defence? In the specialist area of organised crime, especially drug-related crime, there is a growing feeling that witnesses are afraid—with good reason—to come forward and give evidence.
  Mr. Howard: I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are trying to make the whole process of giving evidence a less traumatic experience. We will certainly continue to encourage the police to provide protection where it is needed for witnesses who are vulnerable to intimidation.
  One obvious way in which people can help is for them to become involved in neighbourhood watch. There are now more than 115,000 of these schemes, covering more than 5 million households. Neighbourhood watch provides a means by which the whole community can become involved in the fight against crime. We shall shortly launch a manual to assist people who want to set up and run these schemes. We are funding pilot work on introducing similar schemes in high crime areas. All too often in those areas, people who face the greatest problems do not have enough support in their own community.
  Joining the special constabulary offers the most active way of supporting the police. The name is apt: those volunteers do indeed make a special contribution to maintaining law and order. There are now 19,000 special constables in England and Wales. I want to see that
  1138
  number increased to 30,000. I will soon be launching a new campaign to raise the national profile of the special constabulary and support recruitment.
  If the police are to work effectively, and the public are to be motivated to work with them, we must all have confidence in the effectiveness of the criminal justice process. That is the third strand of our approach. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have crucial roles in bringing offenders to court. They must collect and present the evidence that satisfies the burden of proof and enables the guilty to be convicted. If that is not done well, the system as a whole cannot command confidence.
  I want to be satisfied that everything that can be done is being done to bring to justice those who break the law. I am determined to make sure that the criminal justice process works effectively as well as efficiently. It must become less of a game of cat and mouse between prosecution and defence and much more of a way of establishing guilt or innocence.
  The Royal Commission on criminal justice was set up to see whether we can do better in meeting those twin objectives while improving efficiency. In acting on its report, I shall be looking for recommendations which will make real improvements. I want speedier justice. I want a greater sense of common purpose towards producing the right results. I want to see confidence restored.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I entirely endorse exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying and some of the measures that he is introducing to improve law and order in the United Kingdom. Does he accept that, too often, the police can bring criminals to court, but, unfortunately, the courts, especially with regard to persistent juvenile offenders, do not have suitable punishments available to them?
  Too many young people, as in the case in Macclesfield that I raised with my right hon. and learned Friend at Question Time last week, are released into the community, cocking a snook at the community and the police in the process, and continue to carry out their offences. What is he prepared to do to give the courts the opportunity to punish those people appropriately?
  With regard to car theft in the countryside, my National Farmers Union is furious that Land-Rovers are being pinched by the score and the police do not have either the manpower or the ability to do anything about it.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will know that we are taking measures to ensure that the courts have extra powers to deal with persistent young offenders in the way in which he would want them to be dealt with. We hope to take that matter forward in the next Session.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. and learned Friend has instanced how more must be done in our schools to educate young people about the difference between right and wrong. In his response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir. A. Grant), he stated that attention must be given to the problem of truancy. Does he accept that no sanction is available to school teachers in schools today and that, while many school teachers never used the cane when it was available in schools, it was always regarded as a deterrent? Our society believes in deterrents, both in defence and in more prosaic matters such as drinking and driving. Is not it right to have a deterrent in schools?
  Mr. Howard: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but he will know that there are many practical difficulties in meeting that point. The matter has come before the House previously.
  The fourth strand of our approach, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just raised, is to ensure that the courts have all the powers that they need to deal with offenders appropriately and effectively. That is the Government's duty and I take it seriously.
  I know how strongly people feel about the restoration of capital punishment. I read the recent speech made in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). I understand why he spoke as he did. I understand the rage that people feel when they hear or read about awful crimes. I share those feelings. I set out my position in an article published in March 1991 in the wake of the case of the Birmingham Six. I should like to repeat my position, so the House may know where I stand.
  Until 1991, I voted consistently for the return of capital punishment for the murder of police or prison officers, or for murder committed with firearms or explosives. I thought the deterrent effect would be greatest on those categories. I justified that position on the basis that a wide-ranging appeal process in capital cases would effectively eliminate the risk of a miscarriage of justice. Precisely such a procedure was adopted in the case of the Birmingham Six, and failed to identify any irregularities. It failed to do the job that I thought it would, a job which I thought was essential if capital punishment were to be restored. That led me to re-examine my position and to inform my constituents about it more than two year; ago.
  Few people would argue that it is impossible to deal with offenders effectively without capital punishment. Only the courts can decide what the appropriate sentence is in an individual case. If the courts decide that, in an individual case, the punishment required by justice, fairness and the protection of society is a custodial sentence, the Government's duty is to provide the prison capacity to make it possible for such a sentence to be passed and served.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: There is a fast ball coming up. If my right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the Runciman royal commission proposals on the appeal system will deal adequately with the problem that he has identified, will he be prepared to reconsider his decision not to support capital punishment?
  Mr. Howard: The answer that I give to my hon. and learned Friend, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, is that I do not see how it is possible to have a more wide-ranging appeal process than that which I previously favoured and which was used in the case to which I have referred. That is why I came to the conclusion that I did. If I had thought that something in the appeal process in that case had led to my conclusion, that would not have caused me to change my mind on capital punishment, as I did in 1991.
  I do not believe that society can put up with a growing, if small, hard core of offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. That is particularly the case, as we have been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, when the crimes are perpetrated by young people who have the potential to carry on offending for years to come. Their habit of offending must
  1140
  be broken, and society must be given a break from them. While they are in secure conditions, they must be made to confront their offending behaviour. They must be supervised closely when they return to the community. I attach the highest priority to dealing with that problem, and I shall soon bring before the House the legislation necessary to set up secure training centres. Juveniles who persist in anti-social behaviour must be made to fear being caught and dealt with effectively and severely.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I must get on. Many of my hon. Friends want to speak in the debate. The longer that I take, the less time there will be available for them.
  I believe profoundly that attitudes in this country towards crime and criminals are changing. More and more people see combating crime as the biggest challenge that faces us. They recognise increasingly that we must all get involved in the campaign. We are witnessing a sea change in the mood of the country on the matter. People are coming increasingly to appreciate not only that something must be done, but that they can do something. I want to make full use of what they can do. I want to channel the public's energy in a constructive way to build a new, stronger and more effective alliance against crime.
  The change of mood has been noticed even by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). On Monday, he called for a crusade against crime and said that the Opposition would lead it. A crusade against crime? Without the powers that the Public Order Act 1986 gave the police to deal with street thugs and hooligans? A crusade against crime? Without the extra penalties for drug trafficking that were contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988? Without the powers of the Attorney-General to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal? Without the increased sentences for violent and sexual offences that were contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991? Without the powers of the prevention of terrorism Act?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We start with order in the Chamber, and strange gestures from the Opposition Front Bench do not make order in my book.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Sedgefield was not parachuted into his current responsibilities from the moon. Like me, he has been a Member of Parliament for 10 years. In that period, I have voted for all the legislation that introduced the measures that make it possible to wage a crusade against crime. The hon. Gentleman voted against them. I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman simply does not realise what an utterly ridiculous figure he cuts when he calls for a crusade against crime.
  The Conservative party and the Government take seriously the need to address the concerns of people throughout Britain about rising crime and lawlessness. That is not, as is the case with the hon. Member for Sedgefield, because we see the subject as the flavour of the month. We agree fundamentally with their instincts, principles and feelings about what needs to be done. We are putting our principles into action by raising penalties for drunken drivers who kill, cracking down on bail bandits and dealing severely and effectively with juvenile offenders.

  1141
  Last weekend, I had reason for the first time to use the powers conferred on me by the prevention of terrorism Act. It was a heavy responsibility. But I knew that in using those powers, I was taking action that could help in the apprehension and conviction of those who use the bomb and the bullet to terrorise our society. If the hon. Member for Sedgefield had been Home Secretary last weekend, he would not have had those powers to exercise. He would have been helpless, and his helplessness would have been entirely self-imposed.
  The people of Britain are fed up with helplessness. They do not want a helpless Home Secretary. They want strong and sustained action, and, so long as I have the privilege to hold this office, that is exactly what I shall do my very best to provide.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I thought for about the first half hour of the Home Secretary's speech that we had an entirely new right hon. and learned Gentleman. He was constructive. He made some good points. There was a great deal with which I agreed. But just at the point when we thought that he had been reformed, he suddenly destroyed himself and became recidivist. He went back into his unappealing and unedifying rant about the Labour party.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spent most of the time since he became Home Secretary attacking me. I take every attack as a compliment. I am delighted when he attacks me, because it shows how desperate the Conservative party is about the issue of law and order. In the past few months—I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not Home Secretary then—the Opposition pointed to the reform of the Criminal Justice Bill but the then Home Secretary supported it.
  The Opposition raised the issue of juvenile offending when the previous Home Secretary told us that the problem was "happily declining". The Opposition are now campaigning on the breakdown of the criminal justice system. The Home Secretary gave no impression that he understood that breakdown. The breakdown means that fewer cases are coming to court, more prosecutions are being dropped than ever before, and longer court delays are occurring. But crime is rising faster than ever before.
  This week, the Opposition tabled amendments on crime prevention and the treatment of victims, some of which even found support on the Conservative Benches. Yet the Whips organised to defeat those amendments. So, if we are to have a tit-for-tat argument about law and order, the Conservative party does not emerge well.
  I can do no better than quote the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister said with uncharacteristic candour in the Los Angeles Times:
  "We have been here for 14 years. There is no one else one can blame for anything that has gone wrong."
  Simply trading blame is not constructive in a debate on law and order. We should begin by understanding the scale of the problem that we now confront in Britain.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: In his new-found zest for law and order, will the hon. Gentleman support the order which will shortly be introduced in the House to
  1142
  ensure that persistent young offenders who commit crime time and time again can have detention orders served against them?
  Mr. Blair: I shall deal with that point later, in detail. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition first raised the issue of persistent juvenile offending. Of course it is right that the problem should be dealt with and that the courts should have the powers to do so. Our disagreement with the Government is that, instead of waiting two years to build new training centres, which I believe are a mistake for reasons which I shall be happy to adumbrate later, the Government should build on the local authority secure accommodation that is already available.
  The Government should fulfil the promise that they gave two years ago to make that secure accommodation available. That is our position, and if the hon. Gentleman reflects on it, he will see that it is rather better thought out than the position that the Government have adopted.
  Crime has risen dramatically in the past 10 or 12 years. It has more than doubled. Robberies have more than quadrupled. We have about 5·5 million recorded offences. The true crime rate is infinitely greater.
  Several Conservative Members pointed up the problems of rural crime during the Home Secretary's speech. The Prime Minister referred to the issue a few months ago, when he complained that crime was an inner-city phenomenon which was all the fault of socialist Labour councils. But crime has been rising in every part of Britain. There is rural crime just as much as there is crime in our inner cities, as anyone who represents a rural constituency knows.
  My constituency consists of old mining villages and several new towns. They are small communities. Even 15 or 20 years ago, they were not scarred by the level of crime that they face today. The problem of crime is nationwide. If we believe that it is simply confined to the inner city, we are wrong.
  It is not merely the recorded level of crime to which people object. They object to the hassle, the abuse, the petty vandalism and the destruction of decent standards of community life in a hundred ways which never show up in Government statistics but which have a devastating impact on the quality of life of our constituents.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman wants us to take his party seriously, but how can we? Only about eight or nine Labour Members have been present so far for the debate, while three times as many Conservative Members have been present. The Labour party manifesto had more to say on art and leisure than on law and order. Will the hon. Gentleman give a straight yes or no to the question whether he will support the Conservative party in its proposals for secure training centres?
  Mr. Blair: I have made my position clear on that point. I have stated the point of agreement and the point of disagreement.
  What I find curious about this great day of law and order is that, before the debate, some pretty meaningless statement on student unions was scheduled, which delayed the beginning of the debate. That is an odd sense of priorities on the part of the Government business managers.

  1143
  If the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) can be a little more constructive, I was talking about the problems that people face and the impact on the quality of life of our constituents. For example, the elderly lady living in a council flat is afraid to open the door. Women cannot use public transport at night for fear of attack. Young people go out to enjoy a perfectly law-abiding, peaceful evening and find themselves embroiled in an attack. Black and Asian families are terrorised in certain parts of our inner cities, even in their own homes.
  I believe, and I think that the Home Secretary shares my belief, that a society that tolerates such behaviour is a sick society, and that it is time to cure the sickness in our midst. The Opposition have never said that burglary was merely a crime of property, and therefore nothing to worry about. The problem of crime is not merely about crimes of violence. It is the persistent burglaries and car thefts. Car thefts have increased dramatically—doubled or tripled—in many parts of our country.
  The problem with the Government's strategy is simply this. First, they do nothing. Then, as public anxiety rises, they talk tough, which is easy. But they still do nothing. Finally, they act, but they do so in a piecemeal and haphazard way, which never properly gets to grips with the problem. Juvenile offending is a perfect example. There is no doubt that a small element of young people are either outside or beyond parental control and have the capacity, young as they are, to make life hell for many people in local communities, and to take up inordinate police time.
  We raised the issue of juvenile offending for months, but the Government delayed. They then talked tough. They are now prepared to act. I ask the Home Secretary at least to approach the matter with an open mind.
  To set up entirely new borstal training centres—that is what they are—and revisit the old institutions is simply to repeat the mistake of previous wasted experiments. Yet we could act now by fulfilling the promise that the Government made, building on the secure accommodation that is already available in local authorities and combining that with sensible measures to divert young people from irresponsible behaviour.
  Perhaps the Home Secretary will confirm, if he wishes to intervene, that the 60 or so secure training places promised more than two years ago have still not been created, and that there is still no undertaking from the Government that they will meet the revenue costs of building the centres.
  A good example of the way in which the Government simply attempt to pass responsibility occurred the other day with the problems in Sutton and Cheam.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman talks about passing responsibility. Will he confirm that the essential difference between our proposals and his proposals for dealing with persistent young offenders is that the Government believe that the courts should have the ability to pass a custodial sentence? Under his proposals, all that the courts could do is make a care order. It would be for the local authorities to decide how the young offender should be dealt with.
  Mr. Blair: The answer to that question is no: that is not the difference between us. We accept that there are circumstances in which the courts lack the proper power, but it is true to say, as I shall show by reference to the case
  1144
  in Sutton, that the problem is not always a lack of powers. It is often a lack of secure accommodation and the facilities that local authorities want.
  Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman took up the post of Home Secretary, there was a discussion in some of the newspapers about secure accommodation. The Conservative newspapers were running hard the idea that many local authorities refused as a matter of policy ever to put young people in secure accommodation. When we investigated the stories, we found that many local authorities, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), asked the Government for the funding to deal with the lack of secure accommodation. The Government had refused to provide the funding.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative group on Leicestershire council has consistently voted for secure accommodation to be introduced under the present system, but that the Labour and Liberal groups have consistently voted against that proposal?
  Mr. Blair: I understand that that is not the case. I cannot comment directly on that particular example, but I believe that that was another case in which, on investigation, the facts were different from those reported.
  Recent events in Sutton have been reported in the newspapers. Hon. Members will remember that a so-called posse of troublemakers have been roaming around causing many difficulties in the local community. We took the time and trouble to do a little further investigation into that case.
  We discovered that the social services had not refused to use secure accommodation, but that, in some instances, the courts said that the criteria under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 were too narrow to allow that accommodation to be used. In other cases, the secure accommodation was simply not available. I was told that in one instance, which was also mentioned in the papers, social services had to fly a 13-year-old to Scotland, and back, to be held in secure accommodation because there was none available any nearer.
  The idea that all those problems can be dumped at the door of local authorities or social services is foolish. That is what I mean by saying that it is necessary to combine existing measures relating to secure accommodation with other measures to deal with all the problems associated with juvenile delinquency.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are two types of secure accommodation? The first is that required to accommodate juveniles who would otherwise go to prison. In that respect, the Secretary of State for Health has made the necessary provisions. The other type is the more general secure accommodation required for juveniles. The provision of that accommodation is subject to difficulties and shortages.
  Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw that distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will deal with that issue when he replies on behalf of the Opposition. I am not sure, however, whether the first type of secure accommodation is always available.

  1145
  The Home Secretary has talked hard language, which is always the stock in trade of Conservative Home Secretaries. In the 1979 manifesto, the Conservatives promised:
  "we will restore the rule of law."
  At the 1982 Conservative party conference, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, said:
  "The time for a counter-attack is long overdue."
  When the present Foreign Secretary was Home Secretary, he said:
  "It is time to bring the victim back to centre stage."
  Successive Conservative Home Secretaries have made the same pledge.
  The recurring problem with the way in which the Conservative party has handled the issue is that it refuses to accept that we cannot reduce crime in this country unless we escape from the idea that one chooses between punishment and prevention; between dealing with criminals and tackling the underlying causes of crime.
  I know that the Home Secretary uses the word "prevention", but he does so in too limited a sense. Any serious policy on crime must deal with both prevention and punishment. One can see why when one considers the attrition rates—the number of crimes that are cleared up. When I took on the responsibility of shadow Home Secretary, I was startled by those statistics. Just one in 50 crimes ever leads to a conviction, and one in 33 to a caution or a conviction. Two in three crimes are never even recorded.
  Once we take on board the significance of those statistics, we then understand that a policy that does not deal with prevention and underlying causes of crime, as well as simply criminal justice, is an incomplete one. That policy is bound to fail. I want to illustrate that by reference to one specific topic, drugs, which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). It is fundamental to the war against crime, and it is being savagely neglected.
  The use of drugs in this country has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Seizures of heroin and cocaine have virtually trebled. The number of offenders in respect of all types of drugs has also risen dramatically. We may now have better means of registering addicts than in the past, but even making allowances for that, the number of addicts has also risen greatly.
  The latest estimate reveals that the market for illegal drugs is worth about £3 billion. The most recent reports also suggest that, with the increasing number of open frontiers in Europe, more and more drugs will enter our country.
  What is more worrying than anything else, however, is the rise in drug abuse among young people. The percentage change in convictions of persons found guilty of being in possession of controlled drugs is horrific. Since 1988, the number of persons under the age of 17 who have been found guilty of possession has risen by 269 per cent. Between the ages of 17 and 21, the conviction rate has increased by 113 per cent. Those are horrific statistics.
  Earlier this week, on the very day that the Home Secretary published his White Paper on policing, another extremely important document, which has achieved virtually no publicity, as is often the case, was issued by the Home Office. It is entitled, "Drug Education in Schools: the Need for New Impetus". It is a report by the Advisory
  1146
  Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It is ironic that it was published on the same day as the White Paper, because the many changes proposed in that White Paper in relation to the Home Secretary's ability to nominate the chairman of police authorities are pretty irrelevant to the fight against crime. The drug education document is, however, deeply relevant to the fight against crime, but it was virtually ignored.
  That Government document reveals that, in the north-west of England, it is estimated that 60 per cent. of 14 to 15-year-olds have been offered drugs, and that a third of them have tried drugs. In the 15 to 16-year-old age group, 60 per cent. have tried drugs. Those figures are horrific. In Wales, one in four of 15-year-olds have tried drugs. In Mid Glamorgan, a survey of 13 to 18-year-olds revealed that 10 per cent. had used drugs in the week before being questioned. In Strathclyde, one in four of those aged 12 to 16 years had tried illegal drugs at least once.
  The document also revealed that, in 1991, those in the 17-to-21 age group accounted for 85 per cent. of the increase in the number of drug offences. Around 150 young people die every year as a result of substance abuse.
  We know that the use of pills such as ecstasy is increasing greatly. They are freely available in many parts of the country, and there is no doubt that their use is linked to crime.
  Mr. Howard: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the increasing prevalance of drug use and its clear link with crime. Does he not agree that one of the ways in which effective action can be taken is by increasing the sentences on drug traffickers? Why did he and his party vote against the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which introduced heavier sentences for those traffickers? Does that not illustrate the yawning gulf between what he has said today and the action that he and his party have taken in the past 10 years or more?
  Mr. Blair: A Bill is going through Parliament now that will increase the penalties for drug trafficking. It has commanded the full and 100 per cent. support of the Opposition. I cannot comment in detail on the debates of 1988, but I am almost certain that the issue of heavier sentences for drug traffickers was not part of our opposition to the 1988 Act.
  I agree that we need strong penalties for drug traffickers, but putting legislation through Parliament to do just that is the easy part. The hard part is settling down to ensuring that we prevent drug abuse, increasing drug education and ensure that young people are not being drawn into a life of drugs and then crime.
  Last week, I was in Castlemilk in Glasgow, and visited several people involved in drugs projects. In that part of the inner city, there are whole families whose life is geared to crime. The generations of a family can be virtually dependent on drugs and, of course, commit crimes in order to feed their habit. Drug addicts are three times more likely to have criminal convictions than virtually any other part of the population.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that, unlike the Home Secretary, he pays considerable attention to the link between drugs and crime. In areas such as mine, the police estimate that 70 per cent. of crime is drug-related, which is a staggering statistic in its own right.

  1147
  The Home Secretary might want to talk tough on sentencing—I am not adverse to tough sentences for those involved in drug trafficking—but he must understand the point that my hon. Friend has just made: if we do not have the necessary education and health programmes, and if we do not have a strategy to deal with drugs across the board—something that the Government have never had—we shall lose not the war on drugs, which is a silly phrase, but a generation.
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right, and makes his point very well. A few days ago, the Association of Chief Police Officers gave a presentation at a drugs conference. It was stated that the drug culture in some inner cities may end in guns, but that it often starts with a much lower level of criminal offences.
  The Home Office publication to which I referred reveals not only the size and urgency of the problem but the utter inadequacy of the Government's response. It states:
  "Prevention is always better than cure, but a deteriorating drug situation must give urgency to a review of what policies can be put in place to strengthen prevention."
  It concludes:
  "Half-hearted efforts can offer no prospect of success and the inevitably poor outcome will reinforce pessimistic expectations… What is needed to back our recommendations is a commitment to making high quality…drug education a tangible reality on a national scale."
  It is also pointed out that the Government are currently withdrawing funding for the health education advisers whose job it is to go into schools and youth services to advise young people about the problems of drugs. As the Government are withdrawing the funding, local authorities canot afford to continue such services, and many will be left without any service whatsoever.
  In addition, under the community care provisions, the money for drug abuse projects and residential drug care is no longer ring-fenced, although the Government promised that it would be. As a result, residential projects are closing all over the country. A recent survey of 48 residential drug and alcohol projects revealed that they would all suffer severe cuts, all in the cause of saving money. However, we are not saving money; we are storing up problems for the future in such a way that, in the end, we pay a much heavier price.
  Yes, there are enormous problems in our criminal justice system, which has become incompetent to deal with the country's problems, but, because of a perverted sense of ideology, the Government are denying the need to tackle some of the basic underlying causes.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has hit on an important point. I share his concern about the closure of residential drugs centres, such as the Priory unit in my constituency. Trendy, liberal do-gooders seem to think that all people can be dealt with in the community, but those of us who have studied the matter for a long time believe that that is fundamentally wrong.
  On this issue, the hon. Gentleman has my 100 per cent. support; and I say it in front of my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that the closure of residential drug and alcohol centres will be stopped, because their work is exceptional and they achieve far greater success than can be achieved by dealing with people in the community.
  Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman has made his point well, and I hope that it is taken into account.
  1148
  In the few minutes remaining, I shall say why I think the Government are wrong. They pose—
  Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not oppose that part of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which dealt with drug trafficking. I remind him of one of the parts which he voted against and which his party bitterly opposed, which was the part that gave the prosecution the right to seek a review of over-lenient sentences. That measure has been widely welcomed, and the public believe that it has enabled justice to be done in many cases. Does the hon. Gentleman support the prosecution's right to appeal against over-lenient sentences—yes or no?
  Mr. Blair: As I have made clear, I support it. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has been of great assistance in ensuring that bail legislation has been passed which, had the Government's business managers had their way in another place, might have failed.
  I was saying why I believe that the Government are wrong, although it is possible to change their position. In the debate on law and order, a wholly false dilemma is posed between personal and social responsibility. The Home Secretary uses language that implies that, if one talks about social conditions, one is excusing crime. That is the essential message that he and many others of his political persuasion give.
  The time has come to move beyond that. No one of a sensible persuasion excuses crime, but nor does one ignore the conditions in which crime can breed. The House need not take my word for that. In his 1991 annual report, the former Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, said:
  "The crime map fits all too closely over the map of disadvantage."
  He later said:
  "The continuing growth in crime is a fundamental concern which, in part, I attribute to the marginalisation of some elements in our society. The notion that there is a link between crime and social deprivation is a compelling one".
  Similar points have been made by Sir John Woodcock, the Inspector of Constabulary, and even the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor began to accept the idea.
  In a statement on youth crime, the deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner said:
  "Physical security measures need to be supplemented by actions addressing the social, economic and physical conditions in which youngsters grow up".
  The sensible approach deals with both sides of the problem. Speaking to police officers across the country, I found that they understand that very well. They have no desire to be put in the position of having to keep the lid on the dustbin of society's problems. In many parts of the country, they believe that that is what they are doing.
  To say that we must have tough measures to deal with those who commit crimes is in no way inconsistent with saying that we also have to deal with some of the underlying problems. To use the Home Secretary's language, to say that in drawing attention to this we are blurring the distinction betwen right and wrong is so misguided that if we do not rid ourselves of our blindness about this problem, we shall never tackle it properly.
  The nature of what is right and wrong does not change. The problem that we face is not in defining right and wrong but in ensuring that the distinction is adhered to. The purpose of connecting improvements in education,

  1149
  employmentz55
  , housing and family life with reductions in crime is not to blur the distinction between right and wrong but to give it a realistic prospect of success.
  The understanding of right and wrong does not arise by instinct alone but from what is taught in the home, at school and in the community, and by what is seen and set by example. Any sensible person should see that. I hope that, in the coming months, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find areas of agreement in which we can construct an agenda to give the people of this country a real opportunity to reduce crime and once again to make our cities, towns and villages safer for people to live in.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. David Mellor: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend, first, on achieving the high office of Home Secretary and, secondly, on the manner in which he addressed the House this afternoon. He has been in action since the very first morning of his appointment, but he made an extremely impressive debut in the House in a major debate. It was all the better because his firmness and resolve had no element of instant solutions or easy answers. He set out a sensible strategy for the future, building on both the successes and the disappointments of the past.
  I spent more than five years as a Home Office Minister and I am afraid that one does not have to be in the departmental building very long before one discovers the reality of many of the nostrums that are commonly waved at Conservative party conferences or in public bars. One of the tragedies of my right hon. and learned Friend's job as Home Secretary is that every public bar has a great "Home Secretary" who waves his arms and deals with all the complex problems of crime with a few verbal haymakers. Of course, matters do not work out like that.
  I hope that my comments about my right hon. and learned Friend's responsibilities will be helpful. I shall try not to aggravate him as I have done from time to time in the past. My association with my right hon. and learned Friend extends over almost a quarter of a century. Long before he necessarily believed it, I profoundly believed that he would one day occupy one of the great offices of state and it gives me great joy to see him in his present job.
  When my right hon. and learned Friend was a well-established member of the chambers in which I was a pupil, he sat at an imposing desk and I sat at a rather smaller round table that had been left in our chambers by that most benevolent of socialists, Lord Lever. On one occasion, I so aggravated my right hon. and learned Friend that he fell from his chair, knocked over his desk and upset a cup of coffee over himself. I shall try not to aggravate him quite as much in my speech. No doubt the process of maturation means that he will not be quite so susceptible to such stimuli anyway.
  I was a Home Office Minister at the time of the Roskill report and, under the superintendence of the then Home Secretary, introduced to the House the measure that set up the Serious Fraud Office. It was right to do that because nothing could be worse in setting the values for society than that the poor man is run in for a bit of pick-pocketing while the rich man in the City gets away with millions
  1150
  through sophisticated fraud. However, it is idle to pretend that the techniques that are effective against the petty criminal will be effective against serious fraud.
  The Roskill committee proposed far more radical solutions than the Government are rightly prepared to contemplate. Roskill wanted to change court room arrangements and jury arrangements. There is a paradox here because, by its nature, serious fraud is enormously sophisticated, but people devoid of business experience, let alone experience of how financial systems can be misapplied, sit in judgment on it. Roskill was right to raise that issue and, literally and metaphorically, the jury is still out on that one.
  The Serious Fraud Office was set up so that the investigation of serious fraud could be pursued by all the specialist groups that were needed to make an effective contribution to identifying and clearing up such crimes. That requires not just the police but accountants and lawyers who are brought in not just at the end of the process but are continually involved.
  It was not easy to persuade the House that the Serious Fraud Office should have the right to investigate financial crimes and require answers to questions, because the right to silence—with which some people disagree—has been a fundamental entitlement of our citizens for many centuries. It was thought that the nature of fraud and the need to unravel some of its complex mysteries made it appropriate for the powers of the SFO to include the power to require answers.
  It should be no surprise to any of those who are currently involved in the Serious Fraud Office that, as Parliament has entrusted them with that special power, it is more incumbent on them than on any other officers involved in law enforcement manifestly to conduct their affairs with integrity.
  I do not know the rights and wrongs of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said about the Asil Nadir case. I have here a document that has been thrust into my hands—perhaps other hon. Members have also seen it. It is the filleted, although I hope not too heavily filleted, correspondence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General with my hon. Friend. No doubt further mysteries will be explained when there is a chance to read through it. It is clear that if confidence is to be maintained in the Serious Fraud Office, ready answers to what my hon. Friend said and to the other points that have been made must be put before us quickly.
  I do not associate myself with suggestions that we need some great public inquiry, because that would only undermine the body that we now need more than ever, but it is clear that some causes for concern go beyond anything that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. I hold no brief for Mr. Kevin Maxwell, know nothing of him and probably do not wish to. When he was arrested at 6 o'clock in the morning, why were many press men mysteriously around the house? No one can tell me that that was a coincidence; those press men were tipped off.
  There seems to be an idea that the Serious Fraud Office is not guilty of every charge that is levelled against it. That includes a ludicrous episode of forgery as an April fool joke. I have a sense of humour—I have had to have—but I find that a little puzzling. It is puzzling that it happened but even more puzzling that, apparently, there was no disciplinary action against the person concerned.

  1151
  It would be helpful if those points were answered and, although they are not my right hon. and learned Friend's responsibility, they do pertain to law and order. If there have been errors, let them be clearly stated. They must not be allowed to fester and it must not appear that people are being unduly defensive. There should be a review, with a small r, of the manner in which the SFO operates, why some cases have ended in the way that they have and why it sometimes appears that the complexities of fraud cases are made even more complex by a mass of charges which mean that a case takes years to come on, years to dispose of, costs millions and does not have a satisfactory outcome.
  I pay tribute to the fact that there is a 65 per cent. clear-up rate, according to Mr. Staples's figures. I do not want to do or say anything that would undermine an office at whose creation I was present. Success has many parents but failure is a bastard child. I am happy to claim to be a parent of the Serious Fraud Office. It would be helpful to have a quiet look at the way matters have shaped up over the past few years. If it is admitted that some things should have been done a bit differently, that will strengthen rather than weaken the Serious Fraud Office.
  I do not propose to raise any matters pertaining to cases that are before the courts. However, if I were minded to do so, I would not know how to advise myself on whether what I said was in order. In the context of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and Madam Speaker said, it would be helpful, after reflection, to have some guidance on the sub judice rule as it applies in the House. As I understand it, the remarks in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire could have been uttered outside. It appears from the fact that he was allowed to continue speaking that he could say those things in the House, but that is uncertain because he may have been allowed to go on merely because he was determined to do so, even though Madam Speaker had a right to stop him.
  We need to think about that issue. I am not holding my breath until Mr. Nadir returns to this jurisdiction, because I doubt that we shall ever see him again, and answers to some of these questions should not be based on the supposition that he will return. If the sub judice rule precludes Mr. Nadir's case from being discussed in the House and if we assume, as I do, that Mr. Nadir will not come back to our jurisdiction, we are left with the interesting conclusion that it will never be possible to raise his case in the House.
  I cannot think that that is what anyone has intended and it would he helpful if that issue, which has emerged in the agony of the moment as such things tend to do, could be reflected upon so that the next time there is such a controversial matter we all know where we stand. It would not be good if people thought, "We had better say what we want to say on the radio. We can get away with it there but cannot say it in the House." The House is the forum of the nation and it must be a place in which we can say what we want to say rather than having to sneak on to the "Today" programme.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I support much of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, particularly about our capacity to speak here and the instance to which he referred. Does he share my concern at the fact that the Table Office declined to let me table a
  1152
  question about a report in a Sunday newspaper two weeks ago that the person who stood bail for Mr. Asil Nadir tipped off the Serious Fraud Office?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that was a very fruitful intervention.
  Mr. Mellor: I know that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was well meant, but I would not have dreamt of commenting on it. I was not trying to say what was right or wrong, merely that it would be helpful if there were a period of reflection and we knew what the sub judice rule was. Turning to—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Law and order?
  Mr. Mellor: The police. I thought that the Serious Fraud Office was to do with law and order and I am sorry if my hon. and learned Friend thinks differently; certainly the police have to do with law and order—but I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend, who thinks differently. We can assume that the SFO does, so I shall continue.
  The police have been the subject of a great deal of work by the Home Office recently. Let us face it, it must be a great disappointment that the tremendous efforts that have been made to improve police pay and conditions have not led to dramatic improvements in the quality of policing and the morale of the police. That is not a criticism of the tens of thousands of extremely effective, committed officers. I have had the privilege to meet many policemen, almost all of whom I warmly admire for doing a difficult job; never has the task of being a policeman been more difficult.
  It is not easy to persuade the police of the case for change, but I would strongly urge my right hon. and learned Friend to persist in the course he has set out in the White Paper. There might even be a case for going further which would be supported from these Conservative Benches. Quite plainly, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there may be some structural rather than personal reasons why more success has not been achieved and I would strongly urge my right hon. and learned Friend to continue.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has been delivered a very potent package by Sir Patrick Sheehy, and rightly so. I do not think that the old Edmund-Davies formula can continue. Although it is painful and it will be difficult for the police, one hopes that the Police Federation will address the issue with maturity rather than in the way in which old style manual trade unions used to address these matters. How the police respond will be an interesting test for them as well as everyone else.
  I cannot help feeling that the Sheehy report represents a close look from a management perspective at the best way to ensure that the police service contains highly motivated, well-rewarded and successful people and that there is an ebb and flow in the service whereby people can move up quickly and people who are not up to it can be moved out quickly. That is an inevitable development.
  I should make one point about the Metropolitan police. It is right to acknowledge, as my right hon. and learned Friend does, that there is no proper process of accountability for the Metropolitan police. He was right to draw back from the initial interest of his predecessor, whom I warmly admire, but even Homer nods.
  The idea of getting local councillors involved in the Metropolitan police simply would not wash in London,

  1153
  where the climate has been ruined by all the arguments that emanated from the Labour party before it began to listen to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when the police became the subject of political coontroversy. No one in his right mind would entrust the police to some of the left-wing councillors who were sounding off about them. Perhaps things have changed, but I do not know whether they have changed as much as the hon. Gentleman asserts. However, it is not my aim to make a party political speech; I wish simply to say that I do not think it is possible that that argument could have survived scrutiny, given the background.
  Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mellor: I shall finish this point and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would like to tell us a little more in due course, or even in the White Paper, about from where he proposes the 16 people who comprise the proposed body should be drawn.
  One must be wary of obvious solutions because they are almost always wrong, but here in the House there are nearly 100 London Members of Parliament. It is recognised that there is something special about the Metropolitan police. Given that it is much larger than other police forces, has national functions and rightly falls under the aegis of the Home Secretary, should we not contemplate giving London Members of Parliament some role in this, perhaps through a new committee? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will reflect on whether that might be an alternative worthy of consideration.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend has not lost for ever his commitment to amalgamate police forces. There is no logic in the present pattern of the police, with some metropolitan forces, some an amalgamation of two or three counties, and others on a single-county basis. I cannot believe that having 43 separate police forces is the most effective way to fight crime. Of course, local feathers will be ruffled and there will be a great deal of nimbyism, but it is worth pushing on.
  We all must be deeply distressed every time there is a major terrorist outrage. The IRA will not secure its political aims by bombing and nothing that I say suggests to the contrary. However, we must recognise that just having a stiff upper lip about these outrages and looking like walk-on players in Mrs. Miniver, saying, "Britain can take it", is no more than a starting point in the reconsideration of our anti-terrorist policies.
  It is sad but true that, although there is much dedicated police work being done against terrorism, the clear-up rate for major terrorist outrages in Britain over the past 10 years has been lamentably small. If we think back, each right hon. and hon. Member will have his or her own memories of particular outrages. I was appalled by the murder of Ian Gow, for which no one was brought to book; by the slaughter of the bandsmen at Deal barracks, for which no one was brought to book; and by the slaughter of the two young children in Warrington.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: A Member of the House.
  Mr. Mellor: Ian Gow?
  Mr. Winterton: No, Robert Bradford.
  Mr. Mellor: Indeed. Everyone will have his or her own example, and I appreciate that. Let us not argue about what is the right example but draw a conclusion from it.
  Although, of course, we want to express our confidence in the manner in which such issues are approached, it is extremely difficult to say that the results have been anything other than inadequate. We have to ask ourselves what we can do about it.
  I shall not go into detail, but we have to ask whether, in setting the leadership of the anti-terrorist squad at commander level, we are giving it sufficient significance. I cannot think of a more important aspect of law and order; I am sure that even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) thinks that it is part of law and order that the anti-terrorist squad should have the best and brightest members of the police force. If it is necessary to expand that squad, let it be done. In relation to intelligence gathering, that responsibility has now been given to the intelligence services.
  It was a trip down memory lane for me to hear the hon. Member for Sedgefield talk about drugs policy. One of the more interesting problems when I was dealing with drugs policy was the chafing between the police and customs who were both involved in drugs policy. There was a feeling that one could not tell the other something because it would not be handled properly.
  It is not necessarily a matter for public response, but we have to take out into the open the question whether we can be satisfied that the new arrangement with the intelligence services and the police is working well and that they are working together effectively. I am worried about some of the rumours about people hissing behind their hands about this and that.
  Is there not a case for a unified anti-terrorist agency giving this issue the profile that it deserves? Surely, with so many intelligence personnel presumably liberated from the duties of monitoring what is happening in the Kremlin now that the Kremlin is run differently, is there not a case for looking seriously at whether, in the light of these outrages, we need more effective action?
  We rightly rejected mass action that would drive the minority community in Northern Ireland against us. We elected to follow a highly specific policy of going for particular terrorists and of proving offences against them. Of course, intelligence has worked in thwarting a number of outrages, but not enough people have been brought to book. We must ask ourselves before the next outrage what we are going to do about that.
  We need to make absolutely sure also that the Government of the Republic of Ireland do not just say that they are with us on terrorism. It is not edifying that, just a few months ago, a Sunday newspaper was able to publish a picture of a notorious IRA criminal fishing in the Irish Republic while on bail, because he could not be extradited. It is not good enough that co-operation has improved—it must be total. After all, we and the Republic of Ireland are partners in the European Community, and we are being invited to do even more to open our borders and to think of ourselves as one nation. How can we do that if people can escape and claims of non-responsibility can be made by Dublin, when presumably the terrorist must be known?
  More must be done if public confidence is to be retained. Although the IRA will never achieve its aim by further outrages, it is clear that there is a limit to public tolerance to outrages—particularly on the scale of those

  1155
  that occurred in the City of London—before the public lose confidence in the ability of those in power to do anything effective.
  I do not want public confidence to be lost, but it will not take many more outrages for the public to be sick in their guts and to realise that nothing has been achieved by way of convictions. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the best way to fight crime is to catch and to convict the criminal. That is not being done enough.
  Mr. David Trimble: I agree with much that has been said by the right hon. and Icarned Gentleman, and I will not quibble with him about the best examples of terrorism. I welcome his concern, even if it could have been displayed years earlier. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not mentioned one aspect that relates particularly to the City of London. Right hon. and hon. Members will have read newspaper reports of the measures that are being introduced to restrict vehicle access to the City, which I am sure are reasonable and necessary. They may be necessary also in other cities in the United Kingdom.
  Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that such measures should be put on a proper legislative footing? The legal basis for the road blocks and road checks that are currently being seen in London is somewhat uncertain. There is a need for not only a national agency and for the proper co-ordination of intelligence of the kind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, but uniform legislation against terrorism throughout the kingdom.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman's question would be better directed at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I admit that the hon. Gentleman's point was not the first that occurred to me. Although I do not like the public being stopped without proper legal powers, it is good news that it will be more difficult for a terrorist to drive a clapped-out old lorry carrying tonnes of exposive into the City of London and park it there for a couple of hours undetected—but we cannot win by a ring of steel. That will not work. The terrorists will simply move on to another target.
  I am calling for more effective action in identifying terrorists. We keep hearing that there are only a few hundred of them. It should not be beyond our resources to identify them. If those in authority who are currently responsible cannot do so, it is time that we expanded the operation to ensure that that is done.
  I wish my right hon. and learned Friend every success in discharging his duties. I cannot think of a more difficult post than Home Secretary, because so many and varied matters fall within it. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can make progress, in line with the speech that he made this afternoon.
  6.13 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: It was fascinating to hear the Home Secretary say that he is prepared to crack down on crime—particularly as a member of a Government who have continually denied the evidence of their own eyes that crime in Britain is spiralling out of control and have denied any responsibility for that.
  We on the Labour Benches have pointed to increased car crime and home burglaries, and to the 110 per cent. increase in violent crime, since a Conservative
  1156
  Government came to power. Such is the loss of public confidence in the system that the attitude is developing that it is hardly worth chasing the young offender, because nothing much is likely to happen to him anyway. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, the British crime survey showed that two out of three crimes go unreported. It is no wonder that the police and local communities feel that property and juvenile crime are at an unprecedented level.
  The Home Office claims that young offending has fallen across the country and has rejected Labour party proposals to tackle youth crime, which should be at the heart of a national strategy developed through careful research and effective local initiatives. We want action to prevent young people offending in the first place. We will be tough on crime and on the causes of crime. That requires a dynamic partnership between local authorities, police and local communities. It means also—as my hon. Friend emphasised—adequate provision for drug rehabilitation centres, youth clubs and leisure activities for the young, to ensure that they are diverted from crime.
  The past three Home Secretaries have consistently and deliberately starved local councils and voluntary organisations of the resources to do the job properly. Despite the Government's antagonism, Labour local authorities in London have established more than 30 community safety groups with the Metropolitan police to control and to prevent crime. Meanwhile, the Government stand idly by.
  Last year, the Apex Trust was on the verge of going under, until my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and hon. Members in all parts of the House spoke up for it to ensure that it could continue its work of rehabilitating offenders and finding them appropriate training and employment. In south London, the Apex Trust is working with South Thames training and enterprise council, and it is also doing excellent work with prisoners at Belmarsh.
  It is vital to intervene when a young person begins offending. In many places, the simple caution enjoys a high success rate, but some young people need more than that—a package of support and advice that will steer them away from crime. In the 14 years in which a Conservative Government have had an opportunity to do something about the problem, no Home Secretary—including the present holder of that office—has produced any national information or guidance on using the caution, or advice on the best approach to use in some areas as distinct from others.
  There is no check either to ensure that the caution is not used as a means of avoiding paperwork and taking up court time instead of as an effective control measure. There is certainly a fear among police officers to whom I have spoken that the Crown Prosecution Service refers cases back for caution when the police themselves would prefer to prosecute.
  There must be prompt intervention also when a youngster offends while on bail. The Home Secretary spoke of speeding up the trial process but failed to give any specific examples. It is extraordinary that cases take many months to come before the courts. We want national bail support and enforcement programmes, with regular reporting on the young offender, school attendance checks and work with the young offender's family to ensure that he does not offend while on bail and that he turns up when his case is to be heard.
  The Home Secretary spoke only with an eye on the Tory party conference, so that he could wring his hands

  1157
  there, promise to stamp out crime and make the usual diatribe against those of us who are concerned not only about present crime levels but about preventing crime in future. One would think that a Government so strapped for cash would take the opportunity to combat crime in an economical and common-sense fashion. It costs about £1,700 to keep a young offender in a secure unit. If the Government concentrated on trying to prevent the youngster from committing crime in the first place, it would be money well spent.
  We accept that some youngsters need to be in secure accommodation and we realise that the Government accept that, too. They have said that they will provide secure accommodation for those youngsters. However, in the two years since that promise was made, not one place has been provided by the Government. We need those places if we are to help the young people and ensure that they do not reoffend.
  The Government have done no research on why supervision orders with residence requirements are used so rarely by the courts and they have failed to take on board the issues raised by organisations such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which has said that the Government are simply seeking the failed solutions of the past. Research has shown that 78 per cent. of offenders with previous convictions who were given approved school orders were reconvicted within five years; yet we know that those who are put under proper local authority secure supervision are much less likely to offend.
  On 23 March, the Home Secretary said:
  "The police must respond to the needs of local communities and of the victims of crime".—[Official Report, 23 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 765.]
  Such utterances fail to reflect the reality of the gaps in the provision for the victims of crime.
  Victim Support has made it clear that it will not have the funding to provide sufficient posts to meet the need that it has identified. It knows that the funding that the Government are providing is inadequate. Next year, Victim Support is likely to find its funding position even more difficult. The Home Office figure of £8·6 million shows a shortfall of £2·3 million. By raising the threshold for claims from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board from £550 to £1,000, the Government have denied people the opportunity to have some form of support. Victim Support estimates that one in three victims of violent crime who would previously have received compensation will now be excluded from the scheme. That displays a callous disregard for the needs of victims of crime.
  The Home Secretary has stated a desire to respond to local community needs. How can that desire be met in London when, in the face of the views of the Association of London Authorities, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Police Federation as well as those directly involved in preventing crime in London, the Home Secretary has refused to provide a police authority for London?
  The Home Secretary is about to appoint a body to act as an advisory board on his behalf on policing strategy in the capital. That is nothing more than an unaccountable quango—yet another example of the Conservative Government placing Conservative people in positions of authority without any recourse to local need, local
  1158
  accountability or what local people want. Londoners will be left without an elected authoritative voice on policing in London. Across the country, the amalgamation of forces will make the police even more distant from the local communities than they are at present.
  The proposals paraded by the Government in the White Paper on Monday fail to address the scale of the crime wave that has hit the capital over the past decade. All the evidence of escalating crime and low clear-up rates confirms that the present arrangements, whereby the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, have served the capital badly when compared with the rest of the country, where policing has been overseen by police authorities comprising elected members of the community.
  The level of crime in London is massive and it is rising. Almost 1 million notifiable offences were recorded by the Metropolitan police in 1992. The Government have failed to take any responsibility for the escalating crime figures, yet crime in London has almost doubled in the 14 years in which they have been in power. In the operational police review undertaken by the police staff associations, a survey of the public revealed that 64 per cent. considered burglary of people's homes to be a priority. It was second only to assaults on women. However, despite the intensive efforts of the Metropolitan police, the Government have made no serious attempt to support them and the local community in dealing with those crimes.
  Nearly 200,000 burglaries were reported in London in 1992. In the same year, almost 38,000 crimes involving violence against the person were reported. Mention was made earlier of the use of guns in crimes. That was a relatively stable figure in London until the last couple of years, but we are becoming more and more concerned about the rise in the use of firearms and the escalating violent drug war that seems to be waging in the capital. We are concerned about whether the Metropolitan police have the resources to cope with that new, heavily violent and internationally mobile criminal set. We heard nothing from the Home Secretary to address that problem.
  How can the needs of the local community be met in these times of ever-increasing property and violent crime when a basic lack of resources pervades the system, reducing the number of police? Promises to the police have been broken and their budgets have been cut. Since 1991, the number of offences per police officer in the Metropolitan police has risen by almost 33 per cent. Across the country, the increasing work load is way out of proportion to any increase in staffing and the police have considerable difficulties in coping with that.
  Last week, I received a letter from a primary school in my constituency—the Good Shepherd school in Downham. It wrote saying that the school had been subjected to
  "petty vandalism, of an ongoing and expensive nature."
  The resident schoolkeeper rang for police assistance. During the weekend in question, Catford police station received 17 telephone calls requesting police presence. On that Saturday, the Good Shepherd school could get no response. When the head teacher raised the matter with Catford police station, she was informed that the station was seriously undermanned and that it was 40 personnel down and had been so for nearly two years.
  Where is the Government support for Catford police station, the primary schools in my constituency and the others in the area? The Downham area in my constituency has a large number of elderly people who are afraid to go

  1159
  out in the evening. If they heard an example like that, they would be even more afraid to go out because they know that the police are not available to protect them.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Lady agree with the measures that have been taken to civilianise the police, so that more police are on the beat now than in 1979? Does she regret the fact that, when the Labour party left office in 1979, the police were 8,000 under establishment?
  Mrs. Prentice: I have already said that crime has doubled in the 14 years in which the Conservative party has been in power. The Government have accepted no responsibility for that. The Conservative party can no longer call itself the party of law and order. It is clearly the party of law and disorder.
  I assure the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that we support having police on the beat. We have been asking for that for a considerable time. If the Government spent less time attempting to privatise sections of the police force, perhaps we would see more quickly some response to the call for more police on the beat.
  I spent eight hours on Monday with a policewoman from Lee Green police station. I walked around my constituency on the beat with her so that I could find out the sort of problems with which the police have to deal; we did not have to check only on burglaries or the increase in car crime, some of which I witnessed.
  Having done that, the policewoman has to return to the station, complete paperwork and deal with matters in the knowledge that, on that very day, the Home Secretary was producing a White Paper that was to give the police little help in ensuring that they could continue to do good work on the beat and visit local schools.
  That police officer said that she wanted to go into schools as often as possible, to talk to young children as early as possible so that they understood that the police service was there to serve, help and support. The visits were also to ensure that children would be reminded of their own responsibilities and be steered away from the criminal road. I am quite convinced that the police officers in Lewisham, with whom I have been in regular contact over the past few weeks, will not be assured by the Government statements yesterday and earlier in the week.
  The Government's ill-advised and ill-co-ordinated responses to crime in our society have failed on all counts. They have failed to achieve a practical and realistic strategy to fight crime. They have failed to involve the local community in that battle. They have failed to understand and meet the needs of young offenders, who require local community support to stop reoffending. Most of all, they have failed to support the victims of those crimes.
  6.32 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: There are two major problems in our society. The first is the breakdown of law and order all over the country—in cities and in the country—and the second is our current huge financial deficit. In the long run, the most serious of the two is the breakdown of law and order because people will take the law into their own hands, the vigilantes and the rest will move in and there will be a breakdown of society. The problem
  1160
  basically arises because we no longer pass on the accepted values of a civilised society from generation to generation in our schools, churches and homes.
  I wish to make nine points. First, religion should not be the substitute for a policeman, but if people believe that they will be responsible for their actions in another life, it acts as a sobering thought. That does not mean that one has to be a Christian or have a religious belief to be moral, but in the society of the 19th century, when 80 or 90 per cent. of the population believed that there was a judgment after death, it was a great help in maintaining law and order. That has gone.
  Secondly, untold harm was done in our schools, educationally and morally, by the so-called discovery method. Children go to school to learn what society is about; to realise that they are the heirs of the past and the custodians of the future and that they can stand on the shoulders of people before them only if they are taught learning, mathematics, science and morality at school. Instead of that we have had pretend learning that one can discover something for oneself, and children in schools today grow up believing that they are the masters of creation and that they can do everything. The infant school discovery method has done untold harm in lowering the standards of mathematics, arithmetic and English because it did not peg people into society. People need to be pegged in society to understand what society is. If people think they can do it all for themselves, selfishness becomes the god of their creation.
  Thirdly, there has been a decline of school and youth games. That is especially important to boys. I have never been a girl so I cannot comment on that, but a distinguished lady, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is present, so perhaps she can talk about that. After 23 years of school mastering, I know that boys are dangerous creatures unless they are regularly worn out. Sport is great for achieving that. If they are not worn out, they will take things into their own hands. When I left Highbury Grove comprehensive almost 20 years ago, the decline of sport was beginning. Wives now expect their husbands to go to the supermarket on Saturday morning and help instead of being at school taking responsibility for a school team.
  Then it was said that there must not be any competitive games and that everyone must compete with themselves. That was left-wing nonsense, but I do not blame the Labour party for that. It is difficult to play tennis with oneself. One would be worn out by one serve following the method of jumping the net. A head of department under me became, in a midnight seance, one of those against competition. We need many sports for juveniles. In my constituency, the private sports clubs are setting up such activities and not the schools. Sport is leaving the schools, and that is bad.
  Fourthly, we face a similar problem in youth work. We are short of youth leaders. There are more children wanting to be organised than there are people wanting to organise them. That is a responsibility of society.
  Fifthly—people will have divided views on this—corporal punishment has been withdrawn from schools. The idea that everybody grows up abiding the law is untrue. People have become law-abiding and have had a sense of civilisation since the advent of the Peelers. We have the best infantry in the world because we are a bloody-minded people. Unless we organise, it is dangerous. We took the right of corporal punishment

  1161
  away from schools and put nothing back. The result is a high crime rate among children at the age of 14 because teachers do not want them in school. The teachers have passed round the cap to get them out because they can teach the other 24 children at the age of 16 if the six who will not behave are not there. Unless we put something back to replace corporal punishment, there will be more juvenile crime at the age of 14 as they become a betrayed generation.
  Sixthly, there has been a decline in the instance of apprenticeship. That is a way of pegging one generation to another. Twice as many young people in Germany have apprenticeships than in Britain. A trained journeyman teaches young people the habits of maturity. The youngsters do not run with their own group all the time, but have an adult pattern to follow, with the man who is training them in that job, if not at home. I would like to see the return of apprenticeships, including the boy apprenticeships in the services to train them so that they have the skills and also have that sense of responsibility that a good journeyman brings. There is no substitute in further education for an apprenticeship where a youngster is attached to one person who becomes his friend or guardian, almost for life.
  Seventhly, we have suffered from the ending of national service. I am not suggesting that we should bring it back. It took people away from their homes, and, in many cases, gave them a second chance in life. Most European countries still have national service. Our armed services do not want it to return because it takes too long to train somebody. I was in the boy services myself a long time ago and it was a great training ground. We must realise that we lost something when national service ended.
  Let me say something that I did not intend to say—I always live an exciting life; I shall listen carefully to myself. It is about firearms. I once spent time in Switzerland where every man has a gun and where there are far fewer murders than in Britain, not because they do not have guns, but because they all have a gun. In this country it is only the criminal fraternity who have guns and only the law-abiding citizens who do not have guns. That should be considered.
  Before the introduction of the Peelers, people had guns under their pillows. We read about that in Victorian fiction. Let me return to the rest of my speech; hon. Members cannot have the best beforehand.
  Mr. James Couchman: I am trying hard to follow my right hon. Friend's logic, especially with regard to the use of firearms and the general ownership of firearms. I should have thought that the example of the United States was not an encouragement to the universal ownership of firearms. Perhaps my right hon. Friend has some remedy for that.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: That is an excellent intervention to which I have no answer. However, I shall not change my mind. I shall think about and pray for the answer. Europe may be different from America. As an anti-Maastricht man, I shall not go into that point. I must be careful because I am in dangerous territory and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) did not intend to bring me into dangerous territory. I shall pass on and merely nod in his direction.
  1162
  Eighthly, there is the question of the police. They are burdened by forms. They do not walk the streets; they fill up pieces of paper. They do not want to get into trouble by arresting someone and then finding that it does not come off. The great thing is for them to look busy as they walk round the streets. When one asks what one should do at the second coming, the answer is, "Look busy. Everyone will pass you by if you look busy." The police are burdened by written reports, and that has not helped us.
  My ninth point is this. If there is a diet of sex and violence on television, sex and violence will increase in society; there is no doubt about that. If we say that great art, great literature and great poetry uplift, bad ones will downlift—is that the opposite of uplift?
  Mrs. Gorman: Downgrade.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, the word is "downgrade". I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I do not know whether she was sitting here to help me, but she did help me with a graciousness that is very becoming in the House.
  I make no apology for saying that I want more censorship of broadcasting. I am not a libertarian; my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay is more libertarian than I am. I want more censorship of what children see, especially as television is on all the time, even when the parents are not watching.
  Mr. David Nicholson: On the subject of the role of the media, does my right hon. Friend share my concern and the concern of my constituents who contacted me yesterday and today expressing shock and horror at the report on the front page of The Daily Telegraph yesterday that the BBC is planning a train robbers' reunion in Rio? Is that not glorification of crime? How can we beat crime if the BBC behaves like that?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I read that article yesterday and I was horrified, especially hearing in mind what happened to the driver of the train. However, two letters in The Daily Telegraph today suggest that the reunion will not happen. That was my reading of the letters, and I hope that it is right. However, if the BBC goes ahead, the House must make its views perfectly clear, not only on behalf of our constituents, but on behalf of our own moral beliefs.
  We face a total breakdown of law and order in Britain because of the weakening of the powers of the schoolmaster, of the police, of the courts and of parents, and because of the collapse of the social cements of religion, of patriotism and of controlled and responsible behaviour among the younger generation. Boys, girls, men and women are not naturally good. They need to be taught the difference between good and evil, and between right and wrong. They also need to be taught about original sin.
  I became a Tory—I do not suggest that all Labour party members should do the same—the day I discovered original sin. I realised that man was not perfectible in this life. Even I am not perfectible in this life, although my children may be. I discovered original sin and what it means in moral law. Alas, in recent years, many schools have betrayed their responsibilities and have taught skills without values. The family has been under continual attack and the Church has in many instances ceased to be

  1163
  a saviour of souls for eternity and has preferred to become a branch of the welfare state. We have forgotten original sin.
  Britain is becoming a dangerous society for the young, the old, the handicapped and the vulnerable to live in. Unless drastic action is taken, vigilante groups will arise because frustrated people will take the law into their own hands, as has happened recently, for their protection and for the protection of their neighbours.
  That may be a dangerous statement to make with lawyers sitting round me in the House. Moral law is superior to statute or any other law because it gives a moral base to human behaviour. Men and women came into society for their own protection, and they put down their own weapons to be protected by the group, by the locality and by the country. Once those things no longer defend them, they have every right in moral law to take up their weapons again. That is the dangerous situation that we now face. Either our people, via the police and the courts, give full protection, which they do not do now, or society as we have understood it for the past 150 years will break down in Britain.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary began this debate—his first major debate on crime—with a sober and careful speech, to which I listened with great attention and with some respect for his outline of the Government's priorities. The tone of his speech was strikingly less triumphalist than the tone of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) whom he has replaced, and it was all the more welcome for that. A note of humility from any Home Secretary at the end of 14 years of Conservative government which have seen a doubling of recorded crime rates is certainly not out of place.
  I have no doubt that many hon. Members agree with the Home Secretary that the country would be a more tranquil place if we lived in a society in which the criminal and not our neighbour was frightened. It may be Utopian to believe that we can achieve a society in which criminals are automatically frightened. None the less, for a Home Secretary embarking on a difficult role, it must be right to have high objectives.
  It was only when the Home Secretary came to the end of his speech and indulged in a little partisan exchange with the Labour party about who was to lead the crusade against crime that I found myself deeply out of sympathy with what he was saying. The country needs a national crusade against crime. If it is to be effective, it cannot be based on a split of perception between political parties about the causes of crime and the proper Government responses to crime.
  As a member of a third party in the House, I ask the Home Secretary to remember the wise words of Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative of some distinction in these matters, who said as long ago as 1835:
  "Between the dissenters and the established church there is an enormous ground of infidelity."
  Translated into the terms of this debate, there is an enormous ground of people who are not persuaded that Conservative Home Secretaries or Labour Home Secretaries are necessarily the people who will prescribe the cure to an endemic and growing problem.
  The Home Secretary spoke of one of the issues to which I attach high importance and in which I want to promote
  1164
  his interest beyond what he said today. I stress the importance of crime prevention in tackling opportunistic crime, especially crime against property, which is a scourge which makes life in many communities insecure and fearful.
  I do not believe that the Government have begun to appreciate the value of crime prevention measures or the scale of help that they can deliver in local communities to those who live in fear that their home will be broken into, their car stolen, or their handbag snatched; that they will be mugged in a dark corner, or that their property will be vandalised.
  The Government have backed a number of worthwhile, well-publicised schemes of crime prevention—the safer cities scheme, for instance—and I am glad to learn that they have in mind 40 new projects. But let us get this into perspective.
  According to the Government's own figures, in 1992, only £16 million was spent by the Home Office on crime prevention, out of a total of nearly £7 billion spent on the criminal justice system. Out of a total of 125,000 police, only 750 are dedicated crime-prevention officers.
  The arrangements for training in crime prevention are exiguous. They are conducted from a training centre in Staffordshire which is a mere Portakabin. It can train—if that is what is being done there, and it is a pretty limited amount of work that is done—only 1,000 officers a year.
  Mr. Harold Elletson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that very few of us on this side of the House have any respect for his concern about crime prevention or for his party's concern about law and order when he is the only representative of his party who can be bothered to turn up and speak in this important debate? There have been no other Liberals on those empty Benches throughout the entire debate. It is an absolute disgrace that the Liberal party treats the whole issue of law and order with such obvious contempt.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will be listened to with respect, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and addresses any of these issues in a slightly better-tempered manner than he has just displayed. It must be regarded as poverty of argument that leads the hon. Gentleman into personal abuse.
  The job of the police is not simply to enforce the law after it has been broken. I believe that, in the minds of the public, it is exceedingly important that they should play an ever-growing part in preventing it from being broken. They cannot do that on their own; they require the co-operation of local communities and local voluntary groups, and I believe that the Government can do a great deal more to promote this.
  It is not simply a matter of dedicated schemes, although those are important; it is also a matter of collating the evidence of what is effective. That is something which, with considerably fewer resources than those of a Government Department, the Liberal Democrats have already attempted to do, producing a handbook based upon the experience of local authorities, in which they have played some part, in dedicating schemes to tackling particularly perceived threates to society by criminals.
  This is the kind of thing that can best be done and disseminated at local level, but it can be done with even greater authority if the information is collated nationally, and the Home Office is well placed to do this. Even the

  1165
  process of collection of such information would be a stimulus to local authorities and local police forces to come together in this valuable work. I was glad to hear the Home Secretary say that he has it in mind to pick up this idea.
  He also spoke of the need for a partnership between the police and the public, and the important part played by individuals in society in combating crime. I am 100 per cent. in agreement with him on that general proposition. A society that turns its back on crime leaves individuals at much greater risk, and we all have a responsibility. It is easy to say that; it is more difficult, when confronted with a criminal act, to respond.
  One of the features of the society in which we live that is different from that of our parents is that there are now fewer people in positions of authority below the police who, as in the past, have the capacity to defuse potentially criminal behaviour. We see fewer park attendants, fewer bus conductors, fewer people who have the respect of the community because of their role within it. Those people provided a form of service that perhaps modern technology has made unnecessary, but a gap has been left. I believe that the gap can be filled only by personal respect for the need to participate in the fight against crime.
  The Home Secretary also spoke of the need for an effective criminal justice system and a greater concentration of the system on bringing the guilty to justice. It is certainly true that there is widespread concern about the effectiveness of our criminal justice system at this time. There is widespread concern among the police that their efforts to catch criminals do not always lead to prosecutions being pursued effectively. There is wide-spread concern that perhaps the rules of evidence are not sufficiently adapted to secure convictions.
  There has been questioning of some of the fundamentals of our criminal justice system. That, no doubt inspired by evidence of miscarriages of justice of a peculiarly appalling kind, led the Home Secretary, as he told us this afternoon, to change his views entirely about capital punishment.
  That widespread concern about the criminal justice system led to the setting up of the royal commission under Lord Runciman. No doubt, when its report is published, we shall wish to debate its recommendations. I do not think, therefore, that it is sensible in this debate to trail the debate that would more naturally follow the publication of that report. But that the new Home Secretary is aware, at least, of these concerns is very much to be welcomed.
  I particularly welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about capital punishment, for, by nods and winks, some Conservative leaders sought in the past to suggest that, if only capital punishment were restored—that was something favoured by Conservative leaders—perhaps the whole tenor of our attitude to law and order would be changed. I am quite sure that the Home Secretary's attitude towards that is right. It is good that he made it so clear that capital punishment cannot play a helpful role in strengthening the forces of law and order in our society.
  The Home Secretary dealt at some length—in a particularly contentious manner as between himself and the Labour party—with the need to give the courts the powers to deal with offenders effectively. He touched on a
  1166
  matter that will be covered in part by the royal commission, but if he focuses exclusively on amendment of substantive criminal law, he will miss the need to which he in his great office of state can respond better than any other member of the Government—to complement the law with other urgent Government action where such measures are necessary.
  The exchange between the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Home Secretary at the end of the debate was one of the more profound exchanges about law and order to which we have listened for some years. The dialogue was more genuine than we have heard for some time.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that instant criminal law reform to deal with problems that have been headlined by the tabloid press, which no doubt are real—joyriding, dangerous dogs and so on—will not be the test of whether he has succeeded as Home Secretary. The volume of legislation on law and order will not prove his abilities as a great Home Secretary. I draw his attention to the comments of Sir Robert Peel, who, in a debate in the House in 1844, said that there were many matters of morals which he knew to be wrong, but which could not be put right by legislation. That is as true today as it was 150 years ago.
  We are having this debate because, I suppose, there is a new Home Secretary, not because there is a coherent package of measures to tackle the problem of expanding crime. We are caught in the middle of a series of proposals for change in respect of policing, some of which are of considerable importance.
  We shall return to the subject of law and order in detail in the autumn, when the Government announce their conclusions on the Sheehy report, which was published yesterday and which drew together the different strands after hearing what the police and others had to say. What has been said so far cannot give great pleasure to the Government, whose proposals have been universally condemned from the police forces. None the less, I should like to make a few general points about policing in this country.
  We have to take seriously the risk of an over-centralised police force. I have no objection in principle to amalgamation of police forces where the case is made out. My noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead presided over the largest ever programme of force amalgamation in 1966–67, reducing the number of forces to 155 at the time of the Willink commission to 51 in Great Britain and 43 in England and Wales.
  The rules for amalgamation that were laid down in schedule 3 to the Police Act 1964 seem sensible. They were established by Mr. Henry Brooke, the father of the present Secretary of State for National Heritage. They provided that the Home Secretary must publish any plans for amalgamation, and that if there was any objection from the police authority or local council, a public inquiry must be held. The report of the inspectors should then be laid before Parliament, together with a draft statutory instrument for implementation. The procedure ensures that the Executive must justify its plans before an independent panel, and seek the approval of Parliament and of local people.
  The White Paper says that the Government will simplify the statutory procedures. It appears that they wish to abolish them. The Secretary of State may have it in mind to force through amalgamations without a public

  1167
  inquiry. I do not think that that is wise. My reasons for that are established over many years. It is not a partisan point. The procedures exist, are perfectly satisfactory and should be adhered to.
  The second strand in the Government's thinking about the police which has been revealed is their wish to establish greater control over local police authorities. It has perhaps over the years been an aim of Home Secretaries to take greater power over the police. The Government's proposals to appoint and pay chairmen of police authorities are misconceived and should be abandoned, as they are causing great anxiety throughout the police service, as are the proposals for political appointees to police authorities.
  The view that expenditure on police authorities should be capped by central Government follows the same line of thinking. It is presented as giving greater freedom of expenditure to police authorities, but in reality it is cash-limiting police expenditure, and as such will have a damaging effect on the ability of local police authorities and chief constables to set their own objectives.
  The success of the police in working with the public in attacking crime in rural areas, in areas where ethnic minorities predominate and live in fear of racial attack, and in deprived inner cities where drug abuse is endemic and is blighting the lives of our families, depends not on the Home Office setting targets of achievement, which have to be adhered to in a rigid bureaucratic way, and achievement of which will lead to adjustments in the pay of police officers. That system of incentives and promotion cannot be responsive to the local communities that the police serve. It cannot be apt to tackle the disparate circumstances of the heterogeneous societies that make up this country.
  Local policing has been the core of policing in this country. Community policing, commended by Lord Scarman and implemented increasingly throughout police forces, is the best hope of reducing the role of the criminal, and we shall wish to look at the Government's proposals for the future of the police with those considerations in mind.
  I do not believe that the drastic proposals that the Home Secretary adumbrated in reports published this week will command the support of the police or public when they are properly understood. They seem to import into the management and remuneration of policing concepts that may be familiar and appropriate to business and commerce but are not appropriate to the greatest public service in this country, which depends on the police enjoying the confidence of, and being able to react to, the local community.
  The Home Secretary, in embarking on his job, has a number of great assets and difficulties to contend with. He has a splendid Home Office research and planning unit, which has produced some first-class research and advice. The hon. Member for Sedgefield drew heavily on the document on drugs that was published earlier this week, and it is a powerful indictment of the view, if that view persists, that the problem of drugs can be effectively tackled by passing ever more punitive legislation against those who are involved in dealing. We must have severe, condign punishment for those who engage in the drug trade, but let us not believe for one moment that that is enough.
  The unit has produced valuable work on juveniles, bail, victim support and the unit fines, which the Government
  1168
  have so cavalierly abandoned. Let the Home Secretary pay great attention to the work that it has produced, digest it and, where it is sound, disseminate it.
  The Home Secretary also draws on the asset of the police—the bravery and hard work of officers, and the intelligence and dedication of some of our outstanding chief constables. He has at his disposal a probation service that plays a major role in preventing recidivism and in seeking to protect the public from reoffending. He has an incorruptible judiciary—not something that we should take for granted, even in Europe. He has, I believe, local communities who are, as he said, perhaps in a new mood—ready for change, ready for participation in crime prevention and willing to work with the police to prevent crime as much as possible. I hope that he is successful and, as he embarks on his different role, I wish him well.
  7.13 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not match the eloquence of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The public want to hear the House debating this topic, which is probably the most important subject of this Session.
  I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made such an immediate impact on the subject by raising the debate and, for example, by giving the police the right to use side-handled batons in trials, which they wanted and which are an important element in the protection of women police officers who, with the silly little truncheons that they have at present, simply cannot defend themselves against men carrying knives. This debate, and my right hon. and learned Friend's actions since taking office, has inspired us.
  I am delighted to see the Minister of State in his place; if he fills his office with as much distinction as he filled his previous post he will be a credit to the Conservative law and order team.
  I was a little disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He did not show the confidence that I would have expected—
  Mr. Alun Michael: This is petty stuff.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present for the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, who lacked a little confidence in his presentation and did not live up to his previous best performance.
  It must be embarrassing for the Opposition to say that they have a policy for tough law and order when they must live down the fact that for so long they have opposed every strong law and order measure that the Government have introduced seriatim over the months and years. The hon. Member for Sedgefield always voted against the Government. It appears that, even now, the Labour party will oppose some of the important law and order measures that are being taken. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating; if the hon. Gentleman supports the Government, we can increase our respect for him in home affairs.
  Mr. Michael: If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, will the hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the Government presiding complacently over an increase of 121 per cent. in recorded crime?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is the sort of ridiculous statement that one would expect from the Opposition. Such a comment is fallacious and unreasonable. It is fallacious because it is based on the fallacy that there has been a massive increase in the amount of crime committed. But with 16,000 more policemen and another 12,000 policemen on the beat, because civilians have been substituted for police office work, it should not surprise us if more crime is detected.
  One hundred thousand neighbourhood watch schemes offer 5 million households some protection and observation of crime, so it should not surprise us if more crime is detected. With 5 million more cars than we had a decade ago, it should not surprise us if more young people are tempted to commit auto-crime. If insurance companies insist on claims being reported first to the police, it should not surprise us if more crime is reported. In addition, the courts, the police service and the judicial system have made themsleves more attractive to women who have been seriously abused, raped or sexually assaulted and encouraged them to complain about attacks, so we should not be surprised if more of this crime is reported. Everybody now has a telephone, which they never used to have, so it is easy to report crime.
  It is clear that we are witnessing a massive increase in the proportion of recorded crime, but the British crime survey reveals that the increase in recorded crime is roughly double the rise in actual crime.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is the hon. Gentleman going to keep interrupting my speech?
  Mr. Michael: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, would aspire to some objectivity. Perhaps he will tell us whether he thinks that the rise in crime and reduction in reporting, which is perceived in communities up and down the country and which has been reflected in the comments of Labour Members and some Conservative Members, is in the minds of the public?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: A lot of it is panic engendered by the media and much is concentration on the limited areas where there has undoubtedly been an increase in crime—burglary and auto-crime. However, 94 per cent. of all crime is property crime and only 5 or 6 per cent. is violent crime. It is still much safer to walk the streets of Britain than those of practically every other country in the western world. The chances of being robbed, mugged or violently assaulted are about half of what they are in Australia. The chances of being murdered are half what they are in France. If we consider the number of countries where the crime situation is very much more serious than it is in this country, we put the matter into perspective.
  Reference has been made to the success of some crime prevention programmes and, as the Home Affairs Select Committee discovered, it is a fact that there have been substantial improvements in the crime situation in particular areas. That is especially true in areas where the safer cities projects have been reducing crime. There is also a closer relationship between the police and local communities.
  Estates in Manchester, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and all over the country have not experienced a mere 5 or 10 per cent. reduction in crime; burglaries have become
  1170
  practically unknown, where there used to be burglaries daily; they now see practically no car crime, when there used to be a lot of it; and they now see hardly any muggings. Those are substantial successes. As in all things, we seem to concentrate on the things that go wrong and do not concentrate so much on the things that go right.
  We all use London Transport. London Transport has cleaned up its act massively in recent years. It has had tremendous successes in policing the underground and in making it safe for all to walk around. The hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Sedgefield do not do the House much credit by concentrating on the things which do not appear to be going right, while forgetting entirely the successes that have undoubtedly occurred.
  When the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited Washington, we asked the law and order authorities there how we could deal with the hard core of 200 or 300 persistent juvenile offenders in this country. They laughed at us and said, "Is that all you've got?" They told us that practically every town and city in the United States has a hard core of 200 or 300 persistent juvenile offenders. They wanted to know what we could teach them.
  The Opposition's criticisms are also unreasonable. After all, we could have less violent crime if we brought back capital punishment. The objection to capital punishment is not, on the Conservative Benches at least, that it would not deter. The objection is that it is too risky and that there are too many problems about bringing it back. However, it surely cannot be said that some people would not be deterred from committing murder if they knew that, at the end of the day, they would suffer the death penalty. That is what the overwhelming majority of the British people believe.
  We could have much less crime if we had a police state. However, we all agree that that would be totally unreasonable. We do not advance law and order if, whenever we try to introduce restraint, for example, through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, through changes in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or in prevention of terrorism legislation, half the House persistently refuses to agree with us. The attitude of consensus which the hon. Member for Sedgefield shows is not convincing when he does not support the measures to which I have referred in a consensual way.
  One of the paradoxes of the present law and order system—and this may be a side effect of the misleading statistics—relates to the police. The police are our main weapon against crime. We have more police. They are better equipped, trained and led. We have given them more powers. However, we still have too high a level of crime, whether or not it is rising, and we have a falling number of arrests and convictions.
  What can we do about the police? If we think about it, the conclusion is that there must be something wrong with the organisation and management of the police which can be improved so that their best practices can be more widely spread. That is precisely what the Government have done this week. They have tried to bring more locality to the police.
  The Government want to involve local business men with the police. They want to ensure that the local police report to their local people. We want to encourage the local policeman to be there for longer periods. We also want to ensure that the budget is tailored to the local needs

  1171
  of the local police force. Those are moves towards the improvement of locality, not moves towards Government centralisation.
  We will have to study the Sheehy proposals with great care. They are directed towards improving the management and structure of the police with fixed 10-year contracts; by cutting out some of the bureaucracy and some ranks; by introducing performance-related pay and more realistic pay scales. The editor of Police Review, Brian Hilliard, is reported in The Daily Telegraph today as saying that once the knee-jerk reactions subside and the implications of the report have been studied, it will be seen as an attempt to improve the service. That is what the police service needs. We have given it everything else and the police must now respond by improving their management.
  I could show that it is unreasonable to criticise the Government for not having done more to reduce crime in matters apart from the police. We have massively improved crime prevention through neighbourhood watches and drug teams. We have massively improved prison building with £1 billion spent on prisons and 20 new prisons and we have also introduced private-sector management. We have massively improved the range of sentences available to courts.
  I could go on,but, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I want to conclude by referring to one area in respect of which the system of law and order is undoubtedly falling down. That area is the crazy situation in relation to cautioning. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) referred to a different aspect of that problem.
  To give police the power to caution offenders, whether they are juveniles or adults, rather than to charge them must always be a rather dubious policy, because it gives ordinary police officers the power to choose who to charge and whether or not to charge. It leaves wide open the possibility of abuse of power and even corruption. I am not suggesting that there has been widespread abuse of power or corruption. However, such a possibility exists when we talk about not needing to bring people to justice because a police officer has decided not to charge someone. If we have such a system, it must be monitored very closely.
  Where cautions are available, there may be frustration about the working of the criminal justice system. As was said earlier, frustration arises when the police work hard to bring someone to court and that person simply receives a pat on the head and tuppence from the poor box or, if that person is a juvenile offender, is released back to his family. That person is then back on the street once more doing his wrong-doing. The frustration about that must be immense.
  Combined with cautioning, I am not convinced that that is not a bad system. Indeed, a spokesman for the Police Federation told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that frustration was felt in relation to cautioning. He said that people who should have been brought to justice are not being brought to justice.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the public are also very frustrated by what he has described? I received a letter from a constituent recently who told me that his son had become involved in clearing up a crime. The perpetrator pleaded guilty instead of going to court and he received a caution. However,
  1172
  when my constituent's son was caught speeding at 40 mph instead of 30 mph, he immediately received a £40 fine. He thought that it was a great injustice that the person who pleaded guilty received a caution, while he received a fine of £40 on the spot.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the problem is more widespread than that. Offenders are cautioned, but that does not seem to happen when they drive cars. In those circumstances, they are fined. That is very irritating to law-abiding members of society.
  If people think that I am exaggerating, I invite them to enter any Crown court in London and ask whether it is busy. It is quite an eye-opener, when there is such a massive level of crime, whether or not it is increasing, to go into the courts of London and find that only half the courts are sitting because cases are not being brought for trial. If hon. Members go around the chambers in the Temple and see how many barristers are sitting on their backsides doing nothing because the work has dried up, they will realise that the cautioning process has much to answer for.
  Our police, unlike those in Germany and the United States, have discretion when they encounter a criminal. The can take no action, give an informal warning which is not recorded, give a formal caution, or charge an offender and begin the process of presenting him to the court. Perhaps there is justification in cautioning a juvenile, because one needs to try one more time to avert a juvenile from the criminal justice system—but an adult? An adult should know the difference between right and wrong. There are not many who offend for the first time and are unlucky enough to appear in court. Many people who appear in court for the first time have been offending for many years.
  There is great worry about the policy of cautioning. If we do not punish offenders, there might be more temptation to offend again. Whereas conviction and sentence might be a deterrent, cautioning and freedom from further blame most definitely are not.
  Home Office research tells us that more than half the police forces in England and Wales have no policy for the use of informal cautions. Therefore, the use of cautions is hardly standardised. If it is not standardised, it could lead to abuse.
  Informal cautions are not even recorded. That almost certainly distorts statistics on the incidence of juvenile crime in particular. Our responses might be wholly inadequate because we have a completely wrong idea of the amount of crime that is going on. Crime is not even recorded because people are not being formally cautioned.
  There are reports that even crimes of burglary and violence are resulting in cautions to offenders and a caution is allowed to be given only when there is clear evidence of guilt; it is a requirement of a caution that the offender must acknowledge guilt. Offenders who have undoubtedly committed crimes as serious as burglary and violence are getting off with a pat on the head.
  There was evidence before the Select Committee that there are things called multiple cautions—that is, cautioning an adult or juvenile offender not once but twice, three times or four times. One of the Police Federation witnesses told us that on such occasions juveniles actually laugh at them.
  If people who should be caught, charged and convicted are not charged and convicted, the whole criminal justice

  1173
  system falls into disrepute. Once the system falls into direpute and people do not respect it, there is a temptation for people to take the law into their own hands, and that is where vigilantes have been coming into the matter. If people who should be charged and convicted are not convicted, their victims, about whom hon. Members are very concerned, can make no claim for compensation for their suffering.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am having difficulty in putting together the two halves of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. At the beginning, I understood him to say that the increase in crime was not as large as had been made out because of increased detection. The hon. and learned Gentleman now seems to be saying that the crime wave that is undetected and unprosecuted, because of the caution procedure or whatever, is much greater than we think. He cannot have it both ways.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: If the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) cannot put together two logical sides of an argument, that must be for him to worry about. The point that I am making is that, high as the level of crime is—nobody disputes that it is high—I dispute that it is rising at the rate at which it is portrayed. I am pointing out also that, because of the policy of cautioning, considerable problems must be addressed.
  Undoubtedly, there has been a worrying growth in the use of cautions, both formal and informal. Undoubtedly, there is growing concern about the effects of cautioning. My guess is that if people outside this place knew how much cautioning was going on, they would be worried and distressed. Undoubtedly, there is a need for more research to tell us exactly what is happening. If what I think is happening is, in fact, happening, we should certainly stop multiple cautions. When serious offences such as burglary and violence have been committed, cautions should be stopped altogether.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I did not expect that I would follow a Conservative Member who, at one stage, seemed to say that there was not exactly a rise in crime and that, if there was, it was really to do with the way in which the police managed their own police officers. I expected that I would follow a different set of arguments which I have heard from Government Members more frequently—that crime must be understood in relation to a crisis of values.
  I place that remark in a context that is somewhat wider than that which has emerged tonight. When Conservative Members have talked about a crisis of values, they have not expressed their indignation about that crisis in terms of the Asil Nadirs of this world. They have not risen in indignation about the Ernest Saunders of this world and the way in which large-scale fraud is taking place. They have not vented their spleens on the vast tranche of the criminal classes who fiddle their tax returns or those who find ways in which to conduct illegal and illicit arms deals. Conservative Members have defined crime as being about young people.
  One of the saddest aspects that I have encountered since becoming a Member is that, by and large, that is the only
  1174
  context in which young people are referred to. We hear them referred to as a problem. Rarely, if ever, is there reference to, or recognition of, young people as the best and most important assets of society. Invariably, issues to do with law and order are about young people and what we do about them as a problem.
  When I listen to Government rantings on the matter, I have to ask myself how many Conservative Members who vent their spleens about young people have contact with any young people who are at the margins of youth crime, let alone those who are actively involved in it. A large part of my life has been spent working with young people who were involved, in one way or another, in crime. I began by working with children who were nicking off school—truants. As the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, in many ways their teachers were relieved that they were nicking off school because it made it easier to conduct classes for the pupils who remained.
  I spent a very useful period working with youngsters for whom school was an extremely negative experience. They were not stupid kids. They were difficult and they were disruptive—they were kids who often had an awful lot of get-up-and-go about them. However, it taught me a very important lesson—that it is possible to work with that group of young people and to deflect them into far more productive channels that make the most of their talents, rather than to paint them as caricatures of difficult and disruptive people who will be a problem for society all their lives.
  I was also fortunate enough to be involved in setting up the Home Office's pilot scheme in relation to non-custodial treatment of offenders. Following that, I was an active worker in delinquency prevention work. Against that strong background, I shall be fairly critical of some of the lines of thinking that have been offered to us in a succession of debates about law and order.
  My first point relates to the fact that the Government's successive reruns of policy on law and order will never achieve anything. They cannot combat what they fail to comprehend. There is usually a great hue and cry from Tory Members about punishment. There is much enthusiasm about equipping the police with extra batons—presumably, to be tried out by smashing engraved watches. There is great enthusiasm also for stiffer prison sentences. But all the evidence and all the advice from people in the prison service indicate that, on youth crime, such penalties are not just singularly ineffective but counter-productive and financially wasteful. This simply is not a coherent response to the problems, even as they are perceived by the Government.
  Recently, I spent some time talking with prison officers about young people in custodial institutions. I was horrified to hear about the incredible financial cost. Keeping a person in detention in a secure unit costs from about £400 to £1,700 a week. Even in the Government's own terms, the value of that punishment ought to be measured against the cost of intervention schemes, most of which involve expenditure of less than £100 per person per week.
  I should like to give an illustration by referring to a project in my constituency. It is called Wheelbase and caters for youngsters of precisely the type about whom many Conservative Members have been talking—those involved in burglary and car crime. Perhaps I ought to notify the Home Secretary that I intend to bring a group of young people taking part in that scheme to Westminster

  1175
  to give a presentation of the work that they are doing and to present Members of Parliament with a first-hand account of how those involved in car crime perceive the Government's approach. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has said that young people laugh at the courts. But they laugh at this House also. They laugh at the policies we offer, which are regarded as irrelevant and absurd.
  It would be far more productive to listen to what these young people have to say about initiatives that have made a difference in their lives by deflecting them away from active involvement in car crime and burglary. When I asked one of them to describe his background, he said, "Me—I'm a 25-a-night man." I did not understand what he was saying. I thought that he was perhaps talking about smoking. In fact, he was saying that stealing 25 cars a night had been a norm before he became involved in the Wheelbase project, whose participants build and race their own stock cars, and then go on to take up apprenticeships of the sort mentioned by the right hon. Member for Brent, North. That lad would go from one car to another as it took his fancy. He and his colleagues on the project had been through penal institutions. What had that taught them? It had taught them how to do the jobs better. What persuaded them to do less car theft was an initiative in their own locality that gave them something more constructive to do with their lives.
  In my constituency there are similar initiatives to do with preventive work in relation to health and drugs abuse. The irony is that such projects are almost entirely dependent on urban programme funding and will cease to exist when that funding runs out; thus, it is precisely the measures that are working for young people that will be discontinued. It is in that context that we have to measure the seriousness of commitment and the understanding that the Government bring to a debate about law and order.
  I should like to give a few comparative figures that I was asked by the project to present in this debate. The average cost of a serious road accident in which juvenile car thieves are involved is £25,000. For every fatality, the cost is about £700,000. The cost of a project like Wheelbase is £50,000 a year. What we are talking about here is the fact that the avoidance of two road accidents a year or one death in every 14 years would make the project cost-effective, and that is before we even begin to address the cost in terms of human suffering and grief. The Government do not pay this bill out of a law and order budget or an urban programme budget. Somehow, the cost is a discrete one that we are not prepared to address, but it is still a cost we end up paying.
  I do not want to minimise the problem of the growth of crime in our cities. We in Nottingham have our own difficulties arising from crimes involving serious drugs abuse and, unfortunately, guns. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a county councillor in Nottinghamshire. My experience throughout my time in that capacity was of putting in bids for more police officers on the beat but seeing those bids turned down or cut by the Conservative Government.
  On the issue of drugs, I have to set against the Government's claims of concern comments in a report issued recently by the National Union of Civil and Public Servants:
  "We were astonished to hear the Government's announcement in November 1991 that it would be cutting Her Majesty's Customs and Excise previously agreed funding for
  1176
  the five-year period 1992–96, causing a reduction of 400 customs officers engaged in the war against drugs. These reductions are on top of the job losses already accepted by the Department due to changes brought about by completion of the single market."
  Against the background of those cuts, we must ask how serious is the commitment to an assault on the problem of drugs. If one opens the traps, one should not be surprised if the dogs go on the run. We are asking police officers to contain something after it has been let loose on the streets. The big issue is the supply of drugs. Unless the problem is tackled at that level, their distribution will continue to be a nightmare with which we cannot deal.
  I should like to refer to the Government lessons that I have learnt from my work on the streets with young people involved in crime of this sort. The first is that prevention is more effective than punishment.
  A recent study in the United States concluded that, in terms of mileage per buck, investment in child care for the under-fives produced more value than any other type of preventive intervention. Are the Government of this country committed to increased investment in the under-fives? Certainly not. Secondly, punishment without provision for a way back into responsible society simply creates better criminals. Thirdly, youth gangs involved in crime have a limited number of leaders.
  One hon. Member has made the point that in the United Kingdom there is a limited number of seriously disruptive young people involved in crime. I accept that. It is a point that chief police officers around the country make. But if one asks what is to be done about those young people and about those on the periphery of youth gangs, the answer is that people do not have a clue because we do not have a programme.
  Some countries have started to do more useful work on that issue. They have accepted the challenge of working with seriously disruptive and alienated young people and those on the periphery of youth crime. Part of that requires a commitment not only to the expansion of the youth service but to a statutory youth service provision.
  When I was in local government, one of the saddest realisations was that as successive cuts in government spending were made by this Goverment the areas cut most severely were the ones in which the local authority had discretion to spend. When the local authority had an obligation to spend, it had to shell out the money. When it had discretion to spend, those areas were pruned. Unfortunately, the youth service, which is potentially one of the most important ways of intervening constructively to develop the talents and skills of young people, has been massively under-resourced for more than a decade.
  There can be no evasion of the uncomfortable fact that one of the starting points in our response to crime must be the protection of victims. I am not suggesting that all the young people involved in crime can be dealt with in the community in the first instance. I know a number of young people with whom it is impossible to do any remedial work unless they are taken out of the community. However, they must not then be put into a children's home that is already under pressure as a result of having to deal with many children who have been traumatised in different ways. We need different models for working with those seriously disrupted and alienated young people.
  In terms of corrective work with the perpetrators, the right hon. Member for Brent, North was right. We need youth apprenticeship schemes and schemes that build links

  1177
  across the generations. It may be extremely difficult for those young people to develop links with their parents. From my experience, however, I have found that it is remarkably easy to develop constructive relationships between those young people and other adults in the community. One of the spin-offs from such relationships is mutual recognition and respect that develops between those groups of people.
  We have made little progress on the notion of reparation schemes in Britain. I have some reservations about whether reparation should be from the perpetrator directly to the victim. In many ways, it is asking too much of the victim to be in that position. The notion of reparation to the community has more to commend it, partly because it recognises that people have an obligation to society and it gives them a way back. I cannot tell the House the number of occasions, throughout the years in which I worked on the non-custodial treatment of offenders scheme, when people who were required to work in the community after they had finished their sentences continued to do that work because they had recognition and respect for the way in which they were doing it. Building up people into that role is the biggest challenge that we face.
  When I ask people in my constituency, especially pensioners, what they would do with young people in crime, the overwhelming answer is, "Give them a job." Young people without work or a place in society will repay society in their own ways. The huge challenge that we face relates not to crime but to how we value young people in society. We will not positively address that question if, for example, we continue to say to those 18 to 25 year-olds who are out of work, "We expect you to live on £4·97 a day without skirting around on the margins of crime." Half a million young people aged 18 and 24 are in precisely that position.
  One in every three unemployed people is under 25 and lives on or beyond the margins of poverty, and 100,000 young people aged 16 or 17 live without a job, a training place or any benefit at all. If we ask ourselves how we would live in those circumstances, I am not sure how many of us would say that we would do so always honestly and legally without drawing on the network of opportunities that earning an illicit coin offers people. If we do not want people to live those sorts of lives, we must give them the opportunity to live better, more respectable and more legitimate ones.
  I frequently have discussions with young people on my streets. From time to time, some of them were in the habit of taking my car and driving it away—I have never been keen on that—and we have had rather heated exchanges about the virtues of it. We have also had heated discussions about racing cars up and down the street. At one time, I collared a group of them and asked, "What are you doing? These are your brothers and sisters who are wandering across the street. It could be you who kills them. You cannot go round nicking cars, marauding around the streets and leading your lives as criminals."
  I was stopped in my tracks when one of the lads said, "I am not a criminal—I am an entrepreneur." I was surprised mainly because I did not think that he would know the word, let alone be able to use it in the right context. I asked him to explain what he meant. He said,
  1178
  "I can deliver. Do you want a radio? I can get you a radio. I can get you a car to go with it, if you like. You look as though you could do with a new jacket. What size are you? Do you have any preference for colour? Why don't you come into town and try a few suits on? Go and have a cup of coffee and we will meet later to sort out a price. I deliver in this estate. People know that I can deliver. You say to me 'I have no say because I have no recognition.' I bloody well do. I will tell you what though—I will do you a deal. I will happily give up this on condition that you do one thing for me. Tell me this—can you give me a job?" The truth is that I could not get him a job. I could not offer him a legitimate way to get into a society of which he wanted to be a part.
  I realised that, in many ways, that group of young people understood the message that society was giving them much better than I did. They told me that if they were voters, they would not vote for me. Their model was Mrs. Thatcher. They liked her. They thought that she was tough. She knew what the world was about—looking after No. 1. These were Thatcher's children. They frightened and saddened me because I had known all of them since they were children.
  All of them had a little dream. Up until the age of about 12 or 13, I could tell the House what they wanted to be. They wanted to be bus drivers; they wanted to work in Raleigh; they wanted to work in Players; they wanted to be mechanics and they wanted to work in a nursery. It did now matter what it was—it was a simple dream. Somewhere beyond that age, we stripped them of that dream and the belief that society would offer them any reasonable opportunity to fulfil that aspiration.
  When we are talking about reparation schemes, the biggest challenge for the House and society is whether we can address the reparation that we owe to a generation of young people from whom we have stolen their hopes. I do not condone the thefts that they perpetrate. However, when I compare them with what I hear from Conservative Members and the Government, I ask: what is the difference? The difference is that these kids are honest thieves. They are not "twoccers" in suits who have stolen access to and ownership of public resources and jobs. They live the life that the Government and society write on the wall for them and tell them is their only prospect.
  Until we address the challenge not in a soft namby-pamby, wishy-washy way but by challenging those young people, redirecting their energies and making the most of their talents, we will do nothing.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There are nine hon. Members hoping to catch my eye in the remaining time available for the debate. If hon. Members give short speeches, most may have a chance of doing so.
  8 pm
  Mr. Peter Fry: Further to that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make an observation. We have had speeches lasting half an hour from several colleagues and interventions from people who want to speak in the debate that have taken 40 minutes out of the time available. I hope that those hon. Members will give those of us who have sat quietly and patiently the indulgence of making our speeches without interruption.

  1179
  I wish to make a point about the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), although I will not comment in detail. I was interested that the hon. Gentleman said that funding for youth services should be compulsory. He added that he found that when local authorities could make up their mind whether they wanted to spend on youth services, they tended to cut the funding. The hon. Gentleman would, I hope, make the same speech to his Labour party colleagues in local government. Most urban areas have been under Labour control for many years. I am not trying to make a party political point, but politicians of all parties, to a certain extent, must do something about it.
  I shall read a few lines from a previous debate on the subject:
  "Crime and dishonesty pay as never before … Cheating … has become common practice and dishonesty generally has been allowed to pay … Is it any wonder that Dr. Trevor Huddleston"—
  a leading churchman—
  "was quoted as having said … 'I think this country's very sick indeed.—[Official Report, 4 May 1970; Vol. 301, c. 40–41.]
  That is not an extract from a speech by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or by any other Opposition spokesman on home affairs. It is an extract from a speech made by the Member for Wellingborough on 4 May 1970. I am delighted to say that it is the same Member for Wellingborough who addresses the House tonight.
  After 23 years, what is new? Crime figures seem to be much worse. Perhaps just as important, and more significant for the future, is the growing loss of confidence among the public that Parliament, the courts and the police are tackling problems in the right way. It is no wonder that some members of the public take the law into their own hands.
  There is a great deal of frustration, anger and disgust and that has led some people to take the law into their own hands where they believe that the responsible authority has acted and failed. The danger now is that, despite the enormous amounts that we have spent not just on policing but on education and social work, public confidence is waning. The public are becoming impatient for action, as the letters in any hon. Member's postbag will tell him.
  It is no good the Lord Chief Justice, or any other judge, criticising and condemning those who take their own action. It is no good Parliament tut-tutting and talking about the rule of law. It is no good the heads of our police forces saying, "Leave it it us", when far too many of our fellow citizens see crime going unpunished and obviously paying. Those citizens are the victims.
  The chairman of one public company was quoted this week as saying that £20 million had been lost in theft from the company's premises, much of it committed by those who are not yet teenagers. It is worth making the point that the crimes that disturb most people are not the major crimes that hit the headlines, although of course they do not worry about those. Most people are worried about the crimes with which they have contact, rather than major murders, bank robberies and sensations in which newspapers delight. They worry about minor burglaries of their homes, the theft of cars from outside their houses, the theft of radios and other items from their cars. the vandalism of their property, and hooliganism in general.
  I suggest that hon. Members should go to any local authority housing estate. They would often find a
  1180
  horrendous list of complaints. I was told by one housing association that, in this time of housing shortages, it has houses in one city in the north of England that it cannot let because people would not accept living in that neighbourhood.
  The quality of life of so many of our people is undermined by petty crime, but the loss suffered by each person who feels violated and that he or she is a victim is important. Too often these days, that loss tends, in their eyes, to be ignored. One of my constituents reported the loss of his car radio. When, many hours later, a policeman came to take details, my constituent asked why he had taken so long. The policeman replied that he had been taking details of car radio thefts all day. My constituent asked what was to happen. The policeman said that nothing would happen. He would put the theft down on his list and that would be the end of it. No wonder that constituent has little faith in the way in which the law operates.
  I go further. That type of crime is not only being ignored; it is being condoned. We have heard how the youth in certain parts of our country who have no job and little or no social security are in such a desperate state that it is understandable that they should become law breakers. I have heard even a senior police officer say something along those lines. That is a tremendous insult to the law-abiding majority of people and also the law-abiding majority of our young people.
  People ask themselves, "Why do I obey the law? Why should I teach my children about right and wrong when too many others benefit from crime?" Too many people are making excuses for crime. Even the Government are doing so. When they finally agreed, after representations from colleagues including myself, to provide long-term secure accommodation for juvenile joyriders, an official handout from the Home Office played down the unpleasant aspects of such confinement and stressed that conditions would not be too hard in those facilities. Most people in this country would want to know why on earth not? How many offences do that minority of 12, 13 and 14-year-olds have to commit before they are taken away and stopped from being a nuisance to the rest of society? Do they have to kill by the reckless use of a motor car before effective action is taken?
  It may be asked what the response of the courts, Parliament and police has been to the situation that I have been describing. I shall give some examples from the local courts. A grandfather wrote to me saying that his grandson had bought his first motor cycle, which was later stolen. He then discovered that the motor cycle had been sold to somebody else and, being percipient, was able to track down the offender and give the information to the police. He received a letter from the police, thanking him for his action and adding that the offender had been arrested. However, due to official policy, the offender had been let off with a caution. That point was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
  The House may find interesting what I would describe as two weeks in the life of a magistrates court. One of my constituents was arrested and told to attend court on 25 April. He failed to attend, and a warrant was issued. On 29 April, he was arrested for a new offence. On 30 April, he appeared before the court which promptly bailed him, although residency and reporting conditions were placed

  1181
  on that bail. On 3 May he failed to report, and on 4 May he was arrested for breach of bail conditions. The court continued the residency and reporting conditions. On 4 May, he failed to report. On 5 May, he was again arrested for breach of bail conditions. On 6 May, the court bailed him and removed the reporting conditions. Is it any wonder that on 8 May he was arrested for several new offences?
  My local magistrates court unfortunately has the reputation of being the softest in Northamptonshire and, with a record like that, it is not surprising. It is not a matter of pride to me or to the majority of my constituents, who strongly feel that much sterner and stiffer action is needed. It is not just a local problem; we all know of the ludicrously light sentences that have been handed down by some of the judiciary, even for killing people. Increasingly, too many of those who are guilty of serious crimes seem to get away with a very light sentence, whereas those who commit what might be considered lesser crimes, such as motoring offences, tend to be dealt with severely.
  I am full of admiration for the policeman on the beat. He is the one at the sharp end and has to deal with the public. He needs and deserves our support. The reality is, however, that they are called on to be firefighters. They are supposed to deal not with the causes of crime but only with its symptoms. I take the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South made in that respect.
  The task of the police has become enormous because there is too much bureaucracy and the courts are too weak. The effectiveness of the police has been undermined. As a result, some senior police officers seem to have decided to say, "We cannot cope with everything, so let us cope with what we can."
  In my own county, what is called a diversionary policy has been followed for a number of years. Our present chief constable—an excellent man, whom we are very sorry to lose; however, we congratulate him on his promotion to Her Majesty's inspectorate—has recently issued a new version of that policy. It applies to juvenile offenders and is based on the premise that 10 per cent. of youngsters are responsible for 40 per cent. of juvenile crime. The aim is to target the young people who are most likely to reoffend rather than those who might be brought before the courts on one occasion only.
  Under this system, when a youngster is caught for his first, second or third offence, he is diverted away from the juvenile court to the juvenile liaison bureau, where he is counselled and cautioned. It is claimed that, as a result, 70 per cent. of such youngsters do not reoffend.
  That policy has been backed by local magistrates, youth agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service and, to my surprise, by the local branch of the Police Federation. I understand why the policy has been introduced, but I do not share the enthusiasm for it felt by so many estimable bodies—nor does a very large section of our local population—because 30 per cent. of such youngsters do reoffend. They may receive just a ticking off for as many as six offences. That policy is far from a deterrent; it actually encourages youngsters to commit more crimes because they get away with it very easily.
  Some juvenile magistrates have complained that they cannot understand why court sittings have been cancelled when juvenile crime is on the increase. Many individual
  1182
  policemen do not like the policy. I was sent a copy of the revised document and on it was inscribed "The Thugs Charter". It had obviously been surreptitiously sent by someone in the police headquarters in Northampton.
  By talking to individual policemen, I have learned that the police do not much like the policy. The public like it even less. It seems to them and to me an admission of failure that we cannot cope with all the crime and all the potential criminals. At the same time, it is sending the wrong message to those young offenders, who are encouraged to offend again. I find it deeply depressing that the police are being forced to use such a flawed system.
  What of Parliament and the Government? I welcome the announcement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about removing so much of the red tape and bureaucracy that have been endured by our police forces. I am delighted that parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are being reviewed in relation to past offences and income-related fines. I am grateful that offenders who reoffend on bail will receive heavier sentences. I am also pleased that we will now be able to put persistent joyriders and juvenile offenders into more permanent secure accommodation.
  Opposition Members will be interested to know that there was a youngster in Wellingborough who was reckoned to have stolen at least 25 cars—that was as many as could be attributed to him. Every time he was arrested and taken to the local authority home, the police believe that he had got out, stolen another car and got home before the police car that had taken him to that home had arrived back in Wellingborough. The whole process had become a total mockery.
  I am grateful for everything that the Government have done, but I must say to my hon. Friends that we need to do more. I mean no insult, but the House must pay greater attention to law and order legislation as it is considered by Parliament. We would not have had some of the errors in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 if hon. Members had not left its consideration to the lawyers of the House.
  Any hon. Member who does half a job knows that the electorate are worried that not enough is being done and that there is a lack of confidence in law and order. The Government should consider a number of issues. The right to silence needs to be examined. We find that 15 or 16-year-olds are instructed by their lawyers to say nothing to the police, so that it becomes impossible to convict them properly. A refusal to answer a reasonable question should be allowed to raise doubts in the minds of justices and jurors.
  We should examine whether the pendulum has not swung too far towards protecting the guilty rather than protecting the victims of crime. We should look again at the age of legal criminal responsibility. A few years ago, a gentleman came to me and said, "The local gipsies are sending their youngsters into our village to steal our produce. They are very clever because they are sending youngsters below the age of criminal responsibility." I asked, "Surely your village has a policeman. Why don't you report it to him?" He said, "I am the village policeman and I cannot do anything about it."
  Whatever we do about the Sheehy report, may I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that we should be most careful not to do anything to reduce police morale. The police must not feel that they are being got at or that their job has been downgraded.

  1183
  None of the policies that we have put forward will be successful unless we harness the power and co-operation of public opinion. An area in my constituency suffered from many difficulties, but, with the encouragement of the police and the local authority, we set up a residents association and the amount of crime was vastly reduced. That kind of experiment is a positive way forward. The police cannot do it on their own; they need the public not just to report offences but to be willing to give evidence. Both the police and the public need the support of the courts and we who are the law makers.
  If we respond to the challenge, we shall regain public confidence, police morale will rise and the legal system will be held in higher respect. It is an enormous challenge and I do not envy my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Department. But it is more than a challenge it is a duty. The happiness and quality of life of so many of our Fellow citizens depends upon our success. I do not believe that we can fail them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I must point out that the winding-up speeches will commence at 9.30. There are at least six hon. Members who wish to speak, so may I make a request for succinct speeches?
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's speech to discover whether I would hear anything other than the routine rubric of a new Conservative Home Secretary talking platitudes about what is wrong while ignoring the fact that he and his colleagues have been in office since 1979. He cannot possibly deceive the House nor do I think that he can deceive the people in general by trotting out the speech that has been used by perhaps half a dozen Conservative Home Secretaries two or three times every year in the Chamber and on countless occasions outside.
  Conservative Home Secretaries make excuses and deliver many speeches about law and order which are full of platitudes, but they are slow to tackle the causes of crime or to bolster the sagging morale of police officers. The Conservatives must recognise that the hallmark of the Thatcher years was the creation of a selfish society, which has contributed to rising crime and the breakdown of law and order. In brief, they must be charged with contributing—albeit unintentionally—to the breakdown of society and to the increase in crime.
  Conservative Members, and especially Home Secretaries, repeatedly imply criticism of the police. It is typical of this Government that they have gone through professional group after professional group, implying that they are failing society and the public but without recognising that. they themselves have failed to Fund properly many essential public services, including the police service. If Conservative Members think that I am making an unfair charge, I refer them to paragraph 2.2 of the White Paper that was published this week. It states:
  "The main job of the police is to catch criminals. In a typical day, however, only 18 per cent. of calls to the police are about crime, and only about 40 per cent. of police officers' time is spent dealing directly with crime."
  I do not accept that the most important or exclusive responsibility of a police officer is merely to fight crime; there are the issues of public confidence, mobility and
  1184
  general order as well. When a crime is committed and when society has failed, it is the police who come to the rescue on our behalf. Putting aside that issue, the implication in the White Paper is that too much police time is spent on bureaucracy; but what about the traffic division of the police? It does not combat crime; it ensures mobility and makes certain that traumatic and harrowing accidents are dealt with expeditiously and humanely and that proper reports are made for the victims and the various authorities. It is nonsense to suggest that there is a vast police bureaucracy which merely shifts paper. The Government's repeated charge against these good professional public servants is very unfair. I reject the charge and wish, on his behalf, to defend the average police officer.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said that we must have regard to police morale. I agree that police morale is low, and it is low for a variety of reasons, including underfunding, lack of support from the House and also because of documents such as those which have been published this week.
  Police officers are deeply cynical about the Government's intentions. The Government announced a little while ago that they were setting up the Sheehy inquiry into pay and conditions—[Interruption.] If the Government Whip will contain himself, he will hear what I have to say. The Sheehy inquiry was to look into the pay and conditions of service of police officers. It was supposed to be independent but, within a short time, the Government announced that they were also publishing a White Paper. The White Paper on the future structure of the police has this week preceded the so-called independent Sheehy report—clearly the Government have pre-empted the Sheehy inquiry.
  I believe that the pay, conditions and structure of the police service are indivisible. The White Paper has been published in advance of the Sheehy report. Either the Government decided to pre-empt Sheehy or there has been collusion between that inquiry and the Home Secretary; which would mean that it is not to be an independent inquiry. Police officers have noticed this and they are deeply worried because their service is not being judged fairly or objectively.
  There is a Cinderella part of the police service which has not yet been mentioned, or at least not while I have been here, and I should like to remedy that omission. I am referring to the many dedicated police officers who are in what are known, inappropriately, as non-Home Office forces. They do not receive the attention that they deserve. They include the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police and the Royal Parks Constabulary as well as the Northern Ireland Airport police which the Government recklessly and foolishly intend to privatise. That is breathtaking.
  When police officers, whether they are in the Home Office or non-Home Office forces, realise that forces can be privatised, they regard it as a great threat to the dignity of their office and their capacity to protect and promote our interests. They know that the Government's secret agenda is to extend the privatisation of police services, as happened with the Port of London police authority which was privatised before the last general election. The Northern Ireland Airport police force is now to be privatised. Many officers fear that these are intended as experimental runs before the hiving-off of many other police functions.

  1185
  At the same time as the Edmund-Davies report which, like the Sheehy report, dealt with Home Office forces, the Government of the day commissioned what became known as the Wright report. This looked into the pay, conditions of service and structure of non-Home Office forces. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance to those police officers in the non-Home Office forces that their service will on this occasion have a matching inquiry and report into their pay and conditions of service, comparable to the Wright report of 1979.
  If the Government get around to legislating, I hope that they will think it appropriate to define carefully what a police constable is and what his or her basic training should be. It may concern hon. Members to know that the Government have no knowledge about how many police constables there are or where they are. They know where the Home Office constables are but they do not know the number or location of many officers from a variety of small constabularies; although they are also sworn constables. It is not fair to those constables and it is bad public policy not to know exactly who and where they are.
  I think that all hon. Members will agree that it is important that every constable should be of a common professional standard. He should not be sworn in at an obscure magistrates court, given a surplus police uniform and told that he is a constable. However, that is what happens at the moment in some cases. The London borough of Wandsworth and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea have their own police officers in their parks. Those officers do a superb job, and I do not knock them, but central Government do not know who they are or how many there are, and they certainly do not oversee their training. The same is true of constabularies elsewhere. It is bad for police officers generally, and a proper standard should be applied.
  I am also worried that non-Home Office forces are not subject to the same rules of inspection as Home Office forces. I recently tabled some parliamentary questions and learnt that forces, from the largest to the smallest, from the British Transport police down to the Wandsworth park police, are not automatically subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. They should be; that is in the interests of the officers. Their federations and professional associations would welcome it.
  It is an important fact that when inspections are made by Her Majesty's inspectorate, the federations do not automatically have an independent meeting with the inspector; in some cases, rather unhealthily, I believe, management or senior officers are present.
  I should like an assurance that the federations, professional associations and police trade unions will be able to have independent meetings with Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.
  The Sheehy report seems to contain a threat to the ability of police officers to be represented to the fullest possible extent by the Police Federation. Page 109 of the report contains an ominous paragraph which states:
  "Police Federation and other staff association representatives should be paid … when attending joint meetings with management or preparing for them but not for attending meetings concerned solely with staff association business;".
  That is worrying because it is subjective about what is meant by preparing for joint meetings and what is meant by "solely … staff association business". Common sense
  1186
  should prevail. I had assumed that it always did prevail, but the introduction of such a paragraph is deeply disturbing because it threatens the Police Federation and its officers.
  Page 134 of the Sheehy report contains a definition of
  "in the execution of duty".
  London contains not just the Metropolitan police and the City police but the Royal Parks Constabulary, which plays an increasing role in security in the Westminster area as well as the British Transport police in the tube and British Rail stations. On many occasions those officers are inhibited from spontaneously executing their duty because the law is unclear about when and where they have the right to act as police officers. Those officers should have co-jurisdiction in central London and similarly such co-jurisdiction should also apply to uniformed officers serving with the Atomic Energy police and the Ministry of Defence police, and so on. Their powers are unclear, and that is unfair to police officers who have to make split-second judgments that could subsequently embarrass them or their force. I hope that that matter will be examined.
  Our police do a good job and I am proud to have this opportunity to say that in the House. They are the meat in the sandwich of rising crime and public demands for a change in the law and order climate. They are overstretched and underfunded. The proposals in the White Paper and in the Sheehy report do nothing to improve their morale; they will do the reverse. These documents will not halt the rise in crime.
  The Government must reassure police officers that they have the confidence of the House and that they will be properly funded. Special constables are good public servants who volunteer their time. Increasing their numbers should not be seen as a way of getting policing on the cheap. They should be increased but not at the expense of providing the requisite number of properly paid police officers. Not only the House but the people we represent expect the Government to provide such a professional force.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their appointments to office. Many Conservative Members are nothing less than overjoyed at their appointments because we know about their commitment to solving some of the many law and order problems that give rise to such great concern. There was a Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House earlier, but the Benches of that party are now empty. The Liberal Democrats often make an issue of law and order and cynically whine about crime figures and issue "Focus" newsletters on the subject, but it is disgraceful that they cannot take the time to listen to this debate. Much of their rhetoric is humbug, and we shall tell our constituents that when the chips were down and the House had the opportunity to discuss law and order the Liberal Democrats did not even bother to turn up.
  In many ways, law and order is the most important issue facing the country and it concerns ordinary people far more than anything else. They are especially worried about property-related crime. Most hon. Members who are fortunate enough not to have been burgled, robbed or attacked will certainly know someone who has been.
  The scale of the problem was clearly brought home to me a few days ago when I was at a football match in

  1187
  Blackpool. I spoke about the issue to a Liberal councillor. Some Liberal councillors appear to be concerned about such issues, even though their parliamentary party is not. He told me that he had recently been burgled and I told him that my wife had had her handbag stolen. While we were discussing those two incidents, a friend entered the room and announced that his car had just been stolen from outside the football ground.
  Those three property-related incidents were reported to the police, but many similar incidents are not. The official statistics for such crime are bad enough, but they probably do not reflect the real scale of the problem. Some 94 per cent. of all recorded crime last year was against property, and in Blackpool alone there were 5,224 recorded offences of burglary. Many offences, even if they are recorded, are not registered in the book because the police often simply urge victims to put in an insurance claim. Property crimes have a relatively low clear-up rate. Only 31 per cent. of last year's burglaries in Blackpool have so far been cleared up.
  As the Home Secretary rightly said, the Government understand and are concerned about the importance of tackling property-related crime. I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary stress that, and I am sure that he will stick to it. The Government's efforts on such crime appear to have made some difference to the official figures. A greater emphasis on community policing and the establishment of more than 11,500 neighbourhood watch schemes have undoubtedly contributed to slowing the high rate of increase of recorded property crime. But much more needs to be done.
  Property-related crime must be taken seriously, not only by the Government but by the police and the judiciary. It must be understood from the victim's point of view and our response should be determined from that perspective. Sentencing policies must properly reflect the hardship and suffering of victims of such crime. Few people who have not experienced a burglary or a break-in can possibly understand the emotional and psychological scars and the long-term fear caused by such an occurrence. We must tell the judges to take account of that in their sentencing.
  The police must also take property-related crime much more seriously. I understand that the Metropolitan police have now made it their top priority and I hope that Lancashire constabulary will do the same. It should take priority over some of the other issues which appear to concern the police, such as bullying motorists. What does it matter if they have to divert resources from bullying motorists if it means that they can catch more real criminals? We have to make sure of two things: first, that property-related crime does not pay, for the criminal, the fence or the parent, guardian or anyone else with a degree of responsibility. We must teach criminals that society condemns them and that our response will be swift, harsh and unrelenting.
  Secondly, we must show our determination to catch and prosecute those responsible for property-related crime. A 31 per cent. clear-up rate is simply not good enough. We have to ensure that resources are available to enable the police to catch and convict those responsible for such crimes.
  I am particularly concerned about the special problems faced by the police in constituencies such as mine. Tourist resorts such as Blackpool contain large populations of elderly people who are terrorised by the increasing numbers of break-ins and burglaries. They also contain
  1188
  large numbers of hotels, restaurants and small businesses whose trade is particularly difficult at times when the police appear to be swamped by the sheer scale of the problem.
  Blackpool has 17 million visitors every year, but there appears to be little understanding of the extra strain that this places on police budgets. The Lancashire constabulary receives little extra practical help from the Government to cope with the problem.
  Our limited resources are considerably depleted by the fact that the cost of policing Conservative and Labour party conferences falls entirely on Lancashire council taxpayers. It is little wonder that local people in my constituency are annoyed when they see the streets full of policemen for one week in October every year, but, at other times, cannot find a policeman for love or money.
  The problem is made still worse in some tourist areas by the large numbers of "commuter criminals" who visit Blackpool and other tourist areas courtesy of the Department of Social Security and end up plundering the local population and defrauding the taxpayer. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will urge the police and the DSS to make Blackpool the centre of a major crackdown on crime and social security during this year's holiday season.
  People throughout the country are worried as never before about crime and the likelihood of becoming victims of it. We have seen a slow erosion of confidence in an individual's ability to go about his business securely without molestation or attack. We now have to change the balance of fear which has slipped dangerously away from the criminal, who was once wary of the consequences of his action, to the innocent who believe that they will become the helpless victims of people who feel no threat from the law.
  The balance of fear is the biggest challenge facing us all. We have to shift it back so that criminals are the ones who have to skulk in the shadows and live in a twilight world instead of the innocent, law-abiding British citizens, many of them elderly, having to look over their shoulders when they leave their front doors and increasingly having to look under their beds when they return home at night.
  If we want the sort of society that the Prime Minister talks about, where elderly ladies can bicycle to evensong without expecting to find that the church bells have been stolen or the vicar mugged, we must address the question of deterrence as well as detection and of punishment as well as confidence. I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary appears determined to do just that.
  People know that crime cannot be solved overnight, but they are sick and tired of being the ones who have to worry about it while criminals with broad grins gloat at them from the dock in the sure knowledge that they will get every care and consideration.
  We have in my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend a Home Secretary and a Minister of State determined to drive back the rising tide of crime. I hope that they will steel themselves to usher in an era of unprecedented harshness in our counter attack against crime.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I regret having missed the Home Secretary's opening speech. It was an unavoidable discourtesy. I was attending the launch of the Lancashire housing inquiry upstairs, chaired by the Bishop of Burnley, which has revealed astonishingly frightening housing conditions in Lancashire.
  I am tempted to embark on a discussion of the complex connections between bad and overcrowded housing, homelessness and crime. I shall not do that, but it illustrates the fact that the fight against crime should be fought on many fronts as well as fiddling with the structures of the police force or police authorities, building more prisons and altering sentencing powers.
  At the risk of prolonging my speech, I cannot resist commenting on the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). It was an alarming speech from an hon. and learned Gentleman who is so prominent in this field. He seemed to be trying to smooth over all the worries being expressed by his right hon. and hon. Friends as well as by Labour Members about the rising level of crime and the changing nature of crimes by saying that it was simply a matter of rising detection rates. He displayed alarming complacency for someone in his position. I was also interested in his comment that barristers are sitting on their backsides in chambers because all their work has dried up. My withers are wrung at that prospect; no doubt we will have a collection for them.in Skelmersdale in due course.
  I want also to mention briefly what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Burton and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) about the absence of the Liberals. People who live in glasshouses ought to be more careful. When the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was speaking and being insulted by Conservative Members, he was representing almost the exact proportion of his membership of the House as Conservative Members were theirs. There were 14 Conservative Members present at the time and there are few more than that here now. They should be rather careful about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the Sheehy report. I received a letter from the North-West Police Superintendents' Association complaining about the fact that their entire organisation, representing 43 authorities, was given only two copies of the Sheehy report as they cost £40 a go, when previously they had been promised enough copies to go round their various districts as important consultees in the coming decisions.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise one important aspect of the law and order crisis which the debate is struggling to address—the awful problem of what appears to be an increasing incidence of attacks on elderly people.
  In my constituency, which is generally a peaceable place and which is sensitively and well policed, there have been in recent months a disturbing number of attacks on the elderly, particularly elderly women. The motivation for those attacks is usually theft, although the excessive and brutal violence that is sometimes characteristic of them suggests something more sinister. Some elderly people have been positively heroic in their physical resistance, but, unfortunately, as a result they have been worse hurt.
  I have no reason to believe that this particular villainy is worse in my constituency than in any other. The horrible
  1190
  news items one hears and sees in the media of elderly women being raped and badly beaten suggests that my constituency might be relatively fortunate.
  I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member would agree that it is utterly intolerable for elderly citizens to live in fear, often feeling exposed to outrageous and unpredictable violence from thugs who think nothing of attacking them, sometimes for pennies.
  A number of issues arise out of that obvious and incontrovertible comment. Such attacks grab the headlines, and rightly so. The press has a duty to condemn, to inform and to warn the public. However, I suspect that the frequent telling of such stories not only increases fear but serves to advertise to both the ruthless and the desperate the existence of easy targets in easy reach in every community. I am not arguing for the suppression of that kind of news, but I am anxious that measures to protect the elderly and to punish offenders are publicised with something close to equal effectiveness as at least some sort of counter-measure. If that is to be remotely useful, those measures must be in place and progressively improved and perceived to be progressively toughened.
  While the Home Office must take the lead in such matters, the burden falls on local police and local authorities, and so there are implications for the Department of the Environment. Elderly people do not live just in sheltered accommodation, which offers a modicum of protection. In my scattered constituency, many of the elderly live in isolated lanes, cottages separated from villages by acres of farmland, and—as everywhere else—spread throughout the rest of the community in villages and towns. There are about 15,000 elderly people in my constituency, and all are potentially vulnerable in different ways.
  West Lancashire district council has a successful mobile warden scheme, which seeks to prevent distress from illness or accident—but it cannot reach everyone or act as an emergency crimewatch service. The local police force has begun to institute community policemen and women with their own bailiwicks, which is a tremendously popular and effective approach. However, it similarly cannot hope to cover everyone on a regular basis.
  The district council has a programme to introduce intercoms and security locks, with the specific aim of helping the elderly defend themselves—but the steady strangulation of funding prevents the council from realising its improvement programme. I do not expect the Government—least of all this Government—to produce X millions of pounds to solve that problem, but I believe that a huge effort should be made to tackle it in the short and medium term.
  This is a resource problem, and standard spending assessments should be carefully examined to see how the funding of protection of the elderly can be enhanced and earmarked. Councils should set targets to provide every elderly person with a personal alarm and an instant emergency line, house intercom, security locks, doorstep lighting, and better street and lane lighting in key areas. Funding should be increased to provide better information to the elderly on how to be cautious. Many elderly people have slowed down—as we have, or will do—and find it difficult to absorb detailed warnings or to take quick decisions in a crisis. Every means of advising them of the right action in such circumstances should be used. Similarly, attention should be paid to educating communities on how to watch out for and to care for the

  1191
  elderly in their midst. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) mentioned young people working with the elderly.
  It may be that postmen and women and milkmen and women, who often act as unpaid social workers, could be offered incentives and training on how to be especially vigilant in respect of their elderly customers.
  Above all, the steady extension of community policing should be vigorously encouraged. It might be an effective way forward in police forces that are moving strongly in that direction to encourage them to do more by allocating extra police on the basis of existing provision of beat police rather than the lack of it.
  I hope that a determined programme along those lines, led by the Government and well publicised, would do something to make some thugs hesitate. It might also help to alleviate some of the fear that is felt by the elderly, and it would at least ensure a feeling among them that national and local government and their local communities are alert to their fears and are on their side.
  For many years, Labour Members have pointed out that most victims of crime are the poor, young and elderly, and those who live on rundown estates. Most of them cannot afford sophisticated means of defending themselves from crime or harassment. Most are not effectively organised to demand more policing or additional resources. It is unacceptable to me for any of my constituents to be exposed to violence. It is also unacceptable to me that means of helping to combat that violence are not applied, or are insufficiently applied through a shortage of resources, when the technology exists to do the job.
  It is even more unacceptable to me when the targets of such violence are those least able physically to defend themselves. We should all be determined that we will not allow such a situation to continue. If we cannot offer sufficient protection to our elderly, we are failing as a community—and the Government are failing in their duty to lead such a campaign.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I remind the House of my interest as a consultant to the Dixon group. I do so only because of the considerable publicity recently given to remarks on this issue by the chairman of that company.
  Many hon. Members referred to current massive widespread concern about crime. Like one or two of my hon. Friends who have spoken, I represent a largely rural area that has seen an explosion in crime of different sorts, and particularly in burglaries. That is evident in correspondence from individual constituents, parish councils, and so on.
  Cambridgeshire has the additional problem of travellers. I do not mean huge bands of new age travellers but smaller groups of itinerants, who have been described to me by senior police officers in the county as nothing more than a mobile crime wave. There is no doubt that they pose a serious problem in many of the villages that I represent.
  Public perception of the situation is of too few prosecutions and that the police are either unable or unwilling to help. The public are angry. Because crime is ever increasing, they perceive that the intellectual approach to solving it that has been adopted for a number
  1192
  of years appears to be failing. They see lenient sentences being passed. In the past two years, there were two cases in my constituency of causing death by dangerous driving that both resulted in a massive public outcry because of the leniency of the sentences imposed.
  The public see too few police evident on the streets and in the villages. They see parents apparently getting away with allowing their children to run totally out of control. No wonder that the villages are seeking to hire their own security guards, and that in Norfolk two men took on the role of vigilantes, and that there was a massive public outcry at their initial sentences—thankfully, now reduced. Yesterday we saw reports about the Welsh hill farmer, Mr. Bill Price. He was assaulted by a band of new age travellers while the police stood by, and was then prosecuted after using his digger to push those parasites off his land. Thankfully, the judge was sensible enough to throw out the case, but it was a massive waste of time. What has happened to our sense of proportion?
  As several colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have said, even the police are frustrated by the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to carry through cases into which they have put a vast amount of time and effort. At the same time, they see the CPS pursue cases such as that of Mr. Bill Price, whose only offence, if it is an offence, was to defend his property. Whatever has happened to the ability of the British people to stand back and take an objective and balanced view of the seriousness of crimes?
  We have a dichotomy. Despite their concerns, the public do not fully accept that they have an important role to play. They tend to expect the police or the Government to do it all. The Government have devised and entered into a multitude of crime prevention measures, such as neighbourhood watch or safer cities. You name it, and we have thought of it. However sensible those schemes may be, the fundamental question is, why should people be forced to turn their homes and vehicles into fortresses? Why should we be encouraging people to become nothing more than snoopers on their neighbours and others? When we do that, we treat the symptoms, not the disease. The disease is the inability of too many people to know right from wrong. That is why we are now having to adopt what we call crime prevention, but which is, in some ways, simply defending oneself against crime. For generations the moral value of not knowing right from wrong has been in steep decline and it is, therefore, self perpetuating.
  It is easy to apportion blame to one group or another, usually the group furthest from one's own position. We are all to blame. Most of us are or will be parents. Many parents were probably insufficiently controlled or disciplined themselves, and that comes through generation after generation. There is no doubt that teachers have largely abdicated any responsibility for discipline. The end of corporal punishment in schools was one factor in that and it was shameful.
  The media—television and videos—have already been mentioned and I will not spend much time on that. However, people say, "Oh, there has always been violence on television. There were cowboys and indians when we were youngsters." I enjoyed cowboys and indians and I still do. However, the significant difference between cowboys and indians and much of today's violence on television is that much of today's violence is presented in an every-day scenario with which people can identify. The western was set in some sort of make-believe land with which people could not so easily identify.

  1193
  The Church has been far too wishy-washy for years on the question of moral values. Whatever happened to the hell fire and damnation vicars that we used to have in my childhood? They did a great deal to encourage people and to help them to understand right from wrong.[Interruption.] Yes, politicians too. We have concentrated on the symptoms to which I have referred rather than on the disease.
  How should we address the problems? It is very much a carrot-and-stick approach. There is no simple, single solution. The stick has to be tough sentences and tough policing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) said, there has to be a uniformed presence on the streets and in our villages.
  I value the special constables immensely. They must be used wisely and, wherever possible, they must be used to police their own community. They should not just be used for crowd control at football matches or for paperwork. They find that frustrating and get fed up and do something else. They can find something more interesting to do with their time. They want to be involved in protecting their own community and villages want to have their own special constables. They want to be able to employ them if possible. I am looking forward to the early results of the pilot scheme running in Dorset where special constables are being paid.
  We need the ability to lock up the worst of our young criminals. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the accommodation must be available on the day the law changes next year. It is no use local authorities or anybody else saying that they will have problems for a year or two. There are plenty of buildings available that could be adapted over the coming months.
  The carrot of the approach that I recommend has to be opportunity. If there were any Opposition Members left in the Chamber, they might find themselves in some agreement with what I have to say. I totally reject the idea that poverty itself is the cause of crime. It is offensive to many people to suggest that. However, one cannot escape the conclusion that boredom and hopelessness are part of the equation. "The devil makes work for idle hands" is a saying that I remember from my childhood.
  I recently saw a report about the Bonnemaison scheme in France, where three tiers of councils for the prevention of delinquency were set up at national, departmental, and town and city council levels. The councils were not excessive in their cost, but the approach was one of prevention and repression working together. All departments and city councils have set up such schemes and they are working extremely successfully.
  The attitude of the Treasury pervades so many of our debates. One of the problems of crime is the inability of the Treasury to recognise the costs of crime: the direct costs of keeping people in prison or in bail hostels and the indirect costs to the community, to insurance companies and, of course, to individuals. The Treasury needs to understand that there is a significant trade-off between expenditure on programmes such as the youth training scheme and others and the costs of crime, and that there is a trade-off between the costs of secure accommodation and the costs of crime. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, there has to be a clear recognition that the
  1194
  cost of providing some of the curative measures that he recommended is insignificant compared to the costs of keeping people in prisons and elsewhere.
  There is no simple solution, but tough policies and tough sentences have a vital role to play. The public expect them, but it is not the solution for every individual criminal. There must be greater co-ordination between all Departments and a far more positive approach by the Treasury.
  My final message to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and especially to my Whip, is this. We are now in the season of guessing the contents of the next Gracious Speech, which will be made in November. Excluding the Finance Bill, which is an inevitability, I do not mind if there is only one other piece of legislation in next year's Gracious Speech, as long as it is comprehensive and addresses the problems of crime. It needs to bring together not just the Home Office but every other Department. Nearly every Department must work together in a co-ordinated programme—a combination of the stick and carrot—to crack down on the problems. My constituents in Cambridgeshire expect that of a Conservative Government, and I hope that we can deliver.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The constructive speech made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) raised the important issue of rural crime, to which I will return shortly, because it is also a problem in my constituency. I exclude him from some of the comments that I intend to make about some of his hon. Friends.
  I am awed by the gall of some Conservative Members, who, after rightly condemning rising crime and drawing attention to the problems in their constituencies, said how much confidence they have in the policies of a Government who, for the past 14 years, have presided over the largest ever increase in crime. One wonders who has been in government for the past 14 years. It seems almost a triumph of party loyalty and complacency over reality, because the reality of crime has been felt by over 30,000 victims in my county. Since the Government came to office in 1979, crime in my county has trebled, car thefts and burglaries have quadrupled and, in the same period, the number of police has increased by only 16 per cent.
  The Government have now announced a year-on-year freeze on expenditure on future police recruitment. The nation is calling out for a fight back against crime. There is real fear out there, and people want to see more policemen on the beat. The Government have not only failed to halt the rise in the crime rate, but have now decided that they will not put the resources that the public are demanding into the police.
  The failure to resource properly not only the police but drug rehabilitation centres and other social projects which help to reduce crime is a false economy. If we do not continue to provide the resources, the public will pay the price—in increased crime, increased debt, increased insurance premiums, higher charges, higher prices and greater fear.
  In our rural areas, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East has already said, where once people lived in relative safety, there is increased fear of crime and a demand for more village policemen and more policemen on the beat.

  1195
  I was speaking at the weekend to Police Constable Adrian Lofthouse, who works very hard in the village of Arley, a small former mining village in north Warwickshire. In Arley, over the last few months, we have had to have a number of public meetings to address the increasing concern about severe crime. They have been attended by senior county officers.
  PC Lofthouse is doing a really excellent job in seeking to restore confidence in law and order in Arley, as are the rest of the Warwickshire police. He is a credit to his force and his community, yet he works against a background of little help from Government. In particular, there have been, for example, cuts in the youth service in Warwickshire, following two years of poll tax capping. This has meant youngsters on the street who perhaps otherwise would not have been there, and the recession has left many unemployed and increased deprivation in my constituency.
  Increased crime is linked not just to a lack of police, but also to social conditions at home and in the community. But the police play a key role and, at a time when they are under such pressure, it is essential that that public service be provided with adequate resources, and important that we do all we can to maintain and improve police morale.
  At the last Police Federation conference, the chairman of the federation, Mr. Alan Eastwood, said:
  "I have truly never known a time when the service at every level has been so demoralised."
  It seems to me that, after reading the Sheehy report, he is likely to see morale fall even lower.
  One senior Police Federation member said to me this afternoon:
  "I do not understand what we have done to deserve this. It is a mill owners' charter. Edmund-Davies treated us better, because we had no right to strike. Sheehy treats us worse."
  The Sheehy report is a report for saving cash, not for beating crime. Many of the provisions will bring a reduction in the standard and conditions of police officers. Any group of workers who have their conditions made less attractive are likely to suffer a fall in morale and motivation. At a time when crime is escalating and the public are demanding action to fight crime, it would be wrong of the Government to implement policies that would undermine police morale.
  The Sheehy report has provoked anger among many police officers. It comes on the back of announcements that local police authorities will include Home Office appointments and be reorganised—something that I know has caused great disquiet in my area, and doubts as to whether police forces such as Warwickshire's may face amalgamation in the not too distant future.
  It cannot be sensible to impose one change after another upon the police, while at the same time freezing recruitment. No one denies that some changes are necessary, but we need reform and gradualism, and Sheehy and the other changes all brought together provide a revolution in policing that will shake it to its foundations and cause dislocation, at the very time when we need stability in the police force in order to enhance the fight against crime.
  I do not dismiss the Sheehy report. Many of its provisions are well worth considering. There are too many chiefs and not enough officers on the beat, and plans to remove some layers of management can be supported if they release resources to put more officers on the beat.
  1196
  Better management structures and efficiency are necessary, and the report has much to recommend on that. It deals with the need to remove incompetent officers quickly but fairly. All police officers want to ensure that that is possible. Some allowances are antiquated and should rightly go—but beware: I say, not all the allowances. Allowances for removal, for example, are important, as police officers can be removed almost at a moment's notice to another area, and it can be quite a considerable distance in rural areas. Such allowances are important.
  Many of Sheehy's proposals are not helpful. For example, its pension proposals are considerably worse, which will cause great concern among many officers. Fixed-term contracts and a reduction of up to £5,000 in the income of recruits are likely to reduce the incentive for young people to join the force and place their lives at risk in a difficult job. Those contracts introduce semi-privatisation, based on theories of productivity which will be difficult to define and implement.
  The handing of unprecedented powers over police conditions to chief constables and the curtailment of negotiating rights make the report almost a Gradgrind's charter. It places the police officer at the mercy of senior management, with little ability to negotiate better conditions.
  Police officers forgo the right to a trade union. The Police Federation is, after all, a staff association. They forgo many employment protection rights. They cannot take industrial action, and they daily place themselves at personal risk to protect other members of the community. We owe them better support than simply to impose change upon change, cuts in the income of their new recruits and the under-resourcing of this most important public service.
  The Sheehy report was produced by a group of academics and business men, few of whom know much about the realities of policing. The result is that police morale may be undermined by what one newspaper today called
  "half-baked and misapplied theories of market forces."
  The danger is that the Government will put ideology before common sense and damage the police in the process.
  The Home Secretary said that combating crime is the greatest issue facing us. It is unfortunate that the Government are not prepared to recognise it as such in their policy. They are adopting cash-saving policies instead of properly resourcing the fight against crime. They are undermining police morale rather than supporting the police.
  They have no policy to deal with crime, and their main concern seems to be cutting the cost of the forces of law and order. In addition, their social policies almost seem to create the conditions in which crime festers—bad housing, high unemployment and cuts in public sector provision.
  My constituents want policies that tackle crime and its causes. I regret to say that my constituents will see from the policies that have been pursued by this Government in the past 14 years just why Britain has experienced unprecedented rises in crime. Finally, let me issue a warning to the new Home Secretary. Many of his policies were initiated by the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Our people will remember well his tenure of education and the

  1197
  national health service. His responsibility for those sectors resulted in his successors having to deal with serious damage to services.
  I warn the current Home Secretary to beware of the poisoned chalice that has been passed to him by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. If the present Home Secretary follows the policies pursued by the previous one, he may end up spending most of his time trying to remedy the serious damage that was done by those policies.
  We need a real fight back against crime. Yes, we need to be tougher on crime and, yes, we need to be tougher on the causes of crime. At the moment, the Government have not shown that they are prepared to do either.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for this brief opportunity to speak in the debate. I will attempt to gallop through my speech, but I assure hon. Members that we are quite used to galloping in my part of Leicestershire.
  One of the main policy planks of the Conservative group on Leicestershire county council before the county council elections was to provide, with great urgency, secure accommodation with training and education to deal with the problem of persistent young offenders. However, when that proposal was made, it was voted down by a pact between Labour and the Liberals. When the Liberals and the Labour party were presented with a Conservative proposal for capital spending, that was also voted down in committee.
  The issue has great public support in Leicestershire. Our opponents, the Liberals and the Labour party combined, are only too aware of their own vulnerability on the issue. Their claimed support for a so-called regional unit is merely a smokescreen for the continuance of the hopelessly restrictive existing local criteria.
  The Conservative policy was to take the lead in developing a co-ordinated Leicestershire strategy to tackle the problem, working with all the agencies concerned—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the juvenile panel, the youth court, the probation service and the social services in their newly enhanced role. In the latter case, the Conservatives sought to establish new criteria that made the most effective use of existing law pending a commencement order under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
  The Conservatives were particularly concerned that the current county council guidelines go far beyond legal requirements virtually precluding most applications for secure placements for persistent absconders and re-offenders, both on remand and under supervision orders. The Labour claim that we need only two to four places in Leicestershire is based on maintaining the fiction that those criteria and existing practices will adequately serve the needs of society and promote the welfare of offenders.
  We are not seeking to lock up children in a spirit of penal vengeance. We wish to remove some of the more impressionable young people from self-perpetuating peer group influences at a stage when skilled and caring treatment can still prevent a juvenile's criminal habit from becoming an adult way of life. With a fairly constantly renewed representative group of 28 juveniles responsible
  1198
  for more than 2,000 offences, we would also wish to afford better protection to the public and continue to reduce the drain on police resources.
  We are equally concerned to promote other measures, not just remand to security and supervision in secure accommodation, that will ensure earlier positive action to curtail persistent and potentially persistent offending.
  Taken together, the Conservative strategy, as advocated at county hall before the county elections, was for the treatment of offenders and the facilities and operational methods proposed which could be said to be a new initiative. That might almost be thought of as a Leicestershire system. I believe that that system was justified, at least on a trial basis, on its own merits. I suggest that it is certainly justified and crucial in the present climate of public concern.
  In the Leicestershire context, that system must be seen against a background of previous secure accommodation and, more importantly still after remarks from the Opposition Benches, in the light of the combined votes of Labour and the Liberals to knock down every proposal to increase the provision of persistent young offenders institutions in the county.
  My colleagues on the Government Front Bench should beware of the Opposition's kind words. What they say here is quite different from what they do in the country.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: The House is aware that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I wish to declare that interest.
  The massive shake-up proposed by Sir Patrick Sheehy and his fellow committee members could change for ever the very nature of the police service as we know it today. I believe that it strikes at the root of a dedicated and professional service committed to maintaining law and order. It will cost about £200 million in redundancy payments to middle ranks and it is said to save about £312 million over five years.
  Out will go the long-serving, experienced constable whose friendly manner and wise advice make him or her the person to whom we and the general public turn, and whom we trust, to help us when danger threatens. In will come a new breed of short-service, hard-nosed police officers on 10-year-contracts renewable every five years, who, from day one, will make it their business to get a fresh contract. But even a contract will not protect them from compulsory severance on what was described as structural grounds.
  A police officer could lose his job if the need for police officers of a certain rank or in a certain place had ceased or was expected to do so. That could mean, for example, that if Liverpool were no longer top of the first division, and attendance at football matches dropped and fewer officers were needed to patrol the ground, police officers could be sacked—just like that. That is a major departure from the way in which we run police forces today.
  Pay will be determined by reference to the median scale of non-manual workers in the private sector, plus a bonus scheme that will result in officers doing the same job being paid at different rates. That will be divisive and set officer against officer. As the Evening Standard pointed out in its leader today,
  "Having officers effectively competing with each other for bonuses might help keep them on their toes, but it might also

  1199
  lower morale … but not fracturing their … comradeship in the struggle against crime. A leaner, more efficient force is what we need—not one destabilised by half-baked and misapplied theories of market forces."
  Those words were used by the Opposition. I agree with the Evening Standard.
  An example of the application of those forces is to cut the pay of an average new entrant from £12,055 to £10,360. With the loss of housing allowance, that cuts a constable's starting pay by about £5,000 a year, because, Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues claim, it is above what he or she could get in the private sector. But., as the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, one Major Baird, told the House in a debate on the Police Bill 74 years ago,
  "When a man goes into the police force he must necessarily forfeit a certain amount of the liberty which he enjoys as an ordinary citizen. He assumes distinct responsibilities towards the community, and we have endeavoured to recognise those responsibilities by greatly improving the conditions under which he serves."—[Official Report, 18 July 1919; Vol. 118, c. 839]
  Those were the words of a Minister in a Government who brought forward the Police Act 1919, one of the most enlightened measures that have been placed on the statute book this century.
  I do not believe that the Sheehy committee is following those principles. Why is that? It is because the Sheehy committee considers that
  "police base rate salary entry rates were well above the market."
  I wonder how many hon. Members would like their sons or daughters policing the tougher areas of our towns and cities and putting their lives at risk to maintain law and order to be paid as little as £199 a week. Why is it that only the day before the Sheehy report was published members of the Fire Brigades Union, who are threatening industrial action because they, like all other public sector workers, are limited to the Government-imposed ceiling on pay rises this year, were promised by their official side that their pay formula, which was secured around the time of Edmund-Davies and which gives them a guarantee of the upper quartile movement in the earnings index each year, would be honoured in full in 1994? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that question because it is rather important.
  One of the prices that has to be paid by the police for maintaining law and order is the high risk of suffering serious assault leading, perhaps, to the loss of a limb, an eye or even the loss of life. At the present, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board provides compensation for loss of earnings. However, I understand that the forthcoming White Paper on reorganisation of the board will abolish that. The Sheehy report recommends that sick leave on full pay should be limited to six months, with a further period of six months on half pay. But those periods are capable of being reduced, in individual cases, at the discretion of the chief officer. After six months, an injured officer could get nothing for maintaining law and order on our behalf.
  Another aspect of respect for law and order relates to the personal record of a police officer, which may be challenged in a court by defence counsel. The celebrated case of Regina v Edwards makes it necessary to disclose even the most minor infringement of police regulations. But Sheehy—incredibly—recommends that statutory regulations governing the keeping of such personal records be regarded as "entirely unnecessary" and that"
  1200
  "any necessary procedures in relation to personal records should be decided locally."
  I mention these points just to illustrate the very strange proposals emanating from that committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate that he has taken careful note of what I have had to say.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am delighted that a number of my hon. Friends followed my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) by trying to make positive and constructive contributions. Several Conservative Members have done likewise.
  I was at a loss to know why the Government should have sought a debate on this topic, as their recent record is so poor. I hoped that the purpose was to offer a new analysis, a new understanding, and to announce a new set of proposals for action. We did not hear that from the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. However, among Opposition Members, hope springs eternal. We continue to hope that we shall hear, in the Minister of State's winding-up speech, evidence of a positive approach.
  The Minister should listen to the warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) and by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) with regard to the approach that should be adopted to the police. The hon. Gentleman should listen also to the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and to that of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who rightly asked that we treat not just the symptom—the crime itself—but values in society, and said that he accepted a share of the responsibility. I disagree with some of his analysis, but I welcome his constructive contribution to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) talked about having spent time with a police officer, so she spoke from experience. I have done likewise, having been with the police through the night in the centre of Cardiff. That experience makes one realise just how thin is the blue line that looks after the interests of the public at night in our great cities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made a very forceful rejection of what seems to be a concerted effort by the Conservative party to make the police the whipping-boys for the Government's failure to tackle crime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) referred, from direct experience, to projects that work and to the motivation of young people. I have had direct experience of such projects. The truth is that most young people do not need to be offenders, that they can be challenged into constructive behaviour—and could be so challenged, up and down the land, were the opportunities and facilities available. With that diversion, we could concentrate the machinery of punishment and incarceration on those who refuse to give up their criminal and anti-social activity, instead of, as now, having to address youngsters who, given the right opportunity, could be attracted out of that way of life.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South referred also to reparation, either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community. It is with some regret that I have to say that that proposal was made recently by the

  1201
  Labour party during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill but was rejected by the Minister and his Conservative colleagues.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) wanted to know what had changed since 1970. Well, he has aged a little since he has been in this place. I started in youth work at that time, and a year later I became a magistrate. I saw a decade of progress, and then I saw things become perceptibly worse under Mrs. Thatcher. It angered me to see hope stolen from young people, hope stolen from families with the loss of housing cash in local areas, and hope stolen from communities. I cannot go too wide in my speech, but the Government must make the connection between their policies and rising crime over the past 14 years.
  The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who courteously gave a reason for leaving the Chamber, gave a devastating indictment of the past decade. He warned the House that vigilantes will move in and society will break down. He referred to the shortage of youth workers. Many of our local authorities have been devastated by the pressure that is put on them to cut back on non-statutory responsibilities such as youth work because of the inadequacy of support from the Government. There is a clear place where the responsibility for that development must lie.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly set out the effect of the decline in areas such as apprenticeships. I agree that the loss of opportunity for some youngsters on our great housing estates to train in the services has been a devastating loss recently, as has been the loss of schemes which sought constructively to work with young people and which often succeeded in motivating them.
  I draw the attention of the Minister to reports published on the links between those who break the law, unemployment and multiple debt. That is no excuse for crime. However, I say to the Government: for God's sake—understand the connection and the way in which the environment for crime is being developed and encouraged.
  The Home Secretary gave a simplistic four-point strategy for tackling crime. The problem is that the Government have failed badly on each of the four elements. First, the Home Secretary said that we need to prevent crime. I strongly support the expansion of neighbourhood watch schemes and welcome the additional number of special constables. But that is no substitute for proper support for the professional police service. The Home Secretary fails the test of seriousness. Clearly, he does not understand the nature of the problem; nor does he make the same connections as those of the right hon. Member for Brent, North.
  On Tuesday, the Home Secretary failed the litmus test when he and the Government Whips made an arrangement to vote against a Labour amendment to accelerate work on crime prevention to create the right partnership between the police, local authorities and the community. He failed another litmus test when Conservative Members voted against a Labour amendment to help the victims of crime. They voted against the principle that victims and their families should be consulted before charges are dropped or downgraded in the courts.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Michael: There is little time to give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, should have addressed the subject of victims when he had the opportunity earlier. This week, we gave the House an opportunity to do something for victims and the hon. and learned Gentleman trooped in the Lobby in obedience of the Government Whips to vote against our amendment. The Government's record on prevention is poor.
  The Home Secretary paid tribute to a number of projects that have worked well. I agree with him on that. However, I ask him to reject the project mentality adopted by his predecessor, which was to praise a project here, give a little bit of money for a project there and fail to put in place a strategy that learns the lessons of those constructive projects. It is not enough for him to praise projects and then fail to offer the opportunity for that success to be developed and redoubled around the country.
  We know that many approaches and techniques work, but it is the Government who fail to turn those projects into a national strategy. As a result, the cost of crime is borne by every community, by every victim, by every person who pays insurance and by every shopper who now pays a sort of Conservative crime tax, which is exacted by criminals in an unplanned way. The Government need to put a strategy in place.
  The Home Secretary's second suggestion was that we should catch criminals. I certainly agree that that is the greatest deterrent but the Government are not doing it. We saw crime rise and the clear-up rate drop from 41 per cent. in 1979 to 29 per cent. in 1991. At the same time, we saw a minimal increase in police numbers and a rise in crime of 121 per cent. All that has developed because we have seen the greatest rise in crimes of violence and, in volume, crimes such as home burglary and car crime which are so damaging to so many individuals and communities.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), after making a cheap jibe at my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, suggested that rising crime was all in the mind. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. That is precisely what he implied. That is not what I hear from chief constables throughout the country; it is not what I hear from constables; it is not what I hear from councillors and Crime Watch representatives; and it is not what I hear from Victim Support groups.
  Mr. Garnier: That is stupid.
  Mr. Michael: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was stupid for his hon. and learned Friend to make that remark.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton also said that he wanted the people of this country to continue to feel that they could walk the streets safely. He said that we could walk the streets of our country feeling safer than people in other countries could. We want to keep it that way. We want to restore the sense of security that is being lost in Britain. It is worrying that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, is so complacent on that issue.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the success of the safer cities programme, but did not seek to explain why the Government are now cutting those projects. Again, we have a Government who learn a lesson and then throw away the results of their learning. The hon.

  1203
  and learned Gentleman then shed crocodile tears about the members of his profession who sit around with nothing to do because not enough cases are being brought before the courts. He said that there is too much cautioning.
  Why is this breakdown happening? It is because there is a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, which is falling into disrepute. That needs to be addressed by the Government. No one owns the criminal justice system. The Government must concentrate on getting the whole act together nationally. That would enable police, local authorities, magistrates and communities to get their act together locally. Support, instead of criticism, should be provided by the Government to those groups.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton also said that the police should become more local, and we agree. Already forces around Britain are devolving authority to local commanders, mainly at superintendent level. But this week the Government have made proposals that will result in a loss of local accountability. We have seen the threat of mergers, which the Home Secretary tried to hide when he presented the White Paper.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) rightly said that nostrums waved at the Conservative party conference did not work, and he went on to call for amalgamation.
  The Home Secretary must come clean, and not simply ask for an expedited procedure, because answers from Home Office Ministers have shown that that is not needed. The Home Secretary should tell us what his intentions are. Does.he intend to amalgamate forces if he is given those extra powers to do so, without consulting and regarding the views of local people?
  The Home Secretary then said that we needed to get people to court. There are two aspects there. We need to speed up the criminal justice system. But, again, the Conservative Members of the Standing Committee voted against the idea that we should place the principle of "justice delayed is justice denied" in the criminal justice system.
  We asked for ways of speeding up action and making the system more effective. For example, we proposed that if a person received a second caution, things should happen rather than the person—in particular a young person—simply walking away from that caution. There should be help for the young person and his family. That was rejected in the Committee also.
  We must tackle the issue of offending while on bail. I understand that the Bail (Amendment) Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) comes back before the House tomorrow. The Bill was handled poorly by the Government's representatives in the Lords and has survived as a result of the co-operation and support that has been given by the Opposition to a welcome initiative by a Conservative Back Bencher. That has resulted in the Bill getting so far. I hope that it will complete its passage speedily tomorrow.
  The fourth element that the Home Secretary asked for was that we should punish offenders. I agree, and we have proved that by supporting measures to deal with drug trafficking, terrorism, City fraud and causing death by dangerous driving, as we did only this week.
  Attrition in the criminal justice system means that for every 100 offences committed, only two result in a conviction. That is a reduction on three last year. That is why the Government must tackle not only the element of punishment, but the 98 per cent. of crime that does not
  1204
  result in a sentence in court. They must tackle that problem with urgency and determination so that they also make better use of prison and secure accommodation.
  The issue of secure accommodation has been mentioned on several occasions. When the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was Minister of State, Home Office he promised in February 1991 that secure places would be provided to deal with 15 and 16-year-olds. I have checked again today, as we checked in February, and no additional places have been provided to fulfil that promise. What is the value of a promise by the Government to take action if action is not delivered?
  When the Government's record is so poor and when concern has been expressed so loudly by both Opposition and Conservative Members, I ask the Minister to reply to this question tonight: will he accept the analysis and the advice that we have so freely offered, and reverse the situation? I hope so.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) saw a glimmer of cause for optimism in the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and the Home Secretary at the beginning of the debate. The fight against crime was weakened in recent years by the party-political knockabout and inattentiveness of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe when he was Home Secretary. I hope that this Minister and this Home Secretary will aspire to the more constructive and positive attitude exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. That is what the people of Britain are crying our for.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Almost every debate in the House on law and order for the past 40 years has been held against a background of rising crime. We should not conclude from that fact that we are powerless to act in the face of growing disrespect for the law. On the contrary, we should conclude that we face an immense challenge. The challenge is to turn the tide of rising crime, to come up with new ideas, to make life more difficult for the criminal and easier for the law-abiding citizen and, above all, to take the tough action that law-abiding people throughout Britain so clearly want and my hon. Friends have called for.
  I believe that in meeting that challenge we should be guided by some straightforward principles. First, protection of our citizens and the maintenance of law and order is the first duty of the Government. Secondly, those who break the law must be held to account for their actions. Attempts to blame society or anyone else are a distraction, and a dangerous one at that. We shall never shilly-shally about who is responsible for it, or make excuses for the criminals.
  Thirdly, while we must do all that we can to prevent crime, we must give the courts the powers that they need to deliver tough punishments to deter criminals and protect the public. Fourthly, the Conservative party stands four square behind the police and wants to give them all the support that it can in their difficult and often dangerous job.
  No Government has a better record than the present Government in supporting the police in their work. It is a record of which we are rightly proud. There are 16,700 more police officers today than in 1979 and 14,000 extra

  1205
  civilians. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) ignored the extra 6,000 policemen for the Met. Spending on the police is up by 80 per cent. in real terms. Police pay is up by 40 per cent. above inflation. That is an enormous investment by the taxpayer in the police and it shows the high priority that the Government give to law and order.
  However, we also have a duty to make sure that we are getting the best value for money and the best service from the police. That is what our reforms are all about. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained the main thrust of our reforms on Monday. I welcome the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I Lawrence). The reforms envisage a clear set of aims and objectives for the police, to be issued by the Home Secretary each year. There will be a better partnership between police and local communities. There will be smaller and more effective police authorities, in control of their budgets and drawing up local strategies with the police and local people. Chief constables will have more freedom and responsibility to use their resources to meet the tasks set for them. What we want is an efficient and effective police service, working with local people to prevent crime and bring criminals to book.
  I listened very carefully and respectfully to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) when he expressed his concerns. I believe that the Sheehy report is an important contribution to the work of the police in preventing crime and in bringing criminals to book. We will study the Sheehy report recommendations very carefully over the summer before coming to conclusions. I also accept the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) that we must always maintain police morale.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that the White Paper and the Sheehy report address totally different issues. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman came to his conclusions.
  The police are part of our defence against crime, but our attack on crime must start with its origins. This is where we have to banish the trendy, so-called progressive thinking so favoured by too many of the Labour party. It began in the 1960s, when a former Labour Home Secretary, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, told us that the permissive society is the civilised society. That was the start of the decline into sloppy attitudes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) so rightly reminded us, the attitude was that examinations and competition were bad and prevented children from expressing themselves; that there should be no respect for authority. That was all part of the question-everything attitude; the let-it-all-hang-out era.
  That sort of attitude and belief, prevalent in some sections of society, hastened our decline in the 1970s. It was thought that mass picketing was the right way to persuade others to one's point of view; that rights were more important than duties and that society owed people a living, no matter how little effort they made to help themselves.
  We will not arrest those attitudes by merely legislating in the House. They will only be changed in homes and schools. But we have a duty in this House to take measures to crack down on criminals and crime, and that is what we
  1206
  have done. The whole range of measures that we have introduced, and will introduce in future, have the same goal of making life more difficult for criminals and easier for law-abiding citizens.
  I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his support and the warm welcome that he gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  We have many schemes and many initiatives for crime prevention. We have had considerable success, but we want to mobilise as many people as possible and get them involved. Between the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and other Departments we are spending more than £200 million on all aspects of crime prevention.
  A great deal of concern has been expressed in the House, the media and up and down the country about persistent juvenile offenders. I share that concern. Some of those offenders have caused havoc in local communities by breaking the law again and again but getting off scot free. Action needed to be taken, and that is why, on 2 March, the Home Secretary announced his plans to create a new sentence of detention, a secure training order.
  That sentence will be available for the small hard core of persistent offenders aged betweend 12 and 15 years who have not responded to community sentences. Those training orders are not for innocent young scallywags scrumping a few apples; they are for persistent young offenders who have become hardened criminals and who have a string of convictions. They must be taken off the streets in order to protect themselves and the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) rightly said.
  It is time that we had a straight answer from the Labour party about secure training orders, instead of the pretence that a few more local authority secure places would satisfy a different need. Its proposal to extend local authority secure accommodation simply will not cut the mustard. We need to give the right to the courts to sentence persistent young offenders to custody, where they will receive special treatment and not be mixed with other youngsters.
  It is time for a decision from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Will he let the courts have that right to sentence directly persistent young offenders to juvenile custody? I think the answer, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, is that the proof of the Labour party pudding is in the eating. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sedgefield will also tell us when he had his great change of heart on lenient sentences which he appeared to show at the start of his speech.
  I shall reflect on all that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said about cautioning. He made some important points, and I can tell him that new guidance will be issued shortly which will discourage repeat cautioning. He might be interested to know that I spent the whole weekend reading the memoranda which have been submitted to the Select Committee.
  We are also determined to crack down on rural crime. People in the countryside, in our villages and small towns are particularly frightened of crime. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) spoke so eloquently and passionately for rural constituents. Country people are unused to crime. We do not always take precautions to prevent it, not because we

  1207
  are careless but because we have never found it necessary before as we used to be able to leave the house unlocked and the keys in the car.
  Although rural crime is rising, it is rising from a very low base. The 700 per cent. increase reported in this week's Country Life was an increase of two crimes to 14. It also cites a 75 per cent. increase in Cambridgeshire, which meant two extra crimes, one in a telephone box—although it did not say what it was. We should not take any comfort from the low figures. Indeed, we must crack rural crime before it becomes established. That means that all of us who live in the countryside must do a lot more for ourselves in terms of crime prevention.
  There are several successful initiatives such as County Watch and Farm Watch which must be copied and extended. I give Country Life much encouragement in its campaign against rural crime. Above all, country people should use their natural camaraderie and community spirit to be the eyes and ears of the police in rural areas.
  In the House three weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) gave me some extremely good advice. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North will agree with his excellent plea on behalf of victims and his speech tonight about the balance of fear. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield asked me to meet the victims of crime before meeting sociologists with their woolly jumpers and their even woollier theories, I think he said. I promised that I would, and I have kept my word. I have met magistrates and policemen and this morning I met the victims of crime. These people offered such good common sense advice that I am not sure that I shall need to meet too many sociologists in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend can rest more easily having received that news, but I assure the House that, in the months ahead, I shall look forward to meeting everyone involved in combating crime and criminals.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Lewisham, East that our criminal injuries compensation is the most generous of any in the world, standing at £152 million. We have spent £500 million on various aspects of drug control and prevention, and we are increasing the safer cities programme from 20 projects to 40, not cutting it.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made a passionate speech about drugs. I wish that he had also made it at the Scottish Liberal party conference in Dunoon which passed a resolution to legalise cannabis.
  1208
  We have a packed agenda on law and order, promoting crime prevention, supporting and reforming the police, toughening sentences for criminals, dealing strongly with young offenders and rolling back decades of wrong-headed nonsense in our schools. They are the measures that people expect from this party which is dedicated to law and order, to protecting ordinary people and to upholding the rule of law.
  What did we hear from the hon. Member for Sedgefield? We certainly did not hear a set of concrete measures to hit criminals; we heard nothing to reassure people who are frightened of crime and not a hint of regret for the years that the Labour party spent calling for softer sentences, undermining the police and encouraging law-breaking. What we heard was merely a lot of words. Whatever post the hon. Gentleman has held on the Opposition Front Bench, he has always taken the same approach: no speech, no press release and no interview is complete without a call for immediate action. It does not matter what the action is as long as it is immediate and as long as he has called for it. He cannot get out of bed in the morning without calling for a Government statement or a new initiative. He is a good dealer in sound bites. This time the sound bites are on "law and order", but they could just as easily be on "training and investment" or "motherhood and apple pie".
  There is no substance to the hon. Gentleman's words, but that is hardly surprising because Labour has no record of sticking up for the police and law-abiding citizens against those who break the law. Where were the Opposition when the Militant Tendency organised a campaign of non-payment of the community charge? They were not exactly encouraging people to obey the law. Some Opposition Back Benchers were encouraging them to break it.
  Where were Opposition Members when policemen were attacked by pickets during the coal strike or at Wapping? They were not behind the police: many of them were behind the pickets. Above all, where were they when the Government repeatedly legislated to toughen sentences for criminals? They did not support us but tried to vote us down. No doubt they were following the advice—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Oldchurch Hospital, Romford
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
  10 pm
  Sir Michael Neubert: The headline on the front page of the Evening Standard on Wednesday 23 June was:
  "Hit list dooms nine hospitals".
  Oldchurch hospital in my constituency was one of those identified for closure. Therefore, I am glad to have this early opportunity to register my strongest opposition to that proposal.
  This is not the first time that Oldchurch hospital has been threatened. During the almost 20 years that I have served in the House there have been regular and repeated assaults by the establishment on different aspects of our local hospital. Exasperating as it is, I am ready for the challenge to return to the fight for that hospital. I am encouraged by the support of my immediate neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is present for the debate but is obliged to maintain ministerial silence.
  We are also supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) who are strongly against the proposals. I am also encouraged by the good will of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) who has good reason to be thankful to Oldchurch hospital as he was born there.
  I shall preface my speech by mentioning two matters. First, it must cause concern that the Tomlinson report on the problems of the national health service in inner London has, by the setting up of six speciality reviews, been extended to outer London. It seems that the problems of inner London are to be solved at the expense of outer London, and that is unacceptable.
  For decades, as the population of inner London has declined, we in outer London have watched the teaching hospitals draw on our outer-London constituents to fill their emptying clinics, with the result that, in general terms, we on the periphery have been starved of resources. It is unacceptable that once again it should be suggested that to make good the lack of patients in the centre of the city we should lose some of our facilities.
  Secondly, review committees dominated by professionals must be expected to favour centres of excellence. It is natural that professional people should want to achieve the highest standards and advance the frontiers of medical knowledge, and that they should favour the most advanced technology, the most lavish facilities and, of course, the highest paid consultants and administrators.
  I accept that the proposal for Oldchurch hospital would be subjected to proper consultation. If the public who pay for the service were asked, most of them would say that they preferred the comfort, convenience and assurance of an excellent local hospital. For all its outdated, Victorian workhouse appearance, Oldchurch hospital is just that. It has some pretensions to excellence and I sometimes think that that is the reason for resentment by those who are perhaps better placed in other parts of London.
  However, the fact that the teaching hospitals are concentrated in the centre of London is an accident of history, and it does not necessarily follow that they need
  1210
  always be there, and that there might not be a case for a hospital on the edge of London such as Oldchurch hospital itself becoming a teaching hospital. That may seem fanciful, but in principle there is nothing wrong with the idea.
  The proposals are related to the provision of cancer services and neurosciences. Both the units at Oldchurch hospital have been threatened twice before, and my hon. Friends and I have been involved in saving the cancer unit on two previous occasions.
  The most important factor is that cancer is a terrible disease. If it can be treated locally, that is by far the best solution. There will always be unusual cancers which perhaps need certain specialist treatment, but it is desirable that people should not have too far to travel for general cancer treatment. That is an important factor, although there is also the question of investment in equipment already established at Oldchurch hospital. Those were the main factors, and I hope that they will prevail again.
  The regional neurosciences unit has had considerable investment over the years. One of the major factors against change has been that the unit at Oldchurch in Romford is placed at the heart of a very convenient and effective road and rail network. People can get there quickly and, although it is a local facility, it has regional importance and about 75 per cent. of its work comes from the county of Essex. Those are the principal reasons against proposals to close those two aspects of Oldchurch hospital.
  Like the cancer unit, the neurosciences have been threatened twice in the past 20 years but each time closure has been fought off and for good reason. There is no particular proposal that Oldchurch hospital should close, despite the headline with which I began my speech, but it is clear that the removal of two important parts of the hospital would call into question its viability.
  In particular, neurosciences depend on the interaction of different disciplines within the hospital and that is greatly valued by the consultants themselves who would look upon Oldchurch hospital as a very different place if there were no facility to cross departments and seek advice and assistance and the use of equipment from other parts of the hospital for their particular specialty. That is an important consideration.
  There may, of course, be a hidden agenda. It may be part of a process eventually leading to the closure of Oldchurch hospital, but that certainly would be resisted by those who work there. It is a fact that I personally regret and express to my hon. Friend the Minister that such uncertainty obviously undermines the confidence of the public in the national health service and the morale of the staff working in the hospital, and we have enjoyed more than our fair share of uncertainty in recent years. I consider that to be unfortunate, but it may be inevitable.
  It is only a matter of months since the most recent threat to the hospital was lifted, with the setting up of a trust based on two hospitals—Oldchurch and Harold Wood—and a twin-site strategy. Only months later, Oldchurch hospital is once again under threat.
  An important factor which is not sufficiently taken into account in all these exercises is what I call the patient-visitor factor. Financial equations are set up to match the revenue and capital investment and consider the concentration and co-ordination of services and see some saving or better use, but rarely does the unseen factor of convenience and accessibility come sufficiently into

  1211
  question. It is rarely costed, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that there is a very real cost, which should be respected.
  His predecessor, our hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), answering my Adjournment debate on 27 February 1991, said:
  "Convenience and accessibility are important factors in deciding the pattern of health care in any locality."—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1096.]
  I strongly believe that that is true.
  I recently learned in my own surgery of the human cost of people having to travel long distances to see consultants and to receive treatment. One of my constituents explained the problems that she had encountered taking her elderly father, ill with cancer, to the Royal London hospital—which is one teaching hospital proposed for a concentration of resources under the review.
  When she and her father—a frail, sick man who had to be left at the hospital entrance—arrived, she found that there was nowhere to park and had to find somewhere nearby. She parked in a place that she thought was safe. She saw a warning notice. but thought that it applied to a British Telecom depot. When she returned to her car, she found that it had been towed away.
  She was forced to get a taxi to return to the hospital to collect her father, who was in great pain, and suffering considerably. Treatment often induces nausea, but even travel and seeing a consultant is painful for someone in that condition. That lady then had to return to the pound to reclaim her vehicle. All that, so that a patient living in my constituency could receive the treatment he needed. He has since died.
  That example illustrates the human experience of patients having to travel longer distances than otherwise are necessary. I urge that those financial costs be entered into the question because they make the outcome look very different.
  It is clear from the review documents that the financial implications of the proposals are virtually non-existent. The Evening Standard reported that the leaders of the review teams were very nervous when defending their plans. They admitted that their knowledge of the financial consequences was virtually zero and that they could make no meaningful comparison between one department and another.
  The same report mentions the concern of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who himself represents a London constituency. I am not surprised at his concern, because the review is something of a pig in a poke. There is very little figuring to it. My experience of all NHS changes is that a great deal of money is needed up front and that they depend on other factors, such as the value of vacated sites—which, in the present climate, is not a reality.
  Any suggestion, for example, that the NHS could capitalise on the Oldchurch site in Romford would be rather diminished by the fact that only last year Romford brewery closed after nearly 300 years, leaving a 20-acre site awaiting some useful development. Creating another such site just across the road would not have much value and would represent the unwise disposal of a public asset. All those factors come into the question.
  The reviews are based on certain factual errors. I shall quote from a critique of the two review documents prepared by the hospital trust, because it is important to read it into the record and to show that in the review
  1212
  committee's haste to reach conclusions and to make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it may have laboured under a misapprehension.
  On cancer services, reference is made to page 115 of the review. The trust comments:
  "The Trust is currently reviewing how all of its existing services should best be located, using both the Oldchurch and Harold Wood sites for the foreseeable future. Centralisation of all specialties on to one site is not an option due to the volume of patients currently treated and the excessive capital implications of such a development. Oldchurch Hospital has a comprehensive range of general hospital services on site. These include General Surgery, Urology, Orthopaedics, Medicine, Oral Surgery, Ophthalmology, Intensive Therapy, Paediatrics, Accident and Emergency, Medicine for the Elderly, Rheumatology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and others.
  This can hardly he described as a restricted range.
  Recruitment difficulties for physicists and radiographers are not thought to be any more problematic at Oldchurch than similar centres."
  The trust says of paragaraph 102 on page 24 of the neurosciences paper:
  "Oldchurch has been successfully running a Neuroscience Nursing course for some years. No mention is made of this, although plans to develop such a course in other units are referred to."
  It says of paragraph 103:
  "A Senior Registrar rotation scheme exists in Neurosurgery, linked to' St. Barts. The report overlooks the wide body of research work undertaken in Neurology. This includes, beside the Neuro-care team, clinical trial in Parkinson's Disease and research into Alzheimer's Disease, Essential Tremor Disease, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME). Funding for this work in 1992–93 exdeeded £100,000."
  It says of paragraph 104:
  "This incorrect assumption is similar to that detailed above in the Cancer Review."—
  that is, that there will be only a single site.
  "Aside from the ENT Department, the most recent capital investment at Harold Wood was Phase 1 of the nucleus development, some 7 years ago.
  Whilst the lack of on-site MRI (Magnetic Resonence Imaging) is described as a deficiency for Oldchurch, similar absence at other sites (such as Hirstwood Park and the Maudsley) is not mentioned. No reference is made to our current bid to fund MRI within Havering Hospitals.
  The operating theatre mentioned is dedicated to the exclusive use of Neurosurgery.
  The Oldchurch service is criticised for the lack of linked specialties"—
  I have already illustrated the range of specialties available—
  "when it is better supported than other centres, such as Atkinson Morley and the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases. In particular Maxillo Facial (Oral) Surgery, Ophthalmology, and Orthopaedic Services are on the same site, together with the wide range of other clinical services mentioned above."
  Finally, it says of paragraph 107:
  "The Oldchurch centre is described as a local service. In fact it currently serves 75 per cent. of the Essex population, and ME patients are referred nationally. The statement that the unit does not have the facilities that should be available to a major general hospital is clearly wrong. A recent specialist advisory committee report on Neurosciences was quite satisfied with the general range of services."
  Oldchurch hospital has a high standing in the community. It serves a large district—previously 453,000 people—and even now, with the detachment of Brentwood, it serves an important part of London's population. Part of that population in the Barking and Dagenham end is, to a degree, deprived and has a high incidence of health need. The population generally can be characterised as having a high morbidity and a low

  1213
  mobility rate. Both those factors point to the need for the continued existence of Oldchurch. It has served the population very well.
  In April this year, three months ago to the day, I unveiled a plaque at the opening of the new Havering hospitals trust. I was confident in my comments that it was a new chapter in the national health service in Romford. I hope that at the end of this latest exercise my confidence and that of my constituents will not prove to have been misplaced and that Oldchurch hospital will continue to serve the community that values it so highly.
  10.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). I congratulate him on his success in the ballot. It has given him the opportunity, on behalf of his constituents, to voice his concern about the future configuration of health services in the area. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is in his place on the Front Bench, have written to the Department expressing their concern. I know that there is widespread public interest, not least because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received many letters on this subject from members of the public.
  Havering hospitals NHS trust was launched in April this year. It consists of the old Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authorities' acute units—the Harold Wood, Oldchurch and Rush Green hospitals. The trust is large and serves a local population of more than 440,000.
  It may be appropriate for me to put into context the recent press reports about possible changes in cancer services and in neurosciences, to which my hon. Friend referred. The reports of the cancer and neurosciences review teams are independent advice to Ministers and to the NHS. They are not policy, and they will certainly not alone determine the future pattern of services.
  The London Implementation Group, set up in response to the Tomlinson inquiry, will consider the recommendations of the review teams alongside the central London hospital site option appraisals already under way, the review of the special health authority research due to be published in mid-July and the views of purchasers and academic interests.
  The London Implementation Group will also ensure that the implications of all those elements are fully assessed at local level. Following that process, proposals for the future configuration of services in inner London will be presented to Ministers in the autumn.
  In making their recommendations, the review groups have sought to improve quality of services for patients well into the next century. Their advice with regard to Oldchurch hospital will now be considered and assessed by the North East Thames regional health authority, by local purchasers and by the trust itself.
  The immediate need for change is, of course, in central London. If proposals to alter services in outer London are presented to Ministers, we should need to be convinced that they offered real benefits to patients and value for money before taking them forward. There will, of course, be full public consultation, as my hon. Friend has said, on
  1214
  major changes to services and on any services that involve transfers between NHS hospitals or from hospitals to community services.
  There are presently two reviews of services in the area, and it is essential that each takes account of the views of those who live in the area. Barking and Havering health authority has instituted an accident and emergency services review to look at the emergency services that it commissions from local hospitals. That is quite proper, and the health service has made it clear that it seeks to improve the service available to its residents.
  The health authority will look at the current use of the accident and emergency service, and especially at the most important issue of access and travel time. The London and Essex ambulance services will both be invited to provide evidence to the review.
  At the same time, Havering hospitals trust has launched a major review of services and is actively seeking reviews of the community health council, of GPs and of patient groups. The review is considering the configuration and delivery of large areas of the trust's acute work. The main objective is to ensure that the trust can best meet the demands of health care purchasers to the greater benefit of patients.
  My hon. Friend will know that, a couple of months ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved the health authority's proposal to relocate services from Rush Green to the Oldchurch and Harold Wood sites and to close Rush Green hospital by 1996. She made the decision on the understanding that alternative services are in place at Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals prior to the closure of Rush Green. Her decision should greatly Improve the opportunities for Havering hospitals trust to reorganise acute services to give a more effective and efficient service to patients.
  The trust aims to achieve excellence through the provision of a balanced range of services to meet the needs of the community. The trust is committed to pursuing quality, efficiency, staff development and financial viability. Considerable challenges face the trust, but I have great confidence in the new structure of the NHS which devolves management to a local level and introduces the incentive to excellence of the purchaser-provider split.
  As it prepared for trust status and during the early months of the trust, Havering hospital, despite a fall in the number of beds, achieved much in terms of efficiency—that is, in treating more patients. In the last 18 months, the total number of patients waiting for treatment has fallen by 15 per cent. Perhaps more significant is the fact that no one now waits more than 18 months, and 89 per cent. wait less than one year.
  The trust has undertaken a detailed internal review, by specialty, of workload against planned contracted activity. Resources will be matched to patient needs expressed through purchaser demand, and not issued according to historical patterns of spending. I am delighted to say that this approach—putting money where it can best help patients—has won Audit Commission approval.
  I could give a number of other examples of initiatives that have been taken by the trust. There have been a number of quality initiatives, such as the initiative on the nutritional intake of patients, with the implementation of various other patients charter initiatives, which have been characterised by a great deal of imagination and enthusiasm.

  1215
  May saw the launch of the trust's patients charter for children, which aims to ensure that children are treated in an environment appropriate to their age and needs.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for giving me the opportunity to highlight some of the trust's achievements, and also the challenges that it now faces. I listened with great interest to some of the concerns that he expressed and, in particular, to what he said about the historical problems as between inner and outer London, and what he saw as the unnecessary concentration of teaching in inner London. I was interested also in his idea of the hospital becoming a teaching hospital.
  I noted what he said about the recent proposals, which do not include the closure of Oldchurch hospital. However, I agree that such reviews produce uncertainty. On the other hand, there is an historic and continuing problem in London with regard to duplication of specialties which has to be solved.
  It can be solved only through the medium of reviews by those most qualified to decide the future of services in London. These reviews have to be published. They will, almost by definition, induce periods of uncertainty, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in a position to take steps to limit this.
  Sir Michael Neubert: My hon. Friend has very fairly said that there is a major problem in London, which we all accept. It is most frequently expressed by saying that 20 per cent. of national health services resources go to London, with 15 per cent. of the population. That is not
  1216
  challenged, but people like myself and my colleagues in outer London say that that problem is not spread equally over London.
  The imbalance is to be found, as I believe that my hon. Friend acknowledged, very largely in central London. It would be unfair and inequitable if the problem that arises in central London were to be spread, with an evenness of misery, over the whole of London, to the detriment of outer London's interests.
  Mr. Sackville: I certainly take that point, but these are problems that are not peculiar to London. All over the country, services need to be rationalised in order to balance the ever rising demand for health care, and the greater activity and expense of health care for each patient, with what is available. That sometimes requires some very hard decisions.
  I noted what my hon. Friend said about the virtues of accessibility and convenience, and about people needing to be treated, as far as possible, near to their homes. I agree that finance and factors such as land sale are not everything, but these are all factors that need to be taken into account.
  There are no decisions on this matter. We have had advice from an independent committee. There will be consultation if there are to be any major changes in service. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising this matter. His contribution tonight will be a major factor in any decisions that are taken in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Buckingham Palace (Police)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the numbers of additional Metropolitan police officers who will have to be deployed and the number of officers who will have to be redeployed consequent on the opening of Buckingham palace to the public; and what assessment he has made of the implications.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Metropolitan police have reviewed the policing of the palace in consultation with the royal household and other agencies. I understand that there will be no additional cost to the Metropolitan police.

  Non-attendance of Witnesses
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to change the law to ensure that when a court case is withdrawn due to non-attendance of witnesses and it is subsequently shown that they were deliberately prevented from attending the court the case can be resubmitted.

  Mr. Maclean
  Although there are no current plans to amend the law in this area, we continue to keep the matter under close review. We shall wish to consider in particular any recommendations the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice may make that have bearing on the law in this area.

  Inner-city Estates
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that adequate police resources are applied to countering intimidation on inner-city housing estates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The deployment of resources is the responsibility of chief officers of police.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review and revise the law regarding the age of consent for homosexual adults.

  Mr. Maclean
  The criminal law is kept continually under review, but there are no current plans to amend it in this area.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest number of(a) ex-detainees and (b) dependants from the former Yugoslavia who have arrived in the United Kingdom under the arrangements announced last November; and if he will make a statement.
  566
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A total of 238 ex-detainees and 404 dependants from the former Yugoslavia have so far arrived under the arrangements which I announced on 30 November 1992.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the United Kingdom to receive refugees from the former Yugoslavia other than ex-detainees or their dependants; what is the estimate of such persons now in(a) Bosnia, (b) Croatia and (c) Slovenia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Our programme to receive 1,000 vulnerable individuals plus their dependants has concentrated on former detainees since the humanitarian organisations have given priority to this group. Outside the programme, refugees from former Yugoslavia—like individuals of other nationalities—may seek entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom if they feel that this would be a more appropriate country of refuge. I understand that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees latest estimates of refugees and displaced people in the region are: Bosnia 2,280,000; Croatia 572,000; Slovenia 35,000.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to restrict access through the criminal injuries compensation scheme to recompense for loss of earnings;

  (2) whether he intends to apply his proposed tariff-based system for criminal injuries compensation to children who are victims of abuse;

  (3) which organisations and individuals he has consulted about proposals to reform the criminal injuries compensation scheme;

  (4) when he plans to publish his White Paper for the future of the criminal injuries compensation scheme;

  (5) what account his proposed new criminal injuries compensation scheme will take of loss of wages;

  (6) what plans he has to exclude nurses, fire fighters and police officers from eligibility to compensation for criminal injuries;

  (7) who will determine awards under his Department's proposed tariff-based scheme for criminal injuries compensation;

  (8) if he will make it his policy to ensure that victims of criminal violence continue to receive recompense under the criminal injuries compensation scheme for post-traumatic stress and similar distress.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 30 June 1993 at column 498 in which I explained that we would be setting out our proposals for the new tariff scheme in a White Paper later this year. The issues raised by the hon. Member will be dealt with in that document. As I also indicated in my reply, while we are not conducting a formal consultation exercise we have already received observations from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Victim Support and others.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the proportion of the clear-up rate for each police force in(a) 1990 and (b) 1991 accounted for by offences taken into consideration.
  567
  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Notifiable offences1 cleared up by the police: percentage of offences cleared up by being taken into consideration England and Wales

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  18

  15

  Bedfordshire

  24

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  28

  Cheshire

  16

  15

  Cleveland

  19

  33

  Cumbria

  17

  18

  Derbyshire

  17

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  16

  16

  Dorset

  15

  14

  Durham

  7

  12

  Essex

  19

  34

  Gloucestershire

  23

  18

  Greater Manchester

  16

  26

  Hampshire

  21

  18

  Hertfordshire

  20

  27

  Humberside

  26

  21

  Kent

  15

  20

  Lancashire

  27

  21

  Leicestershire

  33

  28

  Lincolnshire

  26

  21

  City of London

  6

  12

  Merseyside

  9

  15

  Metropolitan police district

  6

  7

  Norfolk

  18

  22

  Northamptonshire

  15

  18

  Northumbria

  13

  20

  North Yorkshire

  19

  25

  Nottinghamshire

  28

  24

  South Yorkshire

  11

  6

  Staffordshire

  14

  16

  Suffolk

  6

  1

  Surrey

  14

  16

  Sussex

  20

  22

  Thames Valley

  22

  26

  Warwickshire

  16

  21

  West Mercia

  14

  13

  West Midlands

  11

  16

  West Yorkshire

  14

  18

  Wiltshire

  18

  14

  Dyfed-Powys

  2

  4

  Gwent

  10

  10

  North Wales

  16

  17

  South Wales

  6

  4

  TOTAL

  15

  18

  1 Excluding offences of "other criminal damage" of value £20 and under.

  Prison Service (Disciplinary Arrangements)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for revising disciplinary arrangements in the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Following a review of disciplinary procedures in the prison service, I have now approved revised arrangements, which include a new code of discipline for the service. Under the revised arrangements, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, all prison service staff are now brought together under a single code of discipline, which replaces the different procedures which previously applied to various grades of staff. The primary aim of the revised arrangements, which are consistent with employment law and with guidance from the advisory, conciliation and 568
  arbitration service, and which will be implemented with effect from 1 July 1993, is to ensure that standards of conduct are maintained and to encourage improvement in individual conduct. The new code details the procedures for taking disciplinary action when conduct falls below those standards.

  In keeping with moves across the prison service to ensure that decisions are taken at the appropriate level, responsibility for taking disciplinary action up to and including dismissal is being devolved to prison governors and to heads of division at prison service headquarters.

  The new code lays down timescales for completing each stage of the disciplinary process, and introduces a new system of progressive disciplinary warnings and penalties. Governors and heads of division will award penalties and will undertake all the administrative work connected with each case. There are rights of appeal built in to various stages of the disciplinary process.

  Any disciplinary offences which are alleged to have been committed before 1 July 1993 will be dealt with under the disciplinary arrangements which were then in force.

  I believe that the revised arrangements are a considerable improvement on the disparate arrangements previously in force, and that they represent a significant step forward for all concerned.

EDUCATION

  EC Education Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) of 16 June,Official Report, column 600, what were the voting figures for each decision taken at the European Community's Education Council held on 11 June; and if he will make it his policy to include in future statements on Council meetings information on whether formal votes were taken.

  Mr. Boswell
  No formal votes were taken at this Council meeting. I can confirm that it will be our policy to make this information available in future reports on Council meetings.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he has issued to school governors and local education authorities on the introduction of no-smoking policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We believe that all schools should develop clear policies on smoking, and are currently considering what guidance we might offer to help them in this process.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Quotas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to introduce legislation to implement the quota transfer and leasing of sheep reference quantities.

  Mr. Jack
  The Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas Regulations 1993 were laid before
  569
  Parliament on 30 June. These regulations implement the transfer and lease arrangements for both sheep and Buckler cow quotas.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made since the publication by the Chief Medical Officer of his report on folic acid and the prevention of neural tube defects, in ensuring an increased range of breads and cereals fortified with folic acid.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department wrote to the relevant trade organisations commending the report to their members and encouraging them to follow the recommendation to increase the range of breads and breakfast cereals fortified with folic acid. The response has been positive and we are aware of some new fortified products already.

  Diversification
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives she is taking to help farmers to diversify and maintain rural employment.

  Mr. Jack
  In the negotiations that resulted in reform of the common agricultural policy the United Kingdom was successful in protecting many of the support mechanisms that are of benefit to United Kingdom farmers. This success will help maintain employment in an increasingly diversified rural economy.

  Days at Sea
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels have been allocated the basic 80 days provisional days at sea allocations in(a) England, (b) Cornwall and (c) Devon; and how many owners in each category have lodged claims.

  Mr. Jack
  The minimum 160 half-days allocation was issued provisionally in respect of 801 fishing vessels administered by fisheries offices in England. Of these, 148—including 60 Channel Islands vessels—are administered by the south western fisheries district—Devon, Somerset and Avon—and 80 by the western fisheries district—Cornwall.

  By 25 June 1993, applications for additional days at sea had been received in respect of 577 fishing vessels, administered in England, which had been provisionally issued with the minimum allocation. Of these, 110—including 40 Channel Islands vessels—are administered by the south western fisheries district and 54 by the western district.

  Fur Farming
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on fur farming.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink (Keeping) Order 1992, which was adopted following a debate in the House on 8 December 1992, requires that establishments keeping mink for fur must be licensed by Agriculture Departments. In order to obtain a licence specific standards of security 570
  must be met to prevent the escape of mink. There are currently 19 licensed establishments in England and two in Scotland. Welfare conditions on fur farms are monitored regularly by the state veterinary service on the basis of recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what key performance targets have been set for the Intervention Board; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Shephard
  In agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland I have set the following targets:

  to process 98 per cent. of claims within ministerial deadlines and all claims within regulatory deadlines or, in their absence, 60 days;

  to process at least 98 per cent. of claims correctly;

  to achieve 2 per cent. running cost efficiency gains;

  to achieve 5 per cent. improvement in productivity;

  to keep disallowance to within 0·4 per cent. of EC funds handled;

  to keep expenditure within vote provision and running cost and cash limits; and

  to achieve 5 per cent. new value for money savings in the procurement of goods and services.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 24 July.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 June, cols. 383–84] : No votes were taken on any matter before the Council.

ENVIRONMENT

  Radiation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in relation to the 1991 recommendation from the National Radiation Protection Board relating to a dose constraint of 0·3 mSv of radiation per year for members of the public.

  Mr. Yeo
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, acting jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the case of nuclear licensed sites, have taken account of the dose constraint of 0·3 mSv in developing authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 for disposals of radioactive waste since this was first recommended by the International Commission for Radiological Protection in 1990.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were held between his Department and the European Commission in its preparation of the reply to written question No. 2486/92 to the Commission by Anita Pollock MEP on the matter of the requirement of an environmental impact assessment on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, 7 June, C155 volume 36, page 12.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Radioactive Waste (Advisory Committee)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who have been nominated by Her Majesty's Government to represent the United Kingdom on the Advisory Committee for the community plan for action in the field of radioactive waste management under council resolution of 29 June 1984; what criteria are used in choosing United Kingdom nominations; and if he will set out the qualifications of the current United Kingdom representatives.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom representatives on the committee are the head of the Department's radioactive substances division and his counterpart in the Scottish Office. The occupants of these posts are well placed to provide appropriate advice to the Commission.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what system exists for persons wishing to appeal against the level of water rates or water charges in respect of a property to do so to an independent tribunal or court.

  Mr. Yeo
  Water charges are in respect of most properties based on rateable value and there has never been a specific right of appeal against their level—though there was a right of appeal against domestic rateable values and a time limited right still remains in the case of non-domestic rateable values. The independent Director General of Water Services has a duty to protect customers' interests and to ensure that there is no discrimination in setting charges. Complaints about the application of charges in individual cases, which customers are unable to resolve with their local water company, can be taken up with the appropriate local customer service committee (CSC) of the Office of Water Services. These committees are not appellate bodies but were established specifically to represent customers' interests and to investigate complaints.

  Where a customer receives a metered supply of water, and disputes the accuracy of the meter reading, he may, under the Water (Meters) Regulations 1988, request the water company to test the meter. Any dispute arising under the regulations may be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties or, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State.

  Noise Abatement Zones
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations his Department has received on noise abatement zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have received no recent representations, apart from those from the hon. Member.

  The report of the Noise Review Working Pary 1990, copies of which are in the Library, found that the application of NAZs was limited by their complexity and the demands on local authority resources. Subsequent research by the Building Research Establishment considered this further and demonstrated that the principal problems are the complexity of the regulations
  572
  for setting up NAZs and the intensive use of manpower in monitoring the statutorily required noise level registers. My Department is considering these findings.

  Specialist Advisers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the specialist advisers appointed to each Minister in his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have appointed Keith Adams as my political adviser and have reappointed James Gray as a political adviser working primarily with my Department's Ministers of State. I have reappointed Tom Burke as an expert adviser on environmental affairs and Professor Peter Hall as an expert adviser on planning affairs.

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total specific capital grant and credit approvals for housing purposes to each local authority in England for 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the receipts taken into account for the 1993–94 figures.

  Mr. Baldry
  A table setting out information on allocations of specified capital grant, which forms part of the annual housing investment programme (HIP) allocations, for each local authority in England has been placed in the Library of the House.

  There are two types of credit approval—basic credit approvals and supplementary credit approvals.

  Basic credit approvals can be used to support capital expenditure in any local authority service, and are not allocated to individual services. I refer the hon. Member to the documents "Basic Credit Approvals 1992–93" and "Basic Credit Approvals 1993–94" for information on basic credit approvals and receipts taken into account. Both documents are available in the Library.

  Supplementary credit approvals provide additional authority for local authority borrowing. As indicated in the answer by the then Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Shaw) on 5 March, Official Report, column 333, information on supplementary credit approvals issued by the Department in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, including those relating to housing capital expenditure, will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each year since 1978 the number of local authority housing units built by each authority(a) in total, (b) for sheltered housing and (c) for general need; and what he forecasts the situation to be for the current year and each of the next five years.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of the total numbers of local authority house-building completions within each local authority area in England are in the following publications:

  Year and Publication title and issues:

  1978

  "Local Housing Statistics" Issue No. 49.

  1979

  "Local Housing Statistics" Issue No. 59.

  1980–84

  "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980 to 1989".

  1985–1990

  "Local Housing Statistics" Issue No. 103.

  1991–1992

  "Local Housing Statistics" Issue No. 105.

  573
  The Department collects information about special types of housing for the elderly, including sheltered dwellings—referred to as "dwellings with a warden" before 1986—and about dwellings for chronically sick and disabled people.

  Figures for individual local authorities are shown in certain issues of "Local Housing Statistics". Annual data for each year from 1982 to 1991 are in issues Nos. 66, 70, 74, 78, 82, 86, 90, 94, 99 and 102 respectively. Combined figures for July 1980 to December 1981 for dwellings built for the elderly and also for August 1970 to December 1981 for dwellings built for the chronically sick and disabled are in issue No. 66. Data were not collected before July 1980 on dwellings specially built for the elderly.

  The Department does not prepare forecasts of housebuilding activity.

  Entry on Land (Local Government Officials)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the powers local government officials have to enter land without prior notification.

  Mr. Baldry
  This question cannot be answered without disproportionate cost. Such powers of entry are, however, conferred only in cases where it may be necessary for officials to enter land to deal with an emergency in a situation in which it is not possible to contact the owner or his agent in advance.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number and percentage of housing improvement grant applications refused in(a) full and (b) part due to means testing since means testing was introduced for grant purposes.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Solent Wetlands
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his plans for the wetlands of the Solent under the Ramsar convention; and if he will make a statement on the timing of the publication.

  Mr. Yeo
  English Nature is preparing a detailed case for submission to my Department but is unlikely to be in a position to make a formal recommendation before the end of this year. Good progress continues to be made in listing sites under the Ramsar convention. The United Kingdom has now listed 66 such sites, the largest number of any contracting party to the convention.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued to local authorities on the introduction of no-smoking policies in their workplaces and in places they own which are entered by members of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's "Code of Practice on Smoking in Public Places", which provides practical guidance to owners and managers on implementing suitable policies on smoking, was brought to the attention 574
  of local authorities in DOE circular 7/92, issued on 28 February 1992. The circular also drew attention to advice on passive smoking at work available from the Health and Safety Executive and the health education and promotion agencies.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how progress towards the "The Health of the Nation" goal of 80 per cent. of public places being smoke-free by 1994, is being monitored; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has commissioned market research into smoking policies operating in various types of public place. It is planned to follow this with a further survey in 1994.

  Commission on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the outcome of the first meeting of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development held in New York from 14 to 25 June.

  Mr. Gummer
  The commission was established following the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Its task is to monitor progress in following up the Rio agreements, focusing in particular on the implementation of agenda 21.

  The commission has made a highly satisfactory start. Countries represented at the first session in New York adopted a positive and constructive attitude towards the work of the commission.

  Agreements were reached on the commission's work programme and on guideline for national reporting of progress in implementing agenda 21. Agreement was also reached on a number of intersessional meetings on substantive issues which would prepare the ground for the commission's second session next year.

  The 1994 session will focus on health, human settlements and fresh water, and toxic chemicals and toxic waste; 1995 on land, desertification, forests and biodiversity; and 1996 on atmosphere, oceans and all kinds of seas. A number of issues, including finance, technology transfer, co-operation and capacity building, will be considered each year. In 1997 the commission will review overall progress in implementing agenda 21.

  All countries have been encouraged to contribute to the process by making national reports on progress towards sustainable development in a common format and covering issues identified by the commission.

  The United Kingdom Government are members of the Commission and are playing a full part in its work with wide participation from non-governmental organisations. We aim to produce the United Kingdom's own sustainable development plan by the end of 1993, and report on this to the commission's 1994 session.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent on legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme.
  575
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: It is not possible to identify separately the cost of legal advice on these regulations which has been provided specifically in relation to my Department's market-testing programme.

  Building Management Businesses
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in selling the building management businesses.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 June 1993, c. 247]: I am pleased to be able to announce the exchange of contracts for the sale of the PSA building management businesses BM South East and BM South and West. The businesses have been sold to a joint venture between Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd. and Matthew Hall Ltd., a subsidiary of AM EC plc.

  This sale will benefit taxpayers, staff and customers. The next step is for staff to choose individually whether to transfer to the privatised business. The future of the businesses now lies in the private sector and I hope many staff will choose to transfer with it. Completion of the sale is expected during the next three months.

  The joint venture will pay the Government a net £11·4 million for the two businesses over the next four years. Government will in addition meet the costs of redundancies, should they be necessary, up to a agreed figure in the first five years following completion of the sale. The redundancy entitlement of transferring staff will be guaranteed by Government for five years after the sale. Further details cannot be released until all the sales have been completed.

  The joint venture brings together a major contractor and an established engineering consultancy. I am confident that the combination of their commercial skills with the strengths of the BMSE and BMS&W work forces will give the businesses a sound future in the private sector.

  I hope to make further announcements soon about the sales of the other three BM businesses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Paternity Cases
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will bring forward proposals to amend the law to compel fathers or alleged fathers, in cases of contested paternity, to take blood tests, or to allow the court to take refusal to take a blood test into account in deciding paternity cases and to provide that repeated refusal to take a blood test will be construed as evidence supporting the case of the opposing litigant.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to amend the law to make blood tests compulsory in cases of disputed paternity. Under the provisions of section 23 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, as amended, courts may already draw what inferences seem appropriate in any particular case from a refusal to undertake a blood test.

  Magistrates' Clerks
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are made for the payment of magistrates court clerks; and to what extent local authorities are concerned with those arrangements.
  576
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The salaries and other expenses of magistrates' court clerks are met by the local paying authorities who are reimbursed up to 80 per cent. of those costs by specific grant from my Department. However, court clerks are actually employed by the local magistrates' courts committee which must agree its overall budget with its paying authority. Additionally, the joint negotiating committee for magistrates' courts staff, the national body which negotiates the salaries and conditions of service for court clerks, includes local authority representatives on the management side.

  Care Centres
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out the arrangements and the timetable for the national review of the designation of care centres for the hearing of care cases brought under the Children Act 1989; and if he will list those organisations which are to be consulted at local level.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The national review of care centres, which has always been a part of the Lord Chancellor's arrangements for monitoring the Children Act, will begin in the late summer. The precise arrangements and timetable have yet to be finalised. Consideration is also being given to who should be consulted locally, in order that there should be a full and effective consultation.

  Intestacy
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report No. 187 on distribution on intestacy.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This report contains a number of recommendations. The Government have not accepted the first recommendation, namely that a surviving spouse should in all circumstances receive the whole of the intestate's estate. The Government have, however, decided to accept the Commission's other recommendations, which concern the "hotchpot" rule, survivorship clauses and provision for cohabitants, and will introduce legislation to implement them when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs.

  The Government are concerned to provide additional protection for a surviving spouse in order to enable him or her in the great majority of cases, where the size of the intestate's estate permits it, to remain in the former matrimonial home and to have a sufficient surplus on which to live. To this end the Lord Chancellor will make an order as soon as practicable to increase the statutory legacy payable to a surviving spouse on intestacy from £75,000 to £125,000 in the case of the lower legacy, and from £125,000 to £200,000 in the case of the higher legacy.

  Long Criminal Trials
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made since the publication of the consultation paper on long criminal trials.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The consultation paper was published in December 1992 to seek the views of
  577
  practitioners and the general public on ways of reducing the length of long trials and particularly those involving serious and complex fraud.

  A total of 84 contributions were received from members of the judiciary, legal practitioners and their professional bodies, Government Departments, organisations with an interest in the subject-matter, academics and other interested individuals. These responses have been considered by the inter-departmental working group. It is clear that many of the issues raised touch on areas covered by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, whose report is expected shortly.

  The Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor will therefore consider the responses received and the views of the working group as they take forward their consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to allow Sunday trading by supermarkets in the Province.

  Mr. Ancram
  None, but as has been made clear in the House on several occasions, we shall in due course review the law in the light of developments in England and Wales.

  Banbridge-Newcastle Road
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve the Banbridge-Newcastle road.

  Mr. Atkins
  At present improvements to the value of £100,000 are planned over the next three years.

  Community Relations
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding community relations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The most recent social attitudes survey indicated that perceptions of relations between Protestants and Catholics continue to improve.

  This is encouraging, but the healing of community divisions will require goodwill on all sides, at political, community and individual levels. Government will continue to encourage and support those involved in community relations work.

  Building Regulations (Fire)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the review of Building Regulations (Fire) which his Department is conducting.

  Mr. Atkins
  Revised draft regulations will, in compliance with European Community requirements, be notified to the Commission later this year. It is anticipated that the revised regulations, which include amendments to the fire safety requirements, will be made in early 1994 and come into operation later that year.

  Casement Park
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning referral of the Casement Park case to the Court of Appeal.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received a range of representations, from hon. Members and others, to the effect that the cases of Mr. Patrick Kane, Mr. Michael Timmons and Mr. Sean Kelly should be referred again to the Court of Appeal.

  Tourism
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's initiatives to help boost the tourist trade in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  New powers, provided in 1992, are being used by the Northern Ireland tourist board to promote, market and develop Northern Ireland's tourist potential. A range of new initiatives are being put into operation with the objective of attracting tourists and developing a high quality, professional, international tourist product.

  Pensioners (Fuel Bills)
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met officers of Age Concern in Northern Ireland to discuss matters involving winter fuel cost for old people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  No such meeting has been held recently. Extra help will be given from April 1994 to less well off pensioners and others on low incomes. Details of the precise way in which this extra help is to be provided will be announced in the autumn.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had from officers of Age Concern in Northern Ireland on winter fuel cost for old people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend the Lord Arran recently received a letter from officers of Age Concern that included an inquiry about fuel costs for old people. The representations made in that letter are currently being
  considered.

  University Applications
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland are applying to go to university in October.

  Mr. Ancram
  The application process has not yet been completed for the 1993–94 academic year. However, a provisional figure for those from Northern Ireland applying to go to university in October is 12,647. Numbers of applicants for part-time places are not yet available.

  Law and Order
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for reviewing law and order policies as they relate to Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The emergency provisions are regularly considered by the House in the light of reports by
  579
  an independent reviewer. Proposals which flowed from a wide-ranging review of other aspects of criminal justice policy were published in the discussion paper "Crime and the Community" in March; we shall consider carefully the public response to the paper. We shall also want to consider the implications for Northern Ireland of the recommendations that are to be made for England and Wales by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from local authorities and depositors in the province who have lost money in BCCI.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Any such representations would have been passed on to either my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who have responsibility for this matter. No records are kept of correspondence transferred in this way.

  Drainage Services
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to bring land and road drainage services under the control of one overall authority.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were registered as homeless in Northern Ireland for the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by its chairman that the Executive does not maintain a register of homeless persons. However, the number of applicants accepted as being either homeless or threatened with homelessness since 1 April 1989 when the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order came into effect is as follows:

  Year

  Number of applicants

  1989–90

  5,166

  1990–91

  6,983

  1991–92

  7,494

  1992–93

  7,549

  Property Damage (Terrorism)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of damage to property by terrorist groups in the most recent year for which figures are available and over the past 10 years, respectively.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. Robinson. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  580
  Letter from J. Robinson to Sir Teddy Taylor, dated 1 July 1993.

  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the amount of criminal damage to property caused by terrorist groups. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond.

  I regret that the information is not available in the form you requested. However the following are details of the total amount of compensation paid for terrorist related criminal damage claims which were settled in each year since 1982–83:

  Year of settlement

  Total amount paid

  £million

  1982–83

  25·5

  1983–84

  22·3

  1984–85

  22·9

  1985–86

  16·7

  1986–87

  18·9

  1987–88

  10·6

  1988–89

  16·9

  1989–90

  18–4

  1990–91

  18·9

  1991–92

  19·7

  1992–93

  40·2

  These amounts include the costs and expenses incurred by applicants in making out and verifying their claims.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Constitutional Arrangements
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest talks with Ministers from the Government of Ireland on future constitutional arrangements for the Province.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met the Taoiseach and Tanaiste in London on 16 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers of the Irish Government were also present. The two Governments considered the prospects for a resumption of political dialogue in Northern Ireland. They agreed on the need to address adequately all of the key relationships involved and to work towards an outcome which would accommodate the rights and identities of the two major traditions in Ireland. The two Governments confirmed that their aim is to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of the two islands. The two Governments also called on the political parties in Northern Ireland to help in the search for political progress and agreed that contacts would continue actively with the Northern Ireland parties.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the performance of the emergency services in dealing with incidents of terrorist violence.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The emergency services continue to provide an outstanding service in responding to incidents involving terrorist violence, as they do to all incidents requiring their expertise. The men and women serving in the fire brigade, ambulance service and police, as well as those in other organisations, including the Housing
  581
  Executive, social services and Compensation Agency, who are called upon to react to terrorist incidents, deserve great credit for their work and I have nothing but praise for them.

  Cross-border Security
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the cross-border security situation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith).

  Unemployment
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce unemployment in west Belfast.

  Mr. Atkins
  West Belfast benefits from the wide range of economic development programmes aimed at helping to generate economic growth and durable employment throughout Northern Ireland. Within these programmes, disadvantaged areas, including west Belfast, receive special treatment; for example, inward investors can receive more generous assistance if they locate in such areas.

  West Belfast is covered by the Making Belfast Work initiative which continues to play an important role in tackling material deprivation. This year a further £24 million has been allocated to the initiative which aims to increase jobs and investment, improve community participation and enhance the skills and improve the quality of life of residents in the area.

  There are also five Belfast action teams operating in west Belfast and urban regeneration work such as the planned development of the former Mackies factory site at Springvale will also contribute to the economic prospects of the area.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to reduce unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The trend in unemployment in Northern Ireland is now firmly downwards with an average fall of 1,000 per month over the last three months. Further reductions in unemployment in Northern Ireland depend on the achievement of higher levels of economic growth which will lead to an increased number of employment opportunities and on Northern Ireland industry becoming more internationally competitive.

  The main features of the Government's strategy to achieve this growth include helping companies to identify and remove obstacles to growth; encouraging inward investment; building up management and workforce skills; developing an enterprise culture; and supporting innovation and research and development. Help is available in each of these areas for activities which will improve business performance.

  Security
  Molyneaux
  24. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
  582
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) earlier today.

  Security Forces (Manpower)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on current manpower levels for the security forces in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  As at 30 April there were 13,104 police officers and 18,679 members of the armed forces in their support in Northern Ireland. The Government continue to devote all the resources necessary to security. Force levels are kept under constant review.

  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he intends to make in the system of compensation for criminal injury and criminal damage.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to issue a White Paper shortly outlining proposals for a new tariff-based criminal injuries compensation scheme in Great Britain. I will study the White Paper carefully before considering whether there are lessons to be learnt for Northern Ireland.

  I have no current plans to reform the criminal damage compensation scheme in Northern Ireland.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review the national curriculum in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Northern Ireland curriculum has now completed its third year of phased implementation, and programmes of study in all the compulsory subjects are now statutory and working their way through primary and secondary schools. The programmes of study have been well received and teachers have commented on their high quality.

  There have been concerns, however, particularly from primary schools teachers, about the volume and level of content in the curriculum. There are particular fears that the depth of volume of what will be required when all the programmes are in place could affect standards in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy.

  I take these concerns seriously, and I have therefore written to the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council commissioning a fundamental review of the primary curriculum. I have asked the council to provide advice on the underlying causes of the problems, how these should be addressed, and the nature, shape and content of an appropriately broad and balanced curriculum for the primary sector. I have asked the council to consult widely with teachers and to submit its advice by the end of April 1994.

  The council already has plans for a review of the totality of the secondary curriculum, being in 1994, and I see no need to accelerate its timetable.

  To allow time for these new developments, I will not be introducing any new programmes of study into the primary sector in September 1993.

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the 18th report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The report, for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, has been published today and copies have been laid before Parliament.

  The commission has considered a wide range of matters during the period under review. These include the possibility of incorporating the European convention on human rights into domestic law, and a review of legislative procedures for Northern Ireland. The report also deals with emergency legislation and security policy, criminal justice issues, the RUC charter, race relations, disability, education, abortion law, and family and social matters.

  I value the advice that the commission gives me on a wide range of human rights matters and I very much appreciate the commitment that the members have shown in undertaking such an extensive programme of work.

  Copies of my response to the commission's 18th report and of the report itself have been placed in the Library.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the results of the Northern Ireland house condition survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand from the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that the results of the 1991 Northern Ireland house condition survey which was conducted by the Executive have been published today. I have made arrangements to place copies in the Library.

  The survey shows that further significant progress has been made in improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland. The Executive and Department of the Environment will now be considering the implications of the survey results for housing policies and strategies.

  Intimidation Complaints
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been received in each of the past three years at the RUC stations in Newtownards, Comber and Dundonald from Roman Catholics alleging intimidation on grounds of religion; and if he will make a statement about alleged forcible removal of Roman Catholics from these three areas.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding reply 28 June 1993]: There were four complaints of this nature received at the above-named police stations in each of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Such complaints included reports of criminal conduct, including criminal damage, and allegations of sectarian behaviour such as abusive or threatening telephone calls at home or at place of work. In six of the 12 cases families are known to have moved from their homes. The Government strongly condemn all acts of intimidation and the Royal Ulster Constabulary will continue to take action against those involved in criminal behaviour.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Cyprus regarding the political and social arrangements for the forthcoming Commonwealth conference to take place in Cyprus later this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  President Clerides called on my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister in March and reassured him that the arrangements for the forthcoming commonwealth heads of government meeting in Cyprus later this year were progressing well.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the market-testing programme has cost his Department since November 1992.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 7 June at column 93.

  United Nations Security Council Reform
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 87, if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom submission to the United Nations Secretary General on United Nations Security Council reform.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yes, I am arranging for our reply to the United Nations Secretary-General's invitation to submit written comments on a possible review of membership of the Security Council to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to sign the European charter on regional and minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The implications of the European charter on regional or minority languages are still being considered by Government Departments with an interest in its provisions. The United Kingdom decision on ratification will take into account the situation of each of the indigenous minority languages spoken within the United Kingdom. We have not yet come to a final view on whether to sign the convention which opened for signature in November of last year.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which countries the 400 ex-detainees, currently in the Karlovac transit camp, have been allocated; what main criteria are taken into account when country allocation is determined; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are currently 303 ex-detainees in Karlovac awaiting transfer. Twenty-two
  585
  countries have offered places for ex-detainees under the joint United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees-International Committee of the Red Cross scheme. Except for those with close links—eg family ties—with a particular country, UNHCR allocates places according to availability.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 493, how many of the 2,400 detainees in Bosnia have now been visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross; how many, to date, have been released; how many are expected to be re-settled in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) other EC countries and (c) non-EC countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The International Committee of the Red Cross has successfully secured the release of approximately 6,840 detainees in Bosnia-Herzegovina and they are visiting a further 3,550 still held in detention. Of the 4,571 ex-detainees who had left Karlovac transit centre by 16 June, 238 went to the United Kingdom, 2,007 to other EC countries and 2,326 to non-EC countries.

  Croatia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to how many refugees in Croatia are accommodated(a) with families, (b) in hotels and similar accommodation, (c) in transit camps, (d) in temporary settlements consisting of pre-fabricated buildings and (e) in other types of accommodation; how many of this total, to date, have applied for registration as (i) ex-detainees and (ii) dependents of ex-detainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—UNHCR—estimates that there are some 270,000 refugees in Croatia but has no detailed breakdown of how they are accommodated.

  Apart from 303 ex-detainees accommodated at Karlovac transit centre, UNHCR is investigating the cases of approximately 2,100 other individuals in Croatia claiming to be ex-detainees or their family members.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation there has been between Her Majesty's Government and EC Governments and UNHCR on the building of settlements in Croatia to accommodate refugees transferred from hotels on the Croatian coast; whether such transfers are made on a voluntary basis; what rights refugees have to refuse such transfers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government of Croatia have informed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of their intention to remove some refugees currently in hotels to other state-run accommodation. Overall, UNHCR is funding some 70 shelter projects in Croatia with a planned capacity for approximately 44,000 people. UNHCR plans to monitor any non-voluntary transfers of refugees from their present accommodation.

  Slovenia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent Slovenia's borders are open to refugees; what is the current estimate 586
  of refugees in Slovenia; and what representations have been made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to Her Majesty's Government and EC Governments for additional funds and other assistance to support refugees in Slovenia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—UNHCR—estimates that there are approximately 60,000 refugees in Slovenia. UNHCR's 1993 appeal includes provision for refugees in Slovenia. The United Kingdom has given £27·8 million in cash and kind to UNHCR since the beginning of 1993. Slovenia is not accepting new arrivals.

  Mr. Vuk Draskovic
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the appropriate authorities in Belgrade to allow the British and other EC ambassadors in Belgrade to be granted access to meet Mr. Vuk Draskovic, the Leader of the Serbian Opposition, and his wife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has urged President Milosevic to release Mr. and Mrs. Draskovic and to ensure meanwhile that they have access to proper medical treatment and visitors. We have supported the efforts of the European Comunity presidency to secure agreement for visits by EC representatives. We and our European partners will continue to press the authorities in Belgrade on this issue.

  India
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call upon the Indian Government to publish information about(a) the names and (b) the number of persons detained in India without trial and details of the capacity of prisons in (a) the Punjab, (b) Kashmir and (c) Assam with details of payments made in each of the last five years to members of the security forces in respect of causing the death of a person deemed a militant and/or a terrorist; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government of India regularly publish information regarding the number of detentions under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, most recently in response to a parliamentary question in the Indian upper house on 10 March. Names of detainees are not released. Details of prisons are available for each state from the inspector general of prisons for individual states. We are aware that rewards have been paid to members of the public and police, but not the Army, for the capture of named individuals. We are not aware that there is a general system of payments for the capture of alleged militants or terrorists.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the applicability of EC rules to abattoirs in the Falkland Islands and its consequences for the supplying of meat for consumption by British service men.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Falkland Islands are not within the territorial scope of the European Community
  587
  treaties, and EC hygiene rules do not apply there. It is Ministry of Defence policy to supply service personnel overseas with food of an equivalent standard to that which they could expect in the United Kingdom. Where it is possible to purchase food locally, the Ministry of Defence will do so, provided that this food offers quality, a varied diet and value for money. Where it is not possible to meet these requirements locally, food is supplied from other sources.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria following General Babangida's decision to overrule the results of the presidential election on 12 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Nigerian High Commissioner was summoned to meet my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 24 June. She informed him that we deplored the decision to annul the 12 June presidential election, and had decided to take a number of immediate measures to curtail military co-operation and the issue of visas to the Nigerian armed forces, and to review our aid programme. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also met the Nigerian Secretary for External Affairs on 30 June. He informed him of the United Kingdom's current policy in respect of Nigeria and restated the great importance we attach to the commitment to return to democratic civilian rule by 27 August.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on United Kingdom policy in respect of Nigeria following the presidential election of 12 June and subsequent developments.

  Mr. Hurd
  We greatly regret that the outcome of the democratic elections on 12 June has not been respected and that conditions have been imposed which would bar candidates who ran in those elections from participating in a fresh electoral system. We note that President Babangida has promised that the return to democratic civilian rule will take place on 27 August.

  The United Kingdom will not lift the measures announced on 24 June until a democratic civilian regime has been installed and is working unhindered. Meanwhile no new aid commitments for Nigeria will be made.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had, or proposes to have, with Moshood Abiola following his success in the presidential election in Nigeria on 12 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British high commissioner in Nigeria, and his staff, have been in contact with a wide range of political leaders in Nigeria, including Chief Abiola.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian military regime about the annulment of the presidential elections; and if he will make a statement.
  588
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 24 June at column 442, and a statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 24 June, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The Nigerian high commissioner in London was summoned to meet my right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development, on 24 June.

  Baroness Chalker made it clear that we deplored the suspension of the programme for a transition to civilian rule and that we had, as a consequence, decided to announce a series of measures curtailing our bilateral co-operation, particularly in the defence field.

  Video Equipment
  Mr Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that video equipment in the United Kingdom should not be rendered obsolete by any agreement with the United States regarding specifications for such equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  In areas of rapid technological development, such as video products, existing technology is always being superseded by more advanced technology as a matter of course. The Government have no ability to stop technological progress, including video equipment, even if they wanted to.

  Although world-wide standardisation of video systems would bring the benefits of a larger, more competitive marketplace, the United Kingdom Government have no plans at present for any bilateral agreement with the United States on specifications for such equipment.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Volume
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the traffic growth forecasts for England used by his Department for the periods 1963 to 1970, 1970 to 1980 and 1980 to 1990; and if he will give the actual traffic growth for those periods.

  Mr. Key
  Since it started to use national forecasts of road traffic in about 1970 the Department of Transport has used or made six principal forecasts. They are given for selected years in the table in index number form, with a base of 1968 = 100 for the earliest forecast, and with a base of the index of actual traffic compared with 1968 for the subsequent forecasts. The table also includes an index of actual traffic growth since 1968.

  The index numbers are of the total of all motor vehicle traffic except two-wheelers, for Great Britain. After 1975 the forecasts were made in a range of low and high growth, and the two figures for each year reflect that range.
  589

  Forecasts

  Year

  Actual traffic

  1968 base

  1971 base

  1975 base

  1978 base

  1982 base

  1988 base

  1968

  100

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  107

  112

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1971

  114

  —

  114

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1975

  124

  141

  133

  124

  —

  —

  —

  1978

  137

  —

  —

  —

  137

  —

  —

  1980

  144

  173

  160

  145–160

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  —

  1985

  165

  194

  179

  165–186

  147–162

  159–165

  —

  1988

  202

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  202

  1990

  221

  212

  198

  184–208

  158–182

  171–189

  212–220

  1992

  1218

  218

  203

  190–215

  160–189

  174–197

  222–236

  1 Provisional.

  Taxis (Smoking)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce legislation to allow drivers of licensed hackney carriages to ban smoking in their cabs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  As soon as a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself, the Government will bring forward legislation allowing taxi operators to ban smoking in their cabs.

  Stationary Traffic (Engines)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make recommendations in the highway code and other publications issued by his Department concerning the environmental, social and financial benefits of switching off engines while in stationary traffic.

  Mr. Key
  Guidance has already been given in leaflets issued by the Department of Transport on motoring and the environment and by the Department of the Environment on how to help prevent smog. I have placed copies in the Library.

  British Rail (Safety Plan)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received British Rail's 1993 safety plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The British Railways Board has now submitted its 1993 safety plan. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  I welcome the board's plan, which sets out BR's strategic safety objectives for 1993, reviews safety performance in 1992, and describes the board's safety policy and organisation. The plan demonstrates the wide range of initiatives underway, and the considerable resources BR is devoting to maintaining and improving its good safety record.

  The plan should both reassure rail users and give BR staff confidence that safety remains a high priority. The board has the full support of the Government in keeping up the momentum on safety as our privatisation proposals are implemented.
  590

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  No. 1 Parliament Street
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the present programme of preventative maintenance that is now being followed at No. 1 Parliament street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  In common with other buildings on the parliamentary estate the No. 1 Parliament street building is covered by service contracts for the care and planned maintenance of its mechanical and electrical plant. Building and engineering inspections of the building are carried out on a regular basis by staff of the parliamentary works directorate.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission (1) what was the total cost of the refurbishment of No. 1 Parliament street;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of the amounts of money which were paid to the main contractors or subcontractors who were involved in the refurbishment and modernisation work at No. 1 Parliament street.

  Mr. Beith
  The total cost of the new parliamentary building phase I was some £45 million. This includes not only No. 1 Parliament street but also Nos. 2 and 3 Parliament street, No. 1 Derby gate and No. 2 Canon row.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 186, what obligations Fairclough still has for the work undertaken as one of the principal contractors involved in the refurbishment work at No. 1, Parliament street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  None, apart from the work on the circle lock doors and the cooling system mentioned in my answer on 23 June at column 186; and any residual liability for latent defects in the building.

  Craftspeople
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will list the building craftsmen and craftswomen who are permanently employed within the House of Commons.

  Mr. Beith
  The following building craftsmen are permanently employed: three carpenters, three plumbers, two painters, a locksmith and a glazier.
  591
  In addition, the number of contractors' employees fluctuates according to the workload.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the proportion of questions tabled for written reply that Ministers of Her Majesty's Government have declined to answer substantively over the past year on the grounds that to do so would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Session 1992–93

  (up to and including 7 May 1993)

  Department

  Number of POLIS entries for written answers

  Number of POLIS entries including reference to "disproportionate"

  Answer to Mr. G. Allen

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,713

  10

  17 May 1993 c. 25w

  Defence

  2,381

  50

  17 May 1993 c. 85–6w

  Education

  1,654

  6

  17 May 1993 c. 23–4w

  Employment

  1,697

  38

  18 May 1993 c. 132–3w

  Environment

  3,701

  17

  17 May 1993 c. 61w

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including Overseas Development Administration)

  2,625

  20

  17 May 1993 c. 48w

  Health

  3,849

  26

  17 May 1993 c. 30–1w

  Home Office

  3,095

  45

  17 May 1993 c. 64–5w

  National Heritage

  666

  0

  18 May 1993 c. 125–6w

  Northern Ireland

  1,237

  33

  ——

  Prime Minister

  949

  11

  17 May 1993 c. 34w

  Scotland

  2,241

  9

  ——

  Social Security

  2,081

  79

  17 May 1993 c. 79–80w

  Trade and Industry

  3,151

  19

  21 May 1993 c. 346w

  Transport

  2,609

  18

  17 May 1993 c. 3w

  Treasury

  2,044

  13

  17 May 1993 c. 14w

  Wales

  2,919

  20

  ——

  Attorney-General

  172

  2

  ——

  Lord Chancellor

  627

  22

  ——

  Duchy of Lancaster

  403

  4

  ——

  Lord President of the Council

  99 (as leader)

  4

  ——

  32

  0

  ——

PRIME MINISTER

  Commonwealth Conference
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Government of Cyprus regarding the political and social arrangements for the forthcoming commonwealth conference to take place in Cyprus later this year; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed arrangements for the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government

  Ministry

  Parliamentary Private Secretary

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Minister for Agriculture (Mrs. G. Shephard)

  Mr. J. Brazier

  Minister of State (Mr. M. Jack)

  Miss E. Nicholson

  Defence

  Secretary of State (Mr. M. Rifkind)

  Mr. H. Bellingham

  Minister of State (Mr. J. Aitken)

  Mr. S. Milligan

  Minister of State (Mr. J. Hanley)

  Mr. R. Gale

  Duchy of Lancaster

  Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. W. Waldegrave)

  Mr. I. Taylor

  Education

  Secretary of State (Mr. J. Patten)

  Mr. M. Carrington

  Minister of State (Lady Blatch)

  Mr. D. Evennett

  592
  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the number of entries in the POLLS database for answers in the current session—up to and including 7 May 1993—for each Department, with the number of entries in each case including the word "disporportionate". References are also given to recent answers to questions from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) relating to the number of questions which were not given substantive answers on the ground of disproportionate cost. The figures, if any, given in those answers may not have been compiled on the same principles as the POLLS database.

  meeting with President Clerides, when he called on me in March. I understand that the planning for these arrangements is progressing well.

  Parliamentary Private Secretaries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 November, Official Report, column 577–8, if he will publish the current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached.

  The Prime Minister
  The current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached is as follows:
  593

  Ministry

  Parliamentary Private Secretary

  Employment

  Secretary of State (Mr. D. Hunt)

  Mr. N. Evans

  Minister of State (Mr. M. Forsyth)

  Mrs. A. Browning

  Environment

  Secretary of State (Mr. J. Gummer)

  Mr. J. Paice

  Minister of State (Sir G. Young)

  Dr. C. Goodson-Wickes

  Minister of State (Mr. D. Curry)

  Mr. D. French

  Minister of State (Mr. T. Yeo)

  Mr. M. Trend

  Foreign Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. D. Hurd)

  Mr. D. Martin

  Minister of State (Mr. A. Goodlad)

  Mr. G. Kynoch

  Minister of State (Mr. D. Hogg)

  Mr. H. Booth

  Minister of State (Mr. D. Heathcoat-Amory)

  Mr. R. Richards

  Minister for Overseas Development (Lady Chalker)

  Mr. M. Robinson

  PUSS (Mr. M. Lennox-Boyd)

  Mr. M. Robinson

  Health

  Secretary of State (Mrs. V. Bottomley)

  Mr. K. Mans

  Minister of State (Dr. B. Mawhinney)

  Mr. P. Thompson

  Home Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. M. Howard)

  Dr. L. Fox

  Minister of State (Mr. P. Lloyd)

  Mr. D. Wilshire

  Minister of State (Mr. D. MacLean)

  Mr. J. Arnold

  Law Officers Department

  Attorney-General (Sir N. Lyell)

  Mr. T. Devlin

  Solicitor-General (Sir D. Spencer)

  Mr. G. Streeter

  National Heritage

  Secretary of State (Mr. P. Brooke)

  Mr. A. Steen

  Northern Ireland Office

  Secretary of State (Sir P. Mayhew)

  Mr. M. Moss

  Minister of State (Mr. R. Atkins)

  Mr. J. Hayes

  Minister of State (Sir J. Wheeler)

  Mr. J. Evans

  Prime Minister

  Mr. G. Bright

  Privy Council Office

  Lord President and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. T. Newton)

  Mr. J. Marshall

  Scottish Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. I. Lang)

  Mr. S. Coombs

  Social Security

  Secretary of State (Mr. P. Lilley)

  Mr. P. Merchant

  Minister of State (Mr. N. Scott)

  Mr. M. Bates

  PUSS (Mr. A. Burt/Lord Henley/Mr. W. Hague)

  Mr. I. Bruce

  Trade and Industry

  President of the Board (Mr. M. Heseltine)

  Mr. R. Ottaway

  Minister of State (Mr. T. Sainsbury)

  Mrs. A. Knight

  Minister of State (Mr. R. Needham)

  Mr. A. Rowe

  Minister of State (Mr. T. Eggar)

  Mr. S. Burns

  Transport

  Secretary of State (Mr. J. MacGregor)

  Mr. G. Riddick

  Minister of State (Mr. R. Freeman)

  Mr. B. Wells

  Treasury

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. K. Clarke)

  Mr. P. Oppenheim

  Chief Secretary (Mr. M. Portillo)

  Mr. D. Amess

  Financial Secretary (Mr. S. Dorrell)

  Mr. G. Brandreth

  Paymaster General (Sir J. Cope)

  Dr. I. Twinn

  Welsh Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. J. Redwood)

  Mr. D. Evans

  Minister of State (Sir W. Roberts)

  Mr. D. Tredinnick

  594 595

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

  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.

  Iraq and Somalia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from UNICEF on the effects on children and infants of United Nations high-tech military action in Iraq and Somalia.

  The Prime Minister
  UNICEF has not made such representations to me. We remain in close touch with United Nations agencies providing humanitarian relief to Iraq and Somalia.

  Legislative Drafting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of Government legislative drafting is carried out by lawyers not permanently employed as parliamentary counsel; and what plans there are for change.

  The Prime Minister
  In terms of primary legislation, all Government Bills, except those relating exclusively to Scotland and the Appropriation and Consolidated Fund Bills, are drafted by members of the parliamentary counsel office. From time to time some consolidation Bills have been drafted by lawyers who have been members of the parliamentary counsel office but who are no longer employed in the public service. The proportion of work undertaken in this way is not significant and it is not practicable to specify it as a percentage of the total drafting work undertaken by the members of the parliamentary counsel office. There are no plans for change at the moment.

  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last 12 months he has been consulted by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), under paragraphs 126 and 127 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"; on what subjects; and on what dates.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]Consultations between the Prime Minister and other Ministers are private.

  Morgan Rogerson (Car Loan)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Prime Minister on which date he was first aware that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) had received the loan of a car from the Morgan Rogerson company or from individuals associated with that company.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: My hon. Friend issued a statement to the press explaining the
  596
  circumstances in which a temporary loan of a car to his wife had been made. He informed my office at the time he issued the statement.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Environmentally Sustainable Projects
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 21 June,Official Report, columns 24–5, how often the Overseas Development Administration updates its "Manual of Environmental Appraisal"; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the manual.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The manual was first produced in March 1989. A revised version was produced in April 1992 and a copy placed in the Library of the House. The contents of the manual are kept continually under review.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Gross Domestic Product
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total gross domestic product at 1993 prices terms in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for gross domestic product are not available at 1993 prices. Figures at constant 1985 prices are available on the Central Statistical Office database which can be accessed by the House Library.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the market-testing programme has cost his Department since November 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since November 1992, an estimated £100,000 has been spent on market testing. This includes the cost of support for the in-house teams and other consultancy work, but not the costs of the in-house teams themselves. The majority of this expenditure is in respect of the 1992–93 market-testing programme which covers some £4 million of in-house provided services.

  Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the expected cost to the Exchequer in 1993–94 of providing tax relief on private medical insurance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that the cost in 1993–94 will be about £70 million.

  Inheritance Tax
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in 1992–93 of granting relief against inheritance tax for chattels declared to be open to inspection by members of the public.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated cost to the Exchequer of granting conditional exemption from inheritance tax for
  597
  chattels in 1992–93 is about £40 million. There are sometimes significant fluctuations in the estimated cost from year to year. Most of the chattels are on dislay in historic houses open to the public or on loan to museums or galleries.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in 1992–93 of granting relief against inheritance tax for(a) business property within section 104 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 and (b) agricultural property within section 116 of the same Act.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated cost of granting relief against inheritance tax for transfers in 1992–93 are(a) for business property within section 104 of the Inheritance

  Range of Net Estate

  1988–89 Number of estates applying for grants of representation

  1988–89 Number of estates not taxed

  1989–90 Number of estates applying for grants of representation

  1989–90 Number of estates not taxed

  £250,000 and under £500,000

  7,051

  2,795

  7,992

  3,100

  £500,000 and under £1,000,000

  1,728

  501

  2,322

  694

  £1,000,000 and under £2,000,000

  420

  110

  628

  182

  £2,000,000 and over

  153

  46

  231

  63

  British Rail (Capital Allowances)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the value of unused capital allowances held by British Rail and its associated companies as at 31 March or the most recent date for which information is available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Providing the figure requested would be a breach of taxpayers' confidentiality.

  Share Option Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the expected cost to the Exchequer in 1993–94 of tax relief on(a) approved discretionary share option schemes and (b) approved all-employee savings-related share option schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  Approved discretionary share option schemes

  55

  Approved savings-related share option schemes

  95

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to create new executive units in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Sir John Cope
  I am pleased to announce that the Customs and Excise internal management consultancy 598
  Tax Act 1984, £45 million in a full year and (b) for agricultural property within section 116 of the same Act, £65 million in a full year.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide an estimate for(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93 of the number of estates on which no inheritance tax was paid in each of the brackets (i) £250,000 to £500,000, (ii) £500,000 to £1 million, (iii) £1 million to £2 million and (iv) over £2 million.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates of the numbers of estates applying for grants of representation and of estates paying no inheritance tax, where death occurred in the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90, for the two most recent years available are given in the table.

  service has today become a next steps executive unit with the title "Management and Consultancy Services". Copies of the framework document describing its responsibilities and accountability are being placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) of 5 March,Official Report, column 336, on the introduction of an upper limit for income tax allowances and reliefs for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 29 June 1993] : Estimates of the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1992–93 and 1993–94 levels of income from imposition of the specified limits for allowances and reliefs within the tax system for these years are given in the table. These are based on information compiled from a number of statistical surveys and are subject to more than the usual margin of uncertainty, and incorporate the conventional assumption of no changes in mortgage interest rates in 1993–94.

  Limit for total allowances and reliefs

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  £ million

  £10,000

  690

  650

  £15,000

  380

  380

  £20,000

  270

  280

  After restriction of the relevant allowances and reliefs to the basic rate the estimated further yield from imposing the specified limits would be as follows:

  599

  Full year yield at 1992–93 income levels, £ million

  Full year yield at 1993–94 income levels, £ million

  Limit for total allowances and reliefs

  Limit for total allowances and reliefs

  After restriction to the basic rate of

  £10,000

  £15,000

  £20,000

  £10,000

  £15,000

  £20,000

  (a) all personal allowances except the basic personal allowance

  610

  360

  270

  590

  360

  270

  (b) relief for personal pension contribution

  560

  310

  230

  530

  310

  240

  (c) relief for employees' contribution to occupational pension schemes

  630

  370

  270

  610

  370

  280

  (d) allowances and reliefs in (a) and (b)

  510

  300

  220

  490

  300

  230

  (e) allowances and reliefs in (a) and (c)

  580

  350

  260

  570

  360

  270

  (f) reliefs in (b) and (c)

  500

  300

  220

  490

  300

  230

  (g) allowances and reliefs in (a), (b) and (c)

  480

  290

  220

  470

  300

  230

  The number of people with total allowances and reliefs in excess of these limits is as follows:

  Limit

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £

  thousands

  thousands

  10,000

  610

  420

  15,000

  85

  85

  20,000

  45

  45

  The estimates of revenue yield do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the changes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Trade Policy
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to establish the right to consumer organisations to be involved in EC trade and anti-dumping policy.

  Mr. Needham
  European Community trade policy, including policy on anti-dumping questions, is settled by the Council of Ministers, and implemented by the Commission in consultation with the member states. The Government take careful account of the views of consumer organisations in formulating the United Kingdom position on trade policy and anti-dumping questions.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure detailed reports of discussions and votes concerning trade policy at Council of Ministers meetings are made available to the House.

  Mr. Needham
  A ministerial statement is made to the House after each Council of Ministers meeting. These reports on the meetings will normally include whether any formal votes were taken, and, if so, voting details will be provided.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Commission proposals made under EC trade policy instruments put to the Council of Ministers in the last three years have included an assessment of the impact on consumers and the economy; and what proportion of such Commission proposals this represents.

  Mr. Needham
  During the period January 1990 to June 1993, the number of Commission proposals made to the Council under the relevant articles of the treaties were as follows:600

  Treaty Base

  Number of proposals

  Article 113

  161

  A. 113 (Anti-dumping)

  84

  A. 113 (Countervailing)

  1

  Article 28

  47

  Article 100a

  12

  Other

  25

  Total

  330

  Proposals with a treaty base of 100a have been included where it is judged that the proposal would have had a significant impact on external trade policy. The category "other" includes proposals with an unspecified treaty base, and European Coal and Steel Community proposals. Proposals amending existing proposals have been counted separately.

  Where the proposal is for an anti-dumping action, both consumer and economic factors are taken into account by the Commission according to the circumstances of the case. For the other proposals, an assessment of the impact on consumers and the economy has not been carried out.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies registered in Great Britain of which Mr. Asil Nadir is a director; and which of these companies have offices in northern Cyprus.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This is a matter for Companies House. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 29 June 1993:

  As this matter concerns information held at Companies House, I have been asked to reply to you.

  According to the records at Companies House, Mr. Nadir does not currently hold any directorships of companies registered in Great Britain.

  Consumer Law
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what representations have been made by his Department to the European Commission concerning the draft directives on consumer law.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government of the United Kingdom play a full part in the deliberations of the Council on all draft directives, including those concerning consumer law.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small firms have started business. in the last year and over the past decade.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates of numbers of small business start-ups in Great Britain are produced by Barclays Bank. Estimates for the past five years are given in the table. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Estimates of business start-ups produced by Barclays Bank plc:

  Year

  Starts

  1988

  452,000

  1989

  464,000

  1990

  459,000

  1991

  484,000

  1992

  456,000

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Barrow in Furness (Mr. Hutton) of 14 June,Official Report, columns 409–10, if he will list those interested bodies on the EC Konver programme to which he refers; and when he expects to invite applications for Konver projects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The interested bodies which my Department will consult will include representatives of the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies, and the local authority associations.
  Information for potential applicants, including a closing date for applications, will be made available by the end of July.

  EC Regional Development Fund
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the south west of England's eligibility for assistance from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Eligibility will depend on the revision of the regulations, currently under negotiation in the Council of Ministers.

  Internationally Mobile Investment
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's performance in attracting internationally mobile investment projects in 1992–93.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau—IBB—announced in its annual report published today that 1992–93 was another successful year for inward investment—and jobs—coming to the United Kingdom.

  Between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993, the IBB recorded 303 direct investment projects by foreign owned companies in the United Kingdom. Based on information supplied by the companies at the time of their announcements it is estimated that these projects will in due course create 16,718 jobs; in addition, a significant number of jobs were safeguarded.
  602
  These results demonstrate how attractive this country continues to be to overseas investors. It is very pleasing that the United Kingdom remains the preferred location in the European Community for inward investors.

  The results also provide evidence of the successful partnership the Invest in Britain Bureau has with many public and private sector organisations involved in the promotion of inward investment both at home and abroad.

  I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Export Finance
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the remuneration paid to banks under the Export Credits Guarantee Department's fixed rate export finance scheme.

  Mr. Needham
  The British Bankers Association, representing the banking community, and the Government have reached agreement on revised arrangements for remunerating banks providing fixed rate export finance under guarantees given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The new agreement, which will last for five years, will come into effect on 5 July. The agreement will provide significant savings for the Government, but the greater part of these will not represent an increased burden on the banks since they will be achieved by mutually advantageous changes in the settlement mechanism which will in particular match the timing of interest payments with the funding arrangements of the banks. This measure has been welcomed by the banks, many of whom were concerned that the previous global arrangements exposed them to mis-matches between remuneration and funding costs at a time of highly volatile commercial interest rates. The Government and the BBA are confident that the new arrangements, which are the result of several months of constructive discussions, will enable banks to continue to provide the financial support our exporters need and they are an excellent example of the way in which banks and the Government can work together in support of the Government's export strategy. The changes will apply also to the Home Shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Scott inquiry the matter of compensation for those employees of Matrix Churchill who have lost their jobs.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: The hon. Member has written to me about this; I shall be replying to him shortly.

  EC Procurement Directive
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the adequacy of guidance on the European procurement directive which is available to British industry and commerce.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: The Government have kept both the United States and individual trade associations informed about the European Community public purchasing directives; and

  603
  my own Department's guidance booklet on the subject has been distributed to more than 135,000 companies and individuals. While there have been surveys of the general effectiveness of my Department's single market publicity, there has been no formal assessment specific to the public purchasing directives. The recent appointment to my Department of an export promoter responsible for helping companies win public sector contracts throughout the EC and EFTA should help identify any gaps in the present guidance. The Treasury, which led the United Kingdom negotiation of the directives, is also considering whether there is a need to provide additional general guidance.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current number of cable television franchises; how many cable television companies have commenced operations; how many have failed to meet the commencement dates required by their licences; and what action he has taken in cases of failure.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: (a) There are currently 127 broad band cable television franchises; (b) 58 broad band cable franchises have commenced operations; (c) There is no requirement within a licence granted under the Telecommunications Act 1984

  Great Britain.

  Persons by economic activity, sex and occupations.

  thousands

  In Employment2

  ILO Unemployed

  ILO Unemployed Over 1 Year4

  SOC (major)

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Total3

  13,560

  11,095

  1,981

  939

  880

  288

  1 Managers and Administrators

  2,559

  1,251

  145

  54

  49

  12

  2 Professional

  1,510

  950

  63

  28

  17

  —

  3 Associate Professional and Technical

  1,126

  1,080

  86

  35

  33

  —

  4 Clerical and Secretarial

  918

  2,891

  128

  179

  55

  51

  5 Craft and Related

  2,941

  357

  532

  43

  227

  15

  6 Personal and Protective

  822

  1,641

  99

  110

  42

  29

  7 Sales

  695

  1,274

  87

  108

  33

  30

  8 Plant and Machine Operatives

  1,855

  482

  286

  82

  126

  24

  9 Other occupations

  1,033

  1,116

  284

  97

  135

  29

  —Estimate below 10,000.

  2Includes employees, self employed, those on Government employment and training schemes and unpaid family workers.

  3Includes those who did not state their occupation.

  4Duration of the unemployed excludes those who did not state the length of time unemployed.

  Persons by economic activity, sex and industry.

  thousands

  In Employment

  ILO Unemployed

  ILO Unemployed Over 1 Year4

  Industry

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Total3

  13,560

  11,095

  1,981

  939

  880

  288

  0 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  377

  118

  39

  —

  13

  —

  1 Energy and Water

  387

  88

  35

  —

  14

  —

  2 Minerals, Ores etc.

  515

  180

  58

  14

  25

  —

  3 Metal goods, Engineering etc.

  1,900

  518

  230

  54

  102

  19

  4 Other Manufacturing

  1,297

  758

  203

  93

  89

  27

  5 Construction

  1,445

  179

  400

  13

  175

  —

  6 Distribution, Hotels and Catering

  2,302

  2,632

  296

  233

  118

  64

  7 Transport and Communication

  1,191

  363

  128

  30

  55

  —

  8 Banking and Finance

  1,499

  1,370

  116

  78

  39

  16

  9 Other services

  2,564

  4,844

  204

  210

  87

  61

  —Estimate below 10,000.

  2 Includes employees, self employed, those on Government employment and training schemes and unpaid family workers.

  3 Includes those who did not state their industry.

  4 Duration of the unemployed excludes those who did not state the length of time unemployed.

  Source: Labour Force Survey—Winter (December-February) 1992–93 (not seasonally adjusted)
  604
  for a licensee to adhere to a commencement date. However, licences do contain build obligations by which licensees should build past specified numbers of homes within set periods, and operators' compliance with these obligations is the responsibility of the Director General of Telecommunications; (d) In the first instance, any action taken against operators for failure to comply with their build obligations is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each standard occupational and industrial classification(a) the numbers employed, (b) the numbers of unemployed and (c) long-term unemployed under the International Labour Organisation definition, where previous occupation or employment fell within each classification for (1) Great Britain and (2) the west midlands region, broken down by gender, at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information from the winter 1992–93 labour force survey is given in the tables:
  605

  West Midlands Region.

  Persons by economic activity, sex and occupations.

  thousands

  In Employment2

  ILO Unemployed

  ILO Unemployed Over 1 Year4

  SOC (major)

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Total3

  1,259

  993

  215

  100

  104

  31

  1 Managers and Administrators

  231

  112

  11

  —

  —

  —

  2 Professional

  133

  72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 Associate Professional and Technical

  84

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4 Clerical and Secretarial

  74

  244

  14

  16

  —

  —

  5 Craft and Related

  301

  43

  65

  —

  30

  —

  6 Personal and Protective

  59

  144

  11

  10

  —

  —

  7 Sales

  62

  118

  —

  12

  —

  —

  8 Plant and Machine Operatives

  230

  60

  38

  15

  21

  —

  9 Other occupations

  79

  112

  24

  11

  10

  —

  —Estimate below 10,000.

  2 Includes employees, self employed, those on Government employment and training schemes and unpaid family workers.

  3 Includes those who did not state their occupation.

  4 Duration of the unemployed excludes those who did not state the length of time unemployed.

  Persons by economic activity, sex and industry.

  thousands

  In Employment2

  ILO Unemployed

  ILO Unemployed Over 1 year4

  Industry

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Total3

  1,259

  993

  215

  100

  104

  31

  0 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Energy and Water

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 Minerals, Ores etc

  76

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 Metal goods, Engineering etc

  292

  80

  40

  10

  17

  —

  4 Other Manufacturing

  118

  65

  23

  11

  13

  —

  5 Construction

  130

  19

  39

  —

  17

  —

  6 Distribution, Hotels and Catering

  213

  253

  28

  21

  13

  —

  7 Transport and Communication

  86

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8 Banking and Finance

  101

  102

  11

  —

  —

  —

  9 Other services

  180

  402

  19

  22

  —

  —

  —Estimate below 10,000.

  2 Includes employees, self employed, those on Government employment and training schemes and unpaid family workers.

  3 Includes those who did not state their industry.

  4 Duration of the unemployed excludes those who did not slate the length of time unemployed.

  Source: Labour Force Survey—Winter (December-February) 1992–93 (not seasonally adjusted).

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the current level of unemployment in the north-west region.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the seasonally adjusted basis, the number of unemployed claimants in the north-west region in May was 324,300. This is 10,000 lower than in January this year and the fourth consecutive month that unemployment has fallen.

  Wood-based Products
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in merchanting, manufacturing and retailing of wood-based products.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information for manufacturing is for the manufacture of timber and wooden furniture. In April 1993, the number of employees in employment in this industry in Great Britain stood at 179,000. Merchanting and retailing of wood based products are included within wholesale and retail distribution and cannot be separately identified.

  Work Injuries
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce legislation to ensure that employers make adequate payments to those who are injured at work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 already requires employers to take out insurance to cover claims for compensation from employees who are injured as a result of their employer's negligence. We have no plans to extend this legislation.

SCOTLAND

  Industrial Water Disconnections
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by year for the past five years, and by each water authority, the number of industrial water disconnections made.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally.
  607

  Community Forests
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to the future of community forests in the work of the interdepartmental review group on the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: One of the tasks of the forestry review group, announced by my right hon. Friend on 30 March 1993, is to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, including community forests.

  Drug Addicts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of drug addicts notified in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: Information on the number of drug addicts notified to the Home Office from Scotland since 1982 is published in "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1992—Area tables", a copy of which is in the Library. Details for 1980 and 1981 are contained in the corresponding publications for 1990 and 1991.

  Pine Beauty Caterpillars
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names and areas of the forests which have been sprayed against infestation with pine beauty moth caterpillars in each of the last 10 years; which areas have had to be sprayed more than once; and what areas of forest have been destroyed by this insect.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: The forests that have been treated against pine beauty moth in the past 10 years are listed in the table; full information for 1993 is not yet available. Lodgepole pine was the only species of tree infested, and there have been no instances of the pine being attacked by the moth where it has been planted in mixture with other species.

  Parts of North Dalchork, South Dalchork, Inveroykel, Truderscaig and Rimsdale have been sprayed more than once, as shown in the table.

  About 750 hectares of woodland have been killed by the pest over the period, of which about 600 hectares were on the isle of Lewis.

  Woodland

  Area (ha)

  1984

  0

  1985

  Strathrannoch

  132

  Garbat

  707

  North Dalchork

  2,264

  Inveroykel

  481

  Truderscaig

  784

  Badenoch

  66

  Achentoul Estate

  252

  Ben Armine Estate

  98

  1986

  Creag Dubh

  27

  Badenoch

  39

  Braemore

  50

  South Dalchork

  269

  Truderscaig

  447

  608

  Woodland

  Area (ha)

  Achentoul

  196

  Ben Armine

  98

  Strath Rannoch

  34

  Inveroykel

  570

  North Dalchork

  338

  Creag Dubh

  20

  Fiag

  45

  , Strath Cuilleanach

  93

  Suisgill

  320

  Fiag

  45

  North Dalchork

  12

  Strathrannoch

  155

  1987

  Braemore

  180

  Caplich

  122

  Dalnessie

  27

  Rimsdale

  448

  South Dalchork

  65

  Poulary

  473

  Inveroykel

  573

  Syre

  136

  North Dalchork

  130

  South Dalchork

  111

  1988

  Copaig

  371

  Cnoc a' Moid

  184

  Truderscaig

  229

  1989

  0

  1990

  0

  1991

  Truderscaig

  85

  1992

  Isle of Lewis

  109

  1993

  Isle of Lewis

  North Dalchork

  Achrugan

  Rimsdale

  Badenoch

  Suisgill

  Total area about

  3,500

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what chemicals have been used to spray forestry plantations against infestation with pine beauty moth caterpillars; what studies have been made of the effects of these chemicals on birds; and with what results.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: Two chemicals have been used: Fenitrothion and Dimilin. A biological control agent, Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus, which is specific to the pine beauty moth, has also been used.

  Fenitrothion is an organophosphate insecticide which affects arthropods. Dimilin prevents arthropods from moulting successfully between different development stages; it has no effect on other organisms, including birds. Both chemicals were comprehensively tested by the manufacturers for their effects on other wildlife, including birds, before they were approved for use by the pesticides safety directorate.

  Futher studies on the possible effects of Fenitrothion on birds were carried out by staff of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These

  609
  studies concluded that there was no evidence that use of the chemical against pine beauty moth caterpillars had caused any reduction in the numbers of the common breeding birds in pine plantations in Scotland, nor had there been any statistically significant changes in the numbers of birds in the area immediately after spraying.

  Common Land
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of common land in England and Wales are owned by the Forest Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lodgepole Pine
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what areas have been planted with Lodgepole pine(a) by the Forestry Commission itself in each of the last 10 years and (b) by private owners with grant aid from the Commission over the same period.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: The areas planted with Lodgepole pine by the Forestry Commission are given in the table. Lodgepole pine comprises about half the trees on the areas shown as planted in mixture. Details of areas planted with Lodgepole pine by private owners are not available.

  Areas planted by the Forestry Commission with Lodgepole Pine

  Year

  Lodgepole pine planted alone (hectares)

  Lodgepole pine planted in mixture (hectares)

  1984

  390

  1 550

  1985

  170

  1 350

  1986

  200

  1 340

  1987

  110

  1 770

  1988

  130

  1 600

  1989

  100

  920

  1990

  80

  1 040

  1991

  30

  1 150

  1992

  30

  800

  1993

  30

  400

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) who decided what options the Forestry Commission review group is considering; and how it was decided which options(a) should and (b) should not be considered;

  (2) if he will list the options currently being considered by the Forestry Commission review group.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: The remit of the forestry review group is to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, in accordance with the manifesto commitment, and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands, and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  The range of options examined is for the group to determine, within this remit, and Ministers do not expect to be informed about specific options until the group delivers its final report.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his correspondence with the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) relating to the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  Further to my statement, these documents are being published today under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 pursuant to a motion of the House. They include letters and meeting notes together with material enclosed with those letters or left with me at meetings. One small deletion falling outside the two categories which I explained to the House yesterday would have to be edited has been made to a meeting note. The reason is the need to avoid prejudicing any criminal proceedings flowing from an investigation unrelated to the Polly Peck case. In addition I have omitted transcripts of a hearing at the Central Criminal Court left with me by Mr. Mates.

  Whilst the matters covered in those transcripts do not fall within either of the categories referred to by me yesterday, the transcripts relate to proceedings in chambers and thus should not be published without the leave of the judge.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to market test Government legal services or the office of Parliamentary Counsel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to market test the office of the parliamentary counsel. My Department is not responsible for other parts of the Government legal service.

HEALTH

  Children's Drinks (Sugar)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to take over the sale of sugar-rich drinks for babies and toddlers in connection with the threat to the dental health of very young children; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not the Department's policy to intervene in the sale of such drinks unless a specific false health claim is being made.

  Quarry House
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the estimated costs for the relocation expenses of her Department's move to Quarry house.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated costs of relocation expenses for the move to Leeds are £13·3 million.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of people provided with relocation expenses for the move to Quarry house.
  611
  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 438 people working for the Department have received relocation expenses. A further 75 staff unwilling to relocate, but willing to work in Leeds for periods of up to three years, may claim the reimbursement of reasonable travel and subsistence expenses.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the total amount of expenditure on services within the responsibility of her Department in(a) England, (b) Greater London and (c) the south East, excluding Greater London, for each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93, estimated, distinguishing between current and capital expenditure, though excluding local authority credit approvals/capital allocations.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Waiting Times
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the waiting time for those suffering with eye conditions to see a consultant ophthalmologist at the Birmingham Heartlands hospital; and what action she will take to reduce delays in treatment for those with eye conditions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are committed to driving down all waiting times. Information on waiting times for first out-patient appointments is not available centrally. In 1993–94 regions have set targets, for time to first out-patient appointment, and will reduce waiting times in specialties where they are unacceptably high.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make available figures on the number of people waiting for an out-patient appointment in the area served by Doncaster health authority;

  (2) what are the target waiting times for each specialty in the Doncaster district health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of people waiting for out-patient appointments is not available centrally. As purchasers of health care, all district health authorities will shortly be publishing their first annual report on performance achieved by their providers against each of the patients charter standards.

  Medicines Committees (Advice)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions apply to the licensing authority in respect of the acceptance of the advice of either the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the Medicines Commission where the advice of the two bodies is at variance.

  Mr. Sackville
  The licensing authority must take into account the reports of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission on licensing matters referred to these bodies under the procedures laid down in section 21 and 29 of, and schedule 2 to, the Medicines Act 1968, but is not bound to accept the advice of either body.

  Product Licensing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances an appeal in respect of a product licensing decision may be held before a panel of persons appointed; and on what grounds a licensing authority may reasonably reject the findings of that panel.

  Mr. Sackville
  A product licence holder or an applicant for a product licence, may be heard by a person appointed for the purpose if, after consulting the appropriate Medicines Act committee or the Medicines Commission, the licensing authority proposes to give a decision which is at variance with the advice received.

  Licence holders and applicants may also be heard by a person appointed where the licensing authority proposes, on grounds not relating to safety, quality or efficacy, to suspend, revoke or vary an existing product licence or refuse to grant a new product licence, or propose to grant a new licence otherwise than in accordance with the application.

  The licensing authority takes into account the report of the person appointed but is not bound to accept the report's findings.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the appeal procedures under the Medicines Act 1968 that are available to pharmaceutical companies whose product licences may be suspended or revoked by the United Kingdom Licensing Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The procedures are laid down in schedule 2 to the Medicines Act. In summary, they provide for a product licence holder to be heard by, or make written representations to, the appropriate committee. If the committee's findings and advice are adverse to the licence holder, he may be heard by, or make written representations to the Medicines Commission. There is also provision for the matter to heard by a person appointed for the purpose.

  When the licensing authority has reached a decision following these procedures, section 107 of the Medicines Act provides that its validity may not be questioned in any legal proceedings, except that it may be challenged in the High Court on the grounds that the decision is not within the powers of the Act, or that relevant requirements of the Act or regulations made under the Act, have not been complied with.

  NHS Job Applicants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 261, if she will issue guidance as to the need for the issue of a job description to job applicants prior to the interviewing and appointment of a person to work in the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  While it may be helpful in some instances for a national health service employer to provide more detail about a job on request, we see no need to require this in every case.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the mean age of consultants appointed in each year since 1979.
  613
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Mean age of all consultants appointed each year in England

  Mean age

  1987

  38

  1988

  38

  1989

  38

  1990

  39

  1991

  39

  Appointments
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the register of business and political interests of non-executive directors of regional health authorities, district health authorities and trust boards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no such register. Members of health authorities and non-executive directors of national health service trusts, are required to declare pecuniary interests that could influence, or be thought to influence, their judgment of any decisions to be taken by the authority or trust of which they are a member.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of individuals appointed to non-executive posts in the Doncaster health authority and on the Trent regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of the non-executive members of Trent regional health authority together with the most recent information on their occupations are shown in the table.

  The appointment of the non-executive members of the Doncaster health authority is a matter for Trent regional health authority.

  Trent regional health authority

  Non-executive members

  Occupation

  Mr. M. Dessau

  Retired manufacturer

  Dr. K. Edwards

  University vice-chancellor

  Mrs. P. Wildgoose

  Former teacher

  Mr. G. demons

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. D. Bertram

  Quality management director

  Students
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many students have applied on the grounds of low income for automatic entitlement to free prescriptions and dental and optical treatment in each year since 1990; and what was the cost in each year of the administration of these entitlement claims;

  (2) what proportion of full-time students in higher education applied for automatic entitlement of free prescriptions, dental and optical treatment in each year since 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Not all of the requested information is available. In 1992–93, an estimated 153,000 claims from students under the national health service low income scheme resulted in full charge remission for prescriptions and dental treatment, and full help with optical costs. The cost of handling these claims was about £900,000.
  614

  Road Traffic Act 1988
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the cost of administering section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to the sums received by the NHS under that section.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mental Illness
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of paying for the provision of acute psychiatric services in the private sector for NHS patients in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under the national health service reforms, it is the responsibility of health authorities to purchase appropriate care from cost-effective sources including the private sector. The extent to which health authorities commission care from the private sector is not available centrally.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made to improve significantly the health and social functioning of mentally ill people.

  Mr. Bowis
  There has been considerable progress over the years. In line with the three strategies set out in "The Health of the Nation" we have taken a number of steps towards improving information and understanding; developing comprehensive local services; and continuing the development of good practice. This includes funding the first national survey of psychiatric illness; issuing the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook"; and distributing good practice guidance in the "Care Programme Approach"—a copy of which will be placed in the Library—and much more.

  Casualty Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total number of casualty consultants and casualties in the latest available year; and what is her Department's guidance on the number of casualty consultants needed nationally or per casualty.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of consultants in accident and emergency—A and E—departments in England at 30 September 1991 was 219 (216·4 whole-time equivalents). During the year ended 31 March 1992 there were 10,978,000 new attendances in A and E departments. Not all A and E departments are led by A and E consultants; some are led by consultants in orthopaedics, others by consultants in surgery.

  We do not issue guidance on the number of consultants in A and E needed nationally or per casualty. It is a matter for each employing authority to determine the number of consultants needed in its A and E departments in the light of local needs.

  Nurses
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there were for nurses in areas served by(a) the Trent regional health authority and (b) the Doncaster health authority for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.
  615

  Drugs
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drugs, normally prescribed and dispensed, cost less than £4·25; and what percentage of the total drugs bill this represents in numbers of drugs and in value.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Individual preparations and prescribed items dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors or personally administered by prescribing doctors in England in 1992

  All items

  Items with a Net Ingredient Cost of less than £4·25

  Percentage with a Net Ingredient Cost of less than 14·25

  Number of individual1 preparations

  16,678

  5,595

  34

  Number of prescribed items (million)

  425·1

  241·7

  57

  Total Net Ingredient Cost (£ million)

  2,858

  427

  15

  1The information is provided on the basis of individual preparations and not the drug chemical name.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the total national health service drugs bill for each year since 1982–83, with an estimate for 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 22 March at column 470, for information from 1982–83 to 1991–92.

  The final outturn for 1992–93 is not yet available. The cost of drugs in the hospital and community health services—HCHS—is met from the total HCHS cash limited allocation and a separate estimate for 1993–94 is not available. Main estimate provision of £2,834 million has been made for the family health service drugs bill in the current year.

  Health Authority Guidelines
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines there are governing the availability of information on the activities of regional health authorities and district health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 11 February at column 765.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by(a) Trent regional health authority and (b) Doncaster health authority towards achieving the targets set by "The Health of the Nation" on coronary heart disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  "The Health of the Nation" is a long term strategy and the national health service management executive is working closely with regional health aurthorities—RHAs—on setting and monitoring robust and achievable "Health of the Nation" targets.

  Trent RHA have undertaken a health lifestyles survey which provided baseline data on risk factors in local
  616
  communities and this will assist in targeting management action. The region has started to address coronary heart disease by issuing guidance identifying the potential for investment in improving health and this will help to target resources.

  Health promotion programmes in Doncaster in 1993–94 will concentrate on the risk factors of cigarette smoking, nutrition and physical activity in collaboration with schools, workplaces and the voluntary sector, and with general practitioners. Clinical protocols are being developed for the prevention and management of coronary disease.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are taken to enforce the contractual obligations of the chairs of national health service trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Chairmen of national health service trusts are appointed as statutory office holders and are not engaged under contracts of service.

  Health Service Commissioners
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the annual report of the Health Service Commissioner for 1992–93.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Health Service Commissioner has made his annual report on the performance of his functions in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales and I presented the report to the House on 30 June. It was published today—HC 764—and copies have been placed in the Library. Copies are also available from the Vote Office.

  Dementia
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will meet representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease Society to discuss the policy of her Department in relation to people with dementia and their carers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have arranged to meet representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease Society on Tuesday 27 July.

  NHS Premises (Tobacco Sales)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all sales of tobacco in NHS premises have now ceased.

  Mr. Sackville
  "The Health of the Nation" White Paper gave a commitment that all sales of tobacco on national health service premises would be stopped, except to long-stay patients who are smokers. This has largely been achieved.

  The Department is ensuring that the handful of sites still to meet this commitment do so as soon as possible.

  Dentists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average gross income of dentists in the year 1992–93.
  617
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average gross fee earnings of dentists in the dental rates study group (DRSG) population in 1992–93 in Great Britain was £86,020. In addition it is estimated that DRSG principals received on average some £2,000 by way of other "top-sliced" payments.

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the figures for the estimated cost to the NHS of treatment to those injured or killed'in road traffic accidents in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Nurse Regradings
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will detail by region the amount of moneys given over to help complete the regrading process of nurses; and if she will detail the funds separately for each trust hospital.

  Entrants to initial pre-registration nurse training by course of study and academic qualifications

  England 1992–93

  Course of study

  Number

  Academic qualifications of entrants

  Less than 5 grade C GCSEs or equivalent

  5 grade C and above GCSEs or equivalent

  6 or more grade C and above GCSEs or equivalent

  'A' levels or higher qualifications

  Registered nurse training

  Traditional training

  Total

  3,890

  700

  610

  1,150

  1,439

  General

  3,350

  540

  550

  1,050

  1,210

  Mental illness

  420

  120

  50

  70

  180

  Mental handicap

  120

  40

  10

  30

  40

  Project 2000

  Total

  12,040

  2,080

  1,910

  3,820

  4,230

  Adult

  8,190

  1,380

  1,400

  2,770

  2,640

  Mental health

  1,670

  350

  210

  350

  750

  Mental handicap

  650

  160

  90

  160

  240

  Child

  820

  60

  100

  350

  310

  Common foundation

  710

  120

  100

  190

  300

  Registered midwifery training

  Direct entrants

  520

  70

  40

  120

  290

  Note: Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery arid Health Visiting.

  Relocation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of her Department's civil servants have been transferred from London to the NHS executive headquarters at Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: A total of 530 staff have been transferred from London to the National Health Service Management Executive and NHS Estates Agency in Leeds, 75 on a temporary basis.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what indemnities have been given by Yorkshire regional health authority to Yorkshire Water plc against all claims
  618
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by clinical grade and specialty for each district health authority and regional health authority the number of nursing and midwifery staff employed as at 1 April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 11 June 1993]: The information available will be placed in the Library.

  Nursing Education
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the numbers of entrants to initial pre-registration nursing education by course of study and by the academic qualifications possessed by entrants in(a) 1989, (b) 1990, (c) 1991 and (d)

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: Data are only available for the year ending 31 March 1993 and are shown in the table.

  arising from fluoridation of water supplies; if she will place a copy of the indemnity in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 June 1993, c. 697]: I regret that the previous reply was incorrect. On 22 December 1989 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave Yorkshire Water Services Ltd an indemnity against liabilities arising from the supply of fluoridated water provided by Anglian water authority without adjustment of the fluoride levels. A copy of the indemnity will be deposited in the Library.

WALES

  Rural Prosperity Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schemes currently funded in Wales under the rural prosperity programme indicating(a) the amount allocated to each scheme in total, (b) the amount spent on each scheme to date and (c) the amounts due to be allocated for each scheme for financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  The rural prosperity programme is a Welsh development agency initiative. I have arranged for

  Partnerships of five or more doctors in Wales (as at 1 October)

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1990

  18

  12

  11

  5

  16

  9

  13

  16

  1991

  19

  15

  11

  7

  16

  9

  15

  17

  1992

  18

  17

  10

  9

  16

  9

  15

  18

  Partnerships of two or fewer doctors in Wales (as at 1 October)1

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1980

  34

  39

  55

  21

  40

  9

  36

  22

  1981

  34

  39

  50

  26

  41

  7

  33

  20

  1982

  31

  37

  51

  26

  43

  4

  34

  23

  1983

  30

  40

  49

  22

  43

  4

  35

  22

  1984

  33

  40

  50

  22

  48

  4

  33

  25

  1985

  30

  40

  52

  22

  50

  4

  36

  24

  1986

  29

  39

  53

  21

  50

  4

  31

  23

  1987

  31

  35

  48

  22

  57

  4

  30

  24

  1988

  34

  37

  49

  21

  55

  3

  27

  27

  1989

  35

  36

  49

  20

  57

  3

  28

  26

  1990

  38

  37

  57

  24

  55

  3

  28

  25

  1991

  37

  30

  50

  21

  60

  3

  26

  27

  1992

  39

  28

  47

  19

  56

  3

  25

  26

  1Includes doctors practising single handed.

  Drug Stocks
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has issued to hospitals as to the use of drugs after their use-by date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1988 the Department of Health and Welsh Office jointly issued guidelines to health authorities in England and Wales on the safe and secure handling of medicines which contain guidance requiring hospital staff to return all out of date drugs or medicines to the pharmacy for disposal.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evidence he has of hospitals using drugs which are past their use-by date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no such evidence.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance is available for farmers whose land has been adversely affected by the recent flooding.
  620
  the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Gentleman, and for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Ieun Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner practices comprised(a) five or more partners and (b) two or fewer partners in each district health authority area in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information available relates to partnership rather than practice size. Information for partnerships of five or more doctors is available only for 1990 onwards.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is assessing the extent of flood damage to agricultural land. Farmers can, if eligible, receive assistance under existing grant schemes for some of the work that may be necessary following the flooding.

  Sports Council for Wales
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library full details of the funds spent by the Sports Council for Wales in the period 1990 to 1992 on drug tests for athletes, disaggregating the amount spent on individual sports and indicating the number of tests which proved positive for banned substances.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have placed the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mentally handicapped adults are currently living in long-stay hospitals outside the county in which they were residents.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 368.
  621

  Integrated Administration and Control Systems
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many fully completed IACS forms have now been received by the Welsh Office; what percentage of Welsh farmers this represents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have received 18,537 forms. The proportion of fully completed forms will not be known until detailed checks have been completed.

  Ministerial Visit, Tywyn
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to visit the Tywyn area of the constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no immediate plans to visit the Tywyn area, although I have a very extensive programme of visits to every county in Wales.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county, hectarage and location, the Forestry Commission land in Wales sold since October 1991 where(a) access agreements have been concluded and (b) access agreements have not been concluded.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: Arrangements aimed at securing continued public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission were introduced in october 1991. Excluding those sales which were too far advanced at that time to be included for consideration under the new arrangements, the commission has sold the following 28 areas of forest land in Wales since then. No access agreements have been concluded in respect of any of these areas.

  Area (ha)

  Clwyd

  Coed Cochion

  87·0

  Newbridge and Chirk By-pass

  1·0

  Dyfed

  Allt Fawr

  4·0

  Allt Tir Isaf

  5·0

  Erryd Wood

  5·0

  Garreg Llywd Ffyrdd

  6·0

  Llwyn Neuadd

  6·0

  Llys Y Fran-Velindre

  2·6

  Penywaun

  11·9

  Pen Yr Allt

  4·7

  Pryce Moor Wood

  5·0

  Rosebush (Land at)

  27·0

  Sunny Hill Wood

  9·0

  The Coombes

  6·0

  Trawscoed Woods

  88·0

  Wenallt Fawr

  12·0

  Wern Talhardd

  8·0

  Gwent

  Goytre Hall Wood

  4·0

  Ifton Quarry

  14·0

  Newport-Worcester Trunk Road

  1·7

  Gwynedd

  Bodfeddau

  9·6

  Gwenfro Uchaf

  7·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  Blaengarw (Old Industrial Tip)

  67·8

  622

  Area (ha)

  South Glamorgan

  Coed Hills

  27·5

  Coed Y Colwn

  15·0

  West Glamorgan

  Dyffryn Woods

  116·0

  Penyrallt (Land at)

  0·5

  Valley Woods

  75·0

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing income distribution of child benefit recipients broken down into equivalised income bands.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  Distribution of child benefit recipients by equivalised1 income bands, 1990–912

  Equivalised income of benefit unit3

  Number of benefit units in receipt of child benefit

  Percentage of all benefit units in receipt of child benefit

  thousands

  Per cent.

  Before housing costs

  less than £50

  170

  2·5

  £50-£100

  883

  12·8

  £100-£200

  2,967

  42·9

  £200-£300

  1,732

  25·1

  £300-£400

  661

  9·6

  £400-£500

  235

  3·4

  £500 or more

  265

  3·8

  After housing costs

  less than £50

  379

  5·5

  £50-£100

  1,610

  23·3

  £100-£200

  2,913

  42·1

  £200-£300

  1,324

  19·2

  £300-£400

  374

  5·4

  £400-£500

  146

  2·1

  £500 or more

  169

  2·4

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey

  Notes:

  1 Income has been equivalised within benefit units using the McClements scales.

  2 This represents the latest information available and combines the data for the years 1990 and 1991

  3 Income is in £s per week expressed in January 1991 prices.

  Loans and Compensation (Floods)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will use his discretion under the crisis fund to convert all loans made necessary because of the recent flooding disaster into direct grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Help from the social fund may be available to people affected by the recent flooding principally in the form of discretionary crisis loans. Social fund community care grants are primarily intended to help promote care in the community and are not designed to be used for general disaster relief, although each application is considered on its merits.
  623
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to secure that invalidity benefit recipients affected by the recent flooding will be eligible for social fund loans.

  Mr. Scott
  Discretionary crisis loans are already available to invalidity benefit recipients where there is a serious risk to the health and safety of the applicant or their family and where such a loan is the only means of dealing with the crisis.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to pay

  Sickness benefit recipients

  Invalidity benefit recipients

  England

  Scotland

  England

  Scotland

  31 January 1990

  91,000

  14,000

  887,000

  167,000

  28 February 1990

  88,000

  13,000

  889,000

  168,000

  31 March 1990

  80,000

  13,000

  895,000

  169,000

  30 April 1990

  86,000

  15,000

  909,000

  170,000

  31 May 1990

  84,000

  15,000

  916,000

  172,000

  30 June 1990

  86,000

  15,000

  922,000

  173,000

  31 July 1990

  87,000

  16,000

  925,000

  173,000

  31 August 1990

  83,000

  15,000

  935,000

  175,000

  29 September 1990

  85,000

  14,000

  940,000

  177,000

  31 October 1990

  89,000

  13,000

  943,000

  178,000

  30 November 1990

  88,000

  13,000

  948,000

  180,000

  31 December 1990

  91,000

  14,000

  959,000

  181,000

  31 January 1991

  90,000

  13,000

  959,000

  180,000

  28 February 1991

  90,000

  13,000

  963,000

  181,000

  30 March 1991

  83,000

  15,000

  971,000

  181,000

  1991–92

  120,000

  1,365,000

  1992–93

  135,000

  1,490,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants are at a point in time, not for the month as a whole, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Information in the form requested is not available for later than 30 March 1991. Figures for 1991–92 and 1992–93 come from the Departmental Report 1993.

  Income Support
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual income support payable to an unemployed person aged 20 years in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. The amount shown assume only income support personal allowance is payable. Any income from another source would also be taken into account.

  Income support payable to a single unemployed 20 year old

  Date of benefit uprating

  Weekly personal rate (£)

  Annual total (£) (Financial year)

  April 1990

  28·80

  1,497·60 (1990–91)

  April 1991

  31·15

  1,626·30 (1991–92)

  October 1991

  31·40

  April 1992

  33·60

  1,747·20 (1992–93)

  April 1993

  34·80

  1,809·60 (1993–94)

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the levels of income support for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living within the catchment
  624
  compensation for damage in the flooding incident at Aberconwy and Meirionnydd to individuals who do not qualify for benefits or social funding.

  Mr. Scott
  No. Local authorities have primary responsibility for disaster relief.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each month since January 1990 the number of people in receipt of invalidity and sickness benefit(a) in England and (b) in Scotland.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table.

  area of the York Benefits Agency office were in receipt of invalidity benefit on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 30 June 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many people living within the catchment area of the York Benefits Agency Office were in receipt of Invalidity Benefit on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are not maintained by District/ Benefit Offices for recipients of Invalidity Benefit.

  However, it is possible to state the number of claimants to Invalidity Benefit at York District Office. These include a small number of people who have claimed but are not receiving Invalidity Benefit, eg. because there is underlying entitlement which has been extinguished by the payment of a higher overlapping benefit or where termination action has not been completed.

  There were in fact 5,094 people claiming Invalidity Benefit at York District Office at the last working day of May 1993. These figures were obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in the Office.
  625
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlie the different treatment of an employer's payment of an employee's council tax liability, paid under a contract of employment, for national insurance contributions and income tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Generally the position is that such an employee would normally be liable to both national insurance contributions and income tax. However, certain employees who are living in accommodation provided by the employer are not charged income tax on the benefit of that accommodation under the provisions of section 145(4) of the Taxes Act 1988. Broadly, this is where the accommodation is necessary for their job. The payment of the council tax on such accommodation by the employers will not give rise to an income tax charge on these employees.

  There are no parallel provisions in social security legislation and consequently national insurance contributions may be due. However, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is currently considering whether this difference is suitable for alignment under the current deregulation initiative.

  Maternity Payments
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women aged(a) 16 or 17 years, (b) 18 to 24 years and (c) 25 years and over received maternity payment from the social fund in each year from 1988; and how many of the maternity payments were made to single women.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the figures for the estimated cost to the Department of Social Security for those injured in road traffic accidents for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Flood Victims
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being taken to provide an immediate response to applications for help from the social fund by victims of the recent flooding in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund 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 he placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd. dated 30 June 1993.
  626
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what steps are being taken to provide an immediate response to applications for help from the Social Fund by victims of the recent flooding in Wales.

  I would first of all like to explain that the primary responsibility for disaster relief lies with the Local Authority and I understand that the Government has already made available extra money for the emergency work.

  However, help may be available from the Social Fund. In the main, this will be in the form of Crisis Loans (CLs) which are available to anyone who needs financial help to meet expenses in an emergency or a disaster, whether or not they are receiving any benefit. They must however, be facing serious risk or serious damage to their health or safety, and the CL must be the only means of dealing with the crisis.

  In order to ensure that applications from flood victims are processed more promptly, the Colwyn Bay office has set up a dedicated section. All applications for assistance are being considered sensitively, in light of the individual circumstances of the applicant.

  Expenditure from District Social Fund budgets is monitored closely. Arrangements are in place to record expenditure incurred as a result of flooding or other natural disasters.

  If the situation arises, the Department will review the local budgets of Districts which have incurred additional Social Fund expenditure as a result of flooding.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Fleet Maintenance and Repair
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year testing of the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation in Her Majesty's naval base, Portsmouth is likely to start.

  Mr. Aitken
  Preparatory work has already started.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of the ALFENS low-flying safety system to prevent crashes and near misses; and if he will speed up the introduction of the system.

  Mr. Hanley
  The automated low flying enquiry and notification system—ALFENS—will enhance safety by improving the availability and exchange of accurate information to military aircrew at all times. The system will also provide more flexible deconfliction arrangements at night but is not designed to provide deconfliction for daytime flying. ALFENS will be introduced into service as quickly as possible.

  HMS Repulse
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Clyde public safety scheme was activated as a consequence of the release of coolant from HMS Repulse on 20 June.

  Mr. Hanley
  The activation of the alarm was immediately discovered to have been an over-reaction to what was a minor incident that posed no risk to the public. Because of this, the public emergency authorities were not alerted and the public safety scheme was not activated.
  627

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the United Kingdom's contribution to the costs of the preparatory commission for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, established under the chemical weapons convention, expressing the figures(a) for each relevant Government financial year and (b) for each financial year of the commission; and from which subheads of which votes of which classes United Kingdom contributions funds are taken.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom made an initial contribution to the 1993 preparatory commission budget of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of £130,000 in the Government's financial year 1992–93; this was paid from class 1 vote 1 subhead J2. A further contribution of £136,667 was made to the 1993 preparatory commission's budget in the Government's financial year 1993–94 from class 1 vote 1 subhead M3. The commission's financial year coincides with the calendar year.

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the fire-resistant qualities of the truck cargo heavy duty II vehicles used by his Department for the transportation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave the hon. Member on 9 June,Official Report, column 288.

  Aircraft Carriers (Refitting)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money will have to be spent at Rosyth dockyard to enable the refitting of aircraft carriers; and how much would need to be spent at Devonport dockyard to enable it to perform the same operation.

  Mr. Aitken
  A continuing programme of capital expenditure on various items is envisaged at both Rosyth and Devonport which is not specifically related to refitting aircraft carriers. The existing facilities at Rosyth are suitable for refitting aircraft carriers, as are those at Devonport, without significant additional expenditure, but further discussions about precise requirements will take place with the dockyard operator well in advance of the first refit.

  Anti-armour Ammunition
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the programme of research and development into anti-armour ammunition with depleted uranium penetrators.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has undertaken two development programmes for anti-armour tank ammunition with depleted uranium penetrators. The CHARM 1 programme to develop a 120 mm tank round with a depleted uranium penetrator is now almost complete. A programme to develop an enhanced performance 120 mm tank round with a depleted uranium penetrator—CHARM 3—began in 1991.
  628
  My Department has also undertaken a research programme to examine the feasibility of developing a 140mm tank round with a depleted uranium penetrator. This programme, too, is now almost complete.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 474, to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), if he will place in the Library copies of reports on radiation monitoring carried out since 1980 by (a) the Atomic Energy Authority at and around the Eskmeals test firing range, (b) BNFL at and around the Kirkcudbright test firing range and (c) Atomic Weapons Establishment at the west Freugh test firing range.

  Mr. Aitken
  Subject to deletion of some classified details, I will arrange for copies of the reports to be placed in the House of Commons Library in due course.

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what detailed records are kept of the dates and locations of each of the tests involving depleted uranium shells; and to whom this information is made available.

  Mr. Aitken
  Full records of all DU firings are kept as part of standard trials documentation. These records are available on request to regulatory authorities, such as Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution or Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what future steps he proposes to take to assess and keep under review the possible effects on the local population and environment arising from the testing of depleted uranium shells at(a) Kirkcudbright test firing range, (b) West Freugh test firing range and (c) Eskmeals test firing range; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the appropriate health and safety measures deemed necessary as part of the United Kingdom development firing programme using depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The measures currently taken are set out in my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces' reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 473–74. We propose to continue these. In addition, in the spirit of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 we propose to undertake a full environmental impact assessment at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many periodic inspections have been carried out by(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the Department of the Environment's radiochemical inspectorate in each year since 1980 into the United Kingdom development firing programme using depleted uranium; and if he will provide a breakdown by firing range.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Health and Safety Executive visited Kirkcudbright in 1986 to inspect the handling and firing of DU rounds. Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate was fully consulted in 1980–81 while preparations for DU firing at Kirkcudbright were being made. It visited the range in April this year at our invitation. Her Majesty's
  629
  inspectorate of pollution visited Eskmeals once in 1989 and twice in 1993. A number of visits to Eskmeals took place between 1981 and 1989, but a record of the exact dates is not available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish a public inquiry into depleted uranium testing; what representations he has received calling on him to set up such an inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have no plans to establish such an inquiry. I have received no other such representations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has passed to(a) Dumfries and Galloway regional council, (b) Wigton district council and ( c ) Stewartry district council on the safety, health and environmental precautions to be taken in order to ensure the protection of the local population from the effects arising from the testing of depleted uranium shells at Kirkcudbright test firing range; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The results of the monitoring summarised by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his replies to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 473–74, demonstrate that there is no risk either to those who work on the range or to those who live near it. There is, therefore, no need for precautions such as the hon. Member describes.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has carried out or commissioned on the use of tungsten-tipped shells as an alternative to the use of depleted uranium.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is not carrying out any research into the development of a tungsten-tipped tank round for service with the British Army beyond those already in service; nor has it commissioned any.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the dates and locations of each of the tests involving depleted uranium shells at Kircudbrighi firing range.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information is not readily available in the form requested by the hon. Member. Since firing started in March 1982, firing has taken placed on 535 days, with annual totals as follows:630

  Days

  1982

  3

  1983

  20

  1984

  55

  1985

  24

  1986

  26

  1987

  26

  1988

  32

  1989

  59

  1990

  88

  1991

  59

  1992

  87

  1993

  156

  1 To date.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many existing or past military or civilian personnel from his Department have contacted his Department regarding possible uranium contamination as a result of being involved in depleted uranium testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No military or civilian personnel have contacted my Department regarding possible uranium contamination as a result of being involved in the proof-firing of depleted uranium ammunition in the United Kingdom. Three personnel who expressed concern that they may have inhaled depleted uranium dust during training for Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait were subject to monitoring which showed no detectable depleted uranium contamination.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the current stocks and future arisings of radioactive waste at the west Freugh and Kirkcudbright test firing ranges.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are no such stocks; nor are any future arisings expected.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the "Statement on the Defence Estimates"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993" will be published on Monday 5 July.

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

Employees: Unfair Dismissal Protection
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans I hey have to improve the position of the significant numbers of employees who are dismissed but are prevented from claiming unfair dismissal by the two-year qualifying period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government believe that the current two-year qualifying period for the generality of unfair dismissal cases strikes the right balance between the interests of employers and employees. However, the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill extends the range of unfair dismissal cases for which no qualifying period of service is required.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, is he aware of the report issued recently by the National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux which expresses deep concern about the increasingly systematic way in which some employers are exploiting the lack of protection in this area? The report states that the crudest form of this systematic exploitation is the practice of dismissing employees just before they qualify for protection against unfair dismissal and lists a whole series of cases that have been reported at CABs across the country. Can the Minister not foresee a situation in which many low paid employees have absolutely no chance of ever building up any entitlement to employment rights because every time they come up to the two-year period they are dismissed? Should not the Government make inquiries into the situation which their own legislation has created?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be a short-sighted employer who dismissed satisfactory employees simply because he wanted to avoid potential unfair dismissal complaints. Such action would increase costs in terms of high turnover, recruitment, training of new staff, low morale and motivation in the workforce, all of which would be likely to contribute to low productivity.
I have seen the NACAB report, and I would point out that the new Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill introduces new entitlements which I know go a long way to provide what the report asks for.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not part of the trouble with what the noble Baroness proposes that if
924
that were put into effect it would substantially diminish the amount of employment in the short-term category?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend raises an extremely important point. As I said in my original Answer, we feel that the balance between employers and employees is now right and encourages as much employment as possible.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the practice of employers whose systematic policy is to dismiss employees just before the expiry of the two-year qualifying period is not simply short-sighted, as he said, but should be condemned?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the reasons I have given as to why it is short-sighted are good reasons. Of course I would in no way support employers who indulge in these bad practices.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not admit that protection already exists against dismissal on grounds of sex or race below two years and that it does not have the disastrous effects which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested? Indeed, when we had normal, unfettered protection against dismissal under two years there were a disproportionate number of cases which were much more successful in the generality. Does he agree that all the evidence suggests that protection should cover all areas of employment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord reminds the House that there is no qualifying period in the case of race or sex discrimination, or, the noble Lord did not add, of dismissal for being a trade union member, although that is also protected, as is a safety committee member on an offshore installation. As I said originally, the Bill introduces new rights of complaint in respect of any statutory right, and those are important additions. We should be content with them.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that this is only one of the tricks which these short-sighted employers get up to? They must have long-sighted advisers, because they take on youngsters and get rid of those young people just before they become eligible to pay their full National Insurance stamp, and they take on women for less than the stipulated number of hours so that they do not have to pay holiday pay. Does the Minister agree that they are falling back into the old pre-war tricks of utilising as many people as they can for as short a lime as possible and at as little cost to the employer as possible?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord has brought forward some rather anecdotal points. There may be very good business reasons for employing casual staff, for example, to give greater flexibility to deal with fluctuating workloads. Therefore, I should like to see the evidence before I comment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords. is it not obvious that irresponsible and foolish behaviour on the part of employers towards their employees gives them a bad name and therefore there will come

925
a point at which it carries its own punishment? Is it not also obvious that the constant elaboration of the machinery of government to protect otherwise fairly respectable people usually also brings its own punishment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with the words of my noble and learned friend. I believe it right that employers should be in the best position to judge what is right for them. However, if they indulge in bad employment practices not only will they get a bad reputation but it will do their business great harm.

Public Bodies: Appointees' Arrangements
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the maximum number of days per week that people appointed as chairmen and members of government bodies are expected to work.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the amount of time chairmen and members of government bodies are expected to work varies according to the appointment. Although some appointments are full time, the majority are part time, with the commitment ranging from several days a week to a day a month or less.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that reply. I am referring to members of the board and not to professional officers. Do those people sign a contract stating how many days or hours work they will put in? If they do, who makes sure that they hold to that contract, bearing in mind that in a Written Answer given in Hansard for another place on Monday of this week it was indicated that in one regional health authority alone 120 places had been created on new quangos as a result of the Government setting up the new National Health trust hospitals? One can multiply that figure by 14—which is the number of regions—to establish the total number of about 1,400 people appointed to the new quangos. Some of them are receiving substantial salaries. Can the noble Lord give an undertaking that those appointees carry out the functions for which they are paid, bearing in mind some of the disasters which have just taken place in Wessex, the West Midlands and the London Ambulance Service?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, first, I should like to say that I believe that the House and the nation should be grateful for the time and effort many distinguished people give to serving on public bodies, often at no little cost to themselves. Secondly, I do not know whether they actually sign a piece of paper in the form of a contract. But I know this. Ministers satisfy themselves that those whom they appoint have sufficient time to devote to the appointment, given their other commitments and appointments. That factor is taken into account in each individual case. It is for the Minister to satisfy himself on that aspect.
926
On the third point, a considerable number of people are appointed to those bodies. The majority are part time and unpaid. The information at 1st September 1992—that is the last figure—is that there are some 41,000 appointments over the whole range of public life. There are now 1,412 bodies to which those appointments are made compared with 2,167 in 1979.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am rather surprised that the Minister referred to people giving voluntary service and making sacrifices. Is he aware of the recently published statistics for the two national health trust units in Leeds? The new professional head receives £75,000 a year, and some directors have apportioned themselves an annual salary averaging £55,000 each. That means that Leeds now has two national health trusts which cost nearly £1 million to run before anyone sticks a plaster on anybody. Is that what the health service is coming to? Are we not creating a dangerous situation if we allow such costs to continue? Knowing the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I am surprised at his complacency.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I gave the facts: that the majority of those appointments are unpaid and voluntary. I believe that the nation is right to be grateful to those who serve in that way. Of course, some appointments are paid and the Ministers satisfy themselves that those people are paid properly and are able to do the duties involved. With that number of appointments I cannot imagine that there are not some people who are not up to standard. But it is for the Minister to deal with the matter in the appropriate way.
The Earl of Haisbury: My Lords, having occupied both positions referred to in the noble Lord's Question, perhaps I may say that the workload was carefully outlined and explained to me in advance of my accepting the appointment. Thereafter I did my best to keep to the ten-ns of my obligation with professional integrity.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the endorsement from his experience of what I believe to be the position.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, for some reason the noble Lord the Leader of the House made a comparison with the circumstances in 1979. Will he place in the Library of the House not only the number of people, and the number of quangos, but also the amount paid to those people? When he makes that information available, I believe he will find that there is a substantial contrast which is not to the advantage of the present Government.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I shall certainly place in the Library all the information that I have readily available. If the noble Lord is not satisfied with the information, no doubt he will get in touch with me.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I became Chairman of English Heritage I signed an agreement to work two days a week? In fact I worked four days.
Lord Wakeharn: My Lords, the nation is grateful to my noble friend for the service that he gave during that time. I believe that it is not untypical of what a number of people do.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that evidence is accumulating, in particular with regard to the National Health Service, which indicates that the new administrative steps taken by the Government have resulted in inefficient, so-called businessmen running the health service in many areas? They are paid extortionate salaries while useful medical personnel, in particular nurses, are being discharged.
Lord Wakeharn: My Lords, I believe that virtually every statistic that anyone can produce about the performance of the health service in recent years indicates that it is much better than at any time previously.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that we have reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for having signed a contract for two days and for having worked for four days? Some of us believe that it might be better if his successor had signed a contract to work for four days and had worked for two days.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, makes his point. Without in any way wishing to detract from the contribution of my noble friend, I do not believe that it was a fair point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As recently as this afternoon, I was in The Royal London Hospital. It is a new trust hospital. The comments that he has just made seem to me to be as unfounded, wide of the mark, unfair and damaging to morale as they could be.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I attributed the noble Lord's remarks to the devotion with which he has attended a recent measure before this House. It may have made him a little less balanced in his judgment on these matters.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House treats the matter with understandable levity. Does he recognise that there is now real anxiety about the accountability of quangos? Excluding the health service, they now account for no less than 20 per cent. of all public spending. A managing director can be ousted by the board and is responsible to the shareholders. A local authority councillor is responsible to the local electorate. Ministers presumably can be sacked by the Prime Minister. Who sacks people from quangos if they do not do the job? Is it only the Minister? If so, can the Leader of the House tell us how many people have been sacked recently for incompetence?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition the figure of how many have been sacked. A number have resigned. A number have left over the years. People appointed to
928
those boards are responsible to Ministers; and Ministers are responsible to Parliament. That is a very strong chain of responsibility which I believe serves the public interest well.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am pleased to inform the Minister, should he not already be aware, that later this month I shall ask a Question on a similar subject. Will he then produce the figures of appointments to quangos which are salaried as well as saying how many are voluntary and receive no pay?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that if he has put down a Question, I shall answer it to the best of my ability.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Minister stated that he will be prepared to produce figures. Will he also produce an estimate of the amount that the Government paid with regard to those posts when they were local government appointments? Will he compare those figures with the present cost?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to frame such a Question I shall do my best to answer it. However, I do not believe that the question that he asked is capable of an absolutely rational answer.

Employment: Union Membership and Salaries
3.18 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they approve of the practice of employers who pay higher wages and salaries to staff who are not members of trade unions or staff associations.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we believe that it is an employers' right to decide, in the light of the needs and circumstances of his business, how he wants to negotiate pay settlements with his staff. However, it is, and will remain, unlawful for employers to penalise employees because of their union membership or non-membership.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that my Question has the support of Members of Parliament of all parties who are gravely apprehensive? We are just coming out of a great recession and such a practice could do irreparable harm. It is in the Tolpuddle style. It is a threat to freedom of association and might involve bribery and coercion. The Minister's reply is encouraging. If the practice referred to becomes a reality, will he assure us that appropriate action will be taken by the appropriate Minister?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I should restate the law. It was never meant to interfere with collective bargaining arrangements. Its purpose is to protect employees from action taken against them as individuals by employers on the grounds of trade union membership or non-membership.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, would end in the re-introduction of the closed shop? I was present in Germany and saw the German miracle take place because of the great trade union leader and Foreign Secretary to Mr. Attlee, Ernest Bevin, who abolished the closed shop in Germany, or did not re-introduce it, and made many other trade union reforms such as limiting the number of trade unions to 15. That was the basis of the German miracle.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. The reforms of the 1980s have helped reduce strikes to record low levels and brought renewed confidence in the United Kingdom economy among overseas visitors. The 0.5 million working days lost in 1992 are the lowest calendar year total ever recorded since records began in 1891. The figure is nearly 25 times lower than the average for the 1970s.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister tell his noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who asked about the closed shop, that this Question has nothing to do with the closed shop but everything to do with trade union representation? Perhaps we may look again at my noble friend's Question in which he refers to staff who are not members of trade unions. He also has in mind those who seek representation by trade unions but who are denied that representation since higher wages and salaries are offered to people who do not seek representation by a trade union. That is the issue at stake here. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course the provision that was made with the amendment to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill is entirely even-handed. It applies equally where an employer takes action following a decision to recognise a particular union.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a place in a free society for freedom under law? Has not every question so far been directed towards substituting politically or morally defensible or desirable behaviour into the legal system, which is a great mistake?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. We must be careful not to put the law into every corner of our lives.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that under the recent legislation a reasonable employer should not offer a douceur to employees who support his decision no longer to recognise a union but withhold it from those who do not?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in the cases with which we are concerned, which were subject to a Court of Appeal case, employers offered their staff a financial incentive to sign a new contract of employment incorporating different negotiating arrangements. There was no suggestion that individuals should leave their union.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in an earlier Answer the Minister advised the House of the number of days lost as a result of industrial action compared with the previous period. Can he advise the House how many days' work have effectively been lost by the level of unemployment that exists today compared with the previous period to which he referred?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, how long is a piece of string?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I understood the Minister speaking for the Government to say that they were quite happy with the present situation. Would they be just as happy if, for example, a pro-union employer were to discriminate in favour of trade unionists; if he were to give those with collective bargaining rights more money, better conditions and shorter hours? Would the Government then say that that was an attempt to discriminate, short of dismissal, and that it was unlawful?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. I thought that my Answer agreed with the noble Lord—so long as employers do not discriminate against people who are not union members.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I agree very much with what the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said? Like him, I have very little time for closed shops. However, there is nothing in what we request that has anything to do with closed shops. If it had, I would be agin it. What I want is that there will be no unnecessary industrial action taken at this time to frustrate both our Government and our country, and that is the kind of thing that would lead to it. I plead with the Government to think again.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the industrial relations climate in this country is very good at the moment and that the records show that that is so. I sought to indicate that to the House. I believe that the amendment moved to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill merely restates the law as set down by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in a speech in this House on 23rd September 1975, at col. 189 of Hansard. He said that Clause 45, now Clause 146 in the consolidated Bill:
"deals with the individual rights of employees, not collective bargaining issues".

Nuclear Weapons: Non-Proliferation
3.26 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the conditions which must be met before they will be able to get rid of their nuclear weapons as aspired to by Baroness Chalker of Wallasey [H.L. Deb., col. 282, 26th May 1993].
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, for as long as our security continues to depend on the

931
possession of nuclear weapons, Her Majesty's Government are committed to maintaining a minimum deterrent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Precisely, my Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is not with us this afternoon. I hope that that is not due to anything untoward. I am now glad to see that she is here, if not on the Front Bench. Is it not the case that she expressed the Government's desire to be rid of nuclear weapons under certain conditions? I ask the noble Viscount whether he will be so good as to spell out the conditions which will enable the Government to dispose of the nuclear weapons of which they have expressed the desire to rid us.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, my noble friend and I are at one on matters of government policy. 1 may quote my noble friend exactly when she said that Her Majesty's Government would get rid of nuclear weapons,
"only when it is safe to do so".—[Official Report, 26/5/93; col. 282.]
The element of uncertainty and lack of precision in itself contributes to the power of deterrence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that the nub of the matter is the non-proliferation treaty and the review conference, which will he coming up fairly soon? In the matter referred to by my noble friend in his Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said that the UK delegation,
"delivered a statement reaffirming our aim to secure the treaty's unconditional, indefinite extension in 1995 and our commitment to support continuing progress towards nuclear disarmament".—[Official Report, 26/5/93; col. 280.]
I am sure that we all agree with those sentiments. However, given that President Clinton, as I understand it from today's Independent, is on the point of announcing that there will be no further testing in the United States, unless another nuclear power did so first, where does that leave our own nuclear deterrent, of which the noble Viscount is so fond?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is as aware as I am that the United States administration—allies whom we greatly value, as I know the noble Lord does—is reviewing testing policy. We are in close touch with them and it would be entirely wrong to speculate on the conclusions of that review until an announcement is made.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister say whether it is still the Government's intention to complete the programme of four Trident submarines?
Viscount Cranborne: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of our discussions over the past few days in this House, and as long as the Government feel it necessary to have nuclear weapons, will the noble Viscount give an absolute assurance that only Britain's finger will be on the nuclear trigger, and that no part will be played at any time ever in the future by the Council of Ministers or the Commission?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me strangely. I merely reiterate that the nuclear deterrent possessed by this country is an independent one and will continue to remain so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, how will the noble Viscount square that answer with the inability to test in Nevada if that is the case? Does he agree that it is no longer independent; that we rely on the United States for testing?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall not give the noble Lord an answer in a speculative mode now, any more than I did a few moments ago. 1 merely emphasise to the noble Lord that testing has always played a genuine and important part in maintaining the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons. In the event of a test-free world, the challenge would be to develop alternative techniques and a fully adequate substitute.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the reason that the noble Viscount has not given an answer to my noble friend Lord Williams is that he does not have an answer? Will he address himself to the question of the necessity of accuracy in these matters? If he says that we shall get rid of our nuclear weapons when it is safe to do so, is he entirely unable to spell out any part of the circumstances that would enable him to say that it is safe?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am entirely unable to do so because to do so would give comfort and aid to our enemies.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Railways Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. and that during this adjournment, the Report stage and, subject to your Lordships' agreement to the Motion which is about to be moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House, the Third Reading of the Bail (Amendment) Bill and the one-hour Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be taken. Following the recent agreement by the House to this new procedure of time-limiting dinner break Unstarred Questions, no speech on the Question should exceed 12 minutes in length.

Business of the House
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Third Reading of the Bail (Amendment) Bill to be taken after the Report stage today; and to enable the Representation of the People Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on 8th July.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I gave the Leader of the House notice that I proposed to make some comments on this particular resolution. My concerns relate exclusively to the Bail (Amendment) Bill, and not to the other Bill which is mentioned. We understand the case for treating that in the way suggested by the Leader of the House.
The House may be aware that the Bail (Amendment) Bill was given a Second Reading on 9th June. It is a Private Member's Bill emanating from the House of Commons giving the prosecutor in some cases the right to appeal to a Crown Court against a magistrates' court decision to give bail. The consequence of such an appeal is automatically that the defendant will be held in custody for a period of up to 48 hours.
No issue of principle has divided us so far as this particular Bill is concerned. It has received general support in all parts of the House. But, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be aware, a number of issues of considerable significance were raised during the Second Reading debate by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Williams of Mostyn, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. Then we had a situation where last Thursday there was a Business Motion in the name of the Leader of the House to take all stages of this Bill at one Sitting—the one which occurred last Monday. Representations were made through the usual channels, and I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for deciding not to proceed with that Motion. A number of issues arise from that procedure which cause considerable disquiet in many parts of the House.
First, because of the timetable in the House of Commons, it was argued that it was essential to proceed in this way; otherwise, there was a risk that the Bill would fail. The second point is that it was argued—as it has been argued on many previous occasions—that if any amendments were made to the Bill, the Bill would fail. Last Monday we had only 45 to 50 minutes' discussion during what was the Committee stage of the Bill. We faced a situation where, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not move a number of amendments because of the need to make progress because of the Maastricht Bill. In addition to the Bail (Amendment) Bill, during the dinner hour we also took the Osteopaths Bill and the Motion on the fishing vessels scheme.
Yesterday afternoon, in order to try to make progress and get agreement on all sides of the House, there was a discussion between a number of us and the promoters of the Bill, some of the colleagues of the noble Lord the Leader of the House and representatives of government departments on many of the amendments that were moved on Monday and some of those that were not moved on Monday. In fact, it was a Committee stage of the Bill but the Sitting was in private. If I may say so, it does not seem to me—I am sure that I shall carry the noble Lord with me on this point—that that is a very sensible way to deal with public business.
Tonight we very much hope that we shall reach agreement when we discuss the Bail (Amendment) Bill
934
both on Report and on Third Reading. But there are, I believe, three important issues which I very much hope the noble Lord will consider.
First, there is the Commons timetable for looking at Lords amendments to Commons Private Members' Bills. It seems to me most unsatisfactory that arguments of the kind that have been deployed in relation to the Bail (Amendment) Bill and used on previous occasions so far as other Private Members' Bills are concerned, are used simply because the House of Commons will not agree to look at Lords amendments later in the Session than they presently do.
Secondly, there are the repeated statements made on this Bill and on many previous Bills that if any amendments are passed there is a danger that the Bill will fail.
Thirdly, it seems to me remarkable that with the present weight of business in this House we have not been meeting on Fridays. This Bill could have been dealt with properly and in detail last Friday, but of course there was no Sitting of the House. It seems to me quite wrong that we should be placed in this situation. The liberty of many people will be affected as a result of the passage of this Bill. It is quite wrong that as a revising Chamber we should not apply ourselves in a far more businesslike way to looking at these issues than has been possible when discussing this Bill.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for raising those points and for giving me notice that he intended to do so. I say at the beginning that the Motion that I moved has been agreed through the usual channels. I do not think that it is the noble Lord's intention that we should eventually not agree to the Motion. Nevertheless, he has raised a number of points which are important.
The question of the Commons timetable is a difficulty in this case. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Bethell who made the point that amendments might not be considered. As I understand it, the noble Lord was not speaking 100 per cent. accurately in theory, but in practice was probably right. That is to say, Lords amendments would be at such a low place in the Order Paper in the House of Commons that in practice they would not be reached. Those points are important and I shall certainly undertake to discuss them with my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons and my colleagues in another place to see whether this matter can be looked at and whether we can find a more satisfactory way of doing it; or at least, get a more satisfactory answer if we cannot do it. I shall certainly do that, and I shall write to the noble Lord.
With regard to sitting on Friday, it is a matter for this House to decide whether it wants to, and on which occasions. I am sure that there are occasions when it is right to do so. Those are decisions that I would not dream of arriving at without discussions through the usual channels. I shall certainly have those discussions. There are occasions when it must be appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I simply say from these Benches that the Motion that the Leader of the House has moved has the full approval of these Benches through the usual channels in the light of the hiatus that occurred at the beginning of the week. We certainly fully endorse the sense of aggravation felt by the participants in the affair. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harri 3, will appreciate the good intentions of the Leader in seeking to avoid the possibility of anything of that kind happening again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers):My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Ear/ Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS
AMENDMENT AND COMMONS REASONS FOR
DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS
AMENDMENTS
[ Page and line references are to Bill (56) as first printed by the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Young unaccompanied asylum seekers
(".—(I) The Secretary of State shall by order establish an advisory panel for the purpose of making advice available to a child who has arrived in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him.
(2) The members of such advisory panel shall be appointed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of section (Appointment and functions of advisory panel) below and shall have the functions therein described.
(3) A member of such advisory panel is referred to as an asylum-seeker's adviser.
(4) Where a child unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him arrives in the United Kingdom and is, or appears to an immigration officer to be, under the age of 18 years and such child has made, or may reasonably be considered as desiring to make, a claim for asylum, the immigration officer shall notify the advisory panel with a view to the child being forthwith referred to an appropriate asylum-seeker's adviser for the purpose of carrying out the functions described in section (Appointment and functions of advisory panel) below.")
2 Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Appointment and functions of advisory panel
(".—(1) The Secretary of State, after consultation, if thought fit, with the Refugee Council and any other statutory or voluntary body which he considers appropriate, shall from time to time appoint such persons as he thinks fit to be members of the advisory panel and every such appointment shall be made upon such terms and conditions in all respects as the Secretary of State shall determine.
(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revocably delegate to the Refugee Council or other appropriate statutory or voluntary body all or any of his duties under subsection (1) above.
936
(3) The advisory panel shall so far as practicable include persons who—

(a) are, or can call upon persons who are, able to converse in the several languages likely to be spoken by young unaccompanied asylum-seekers;

(b) are familiar with the habits and customs of the territories from which such young asylum-seekers are likely to come; and

(c) have knowledge of child-care legislation and immigration procedures.

(4) An officer or employee of the immigration service shall not be eligible for appointment to the advisory panel.
(5) It shall be the function of an asylum-seeker's adviser, to whom a young asylum-seeker has been referred, to befriend and advise the asylum-seeker in all matters relating to immigration, accommodation, education, health and general welfare for so long and to such an extent as the adviser shall from time to time consider desirable; and in performing such function the adviser shall have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the young asylum-seeker (considered in the light of his age and understanding).
(6) Nothing in this section (Young unaccompanied asylum-seekers) above affects the powers of duties of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 or otherwise.")
The Commons disagreed to these amendments for the following reason:
2A Because they involve a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2A.
The reason which was given by another place for disagreeing with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is that they involve a charge on the public revenue. In a sense that is a formality. The Government understand, respect and share the concern to protect the welfare of unaccompanied child asylum seekers which prompted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, to introduce these amendments.
Our real concern is that the creation of a statutory panel, with a duty to appoint an adviser for every unaccompanied child, may not be the best way of protecting the interests of this group of children. We therefore propose to meet the spirit and the purpose of the proposals in the amendments in what we believe will be a more practical and flexible way. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the understanding and helpful part which he has played in the discussions on this matter.
The Home Office has agreed to fund the Refugee Council to enable it to establish and administer a non-statutory panel of advisers. The advisers would be volunteers from the communities from which most unaccompanied children come. They will be specifically chosen for their suitability for this role and they will be given the necessary training.
When an unaccompanied child arrives in this country and claims asylum, or when he or she applies to the Home Office for asylum after entering the country, the immigration officer or the Home Office will notify both the appropriate social services department which has the statutory duty of protecting

937
the child's welfare and the administrator of the new panel, who will offer the services of an adviser to the social services department wherever that is considered to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
The function of the adviser will be principally to ensure that the social services department is aware of the child's wishes and of any cultural considerations which might be relevant, and to ensure that the child understands, so far as is possible in view of his or her age, what is happening and what choices he or she may have.
The decision by my department to fund the Refugee Council so that it can set up that panel has of necessity to be for one year in the first instance. But I can assure your Lordships that that does not indicate any lack of enthusiasm for the project on the Government's part. The fact is that public expenditure decisions have to be taken on an annual basis.
We cannot commit ourselves to a specific level of support in future years. No government department can do that on any subject. But we certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable it to have a full and fair opportunity to prove its worth. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will appreciate that, by inviting your Lordships not to insist upon the amendments which were agreed at Report, I am nevertheless giving an undertaking to carry out the intention of the amendment that the Government will meet the spirit and the intention of these amendments but will do so by non-statutory means.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the Government have rejected the statutory scheme for helping unaccompanied child refugees which a large majority of your Lordships wish to see in place. However, the Government are committed to a non-statutory scheme which has the same end in view. I am grateful to the Government for accepting that commitment.
At the foot of page 50 of the Hansard report of the other place, the Government referred to that commitment as a practical administrative measure which will deliver "precisely the same service" as my amendment sought. Those words are important. They show that the Government are undertaking to put in place exactly what this House wishes to see in place. The only difference is that the framework within which the scheme will operate will be a commitment or undertaking and not a statute.
Speaking for myself, I am content with that situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who placed her name to my amendment, desires me to apologise for her absence from the Chamber. She authorises me to say that she entirely agrees with my approach. I am also grateful to the Government for the seven additional initiatives (which are detailed on pages 30 and 31 of the Hansard report) taken by the Government to relieve the plight of unaccompanied children. These initiatives were not spelt out in my amendment and I regard them as a welcome bonus.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches recognise that the Government have gone a certain way towards accommodating the wishes of your Lordships' House in the Bill that passed through this Chamber. But they have given only half a loaf and not the whole bread that we would much prefer to have.
There are a number of issues that we cannot find entirely satisfactory. We cannot believe that a non-statutory scheme gives an adequate safeguard or that the use of volunteers is an appropriate way to deal with a very important service. It is admittedly a service to only a small number of children but for them it is very important. A non-statutory scheme does not seem to give the same kind of security as would have been offered by the measure passed in your Lordships' House.
We also note that funding is for only one year. The Minister said that that was inevitable. There is always an annual review. It would be nice to be encouraged to think that the Government intend the service to go on. The need for it undoubtedly will go on. It is also very doubtful whether volunteers will be able fully to carry out the duties required. We are told that training will be given. The question arises as to what kind of training and how thorough it will be. Those people will be dealing with children, many of whom will be very distressed and confused as to the position in which they find themselves. The children will need well-informed and skilled help if they are to be able to get through satisfactorily the very difficult position in which they find themselves.
I should like also to ask the noble Earl about returning children when they are denied the right of entry into this country. Do they also have to go back to the country to which they first went after they left the country from which they are fleeing, because fleeing is what it will be? If so, what provision will be made for the welfare of those children? We have discussed the matter on previous occasions in connection with refugees in general. But what happens when an unaccompanied child has to go back? For example, there was the case in which someone had passed through France on the way from his own country and had to wait at Calais for the ferry. It was then deemed that France was the country to which that person should be returned. The thought of an unaccompanied child who has been rejected from this country being returned to a country which in no conceivable sense is its country must cause serious anxiety.
These were matters which were raised at the time. The decision has gone some way but I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that this is a satisfactory alternative to the measure put forward by your Lordships' House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we supported these amendments when they were moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, at Report stage. The Minister will be aware that the vote that took place was not an ambush. There was no element of surprise. The vote reflected by a

939
considerable majority the strong feeling in all parts of the Chamber for additional protection for young, unaccompanied children arriving in this country.
The noble and learned Lord was good enough to show me his correspondence with Ministers. I agree with him that the Ministers concerned have been anxious to find a way around the problem without bringing in a statutory requirement. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that in some ways that is still unsatisfactory. First, we had the unqualified statement by Ministers and the noble Earl today that there is no way in which a government can commit themselves to expenditure for more than one year. The Minister knows better than I do that there are all sorts of ways in which a government, if they want to, can commit themselves to expenditure for more than one year. That has never caused any practical problem if there has been a will to do so. The impermanence of the funding to the Refugee Council is and must be a cause for anxiety.
The second difficulty concerns the issue of reliance on volunteers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred. The anxieties expressed in the debates when the Bill was going through this House indicate that, if a single case arises where the volunteer fails to turn up—they cannot be compelled to turn up—and that results in a child being sent back to a dangerous destination. whether or not it is the point of origin, there will he an explosion not only in this House but throughout the country. Those anxieties are not theoretical; they are based on practical cases which were rehearsed at considerable length in your Lordships' Chamber. We must accept that efforts have been made to meet the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. But we cannot accept that the right solution to the problem has been found.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his reservations in regard to the use of volunteers. Dealing with children who have suffered a traumatic experience on arriving unaccompanied in this country as refugees seeking asylum is not a matter which can be handled adequately by a volunteer telephoned at short notice. It requires great skill and understanding. The effect on the child of incompetence—though no doubt the person in question acted with the best will in the world—may be extremely serious.
I cannot understand how the Government can possibly defend this penny-pinching and mean-minded policy towards children in traumatic circumstances who are seeking the protection of this country. I plead with them to consider that the consequences of their actions may be extremely serious. A small sum of money, estimated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, at around £64,000 a year, is all that would be required to give an adequate service to deal with this real and human problem.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I wish to make one or two points on the issues raised. First, I should stress that there is one great advantage in the new scheme, on the assumption that it works in the way outlined by my noble friend. If the adviser comes from the
940
Refugee Council, he will he in a much stronger position in his relationship with the child to establish himself as the child's friend than if he were a government or statutory employee.
There is a greater risk in the scheme not working than there would be if it were a statutory scheme. But I suggest that we should try it and monitor it, which I am sure the Refugee Council will do, to ensure that it is working. I believe that there could be added strengths to the scheme, provided it goes on year by year and provided that it works in practice. I can see that a statutory scheme may not always work in practice for the reasons outlined by some speakers—a person may not turn up, whether he is a volunteer or appointed by statute. But if the scheme is assisted and run by the Refugee Council as though it were a statutory scheme, and it obtains the right volunteers who will be trained and therefore well equipped to do the work, then I would warmly welcome it. It is important that the new scheme is monitored thoroughly to ensure that it works in practice on the ground.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in answering the points raised, will the noble Earl confirm the sum of money referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter? Are we allowing these children to be placed in a position of jeopardy for the sum of £64,000?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Brentford for the views he put forward, which encapsulate what the Government are trying to do. We are trying to meet the spirit of the amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, moved persuasively and effectively and which your Lordships wish to see incorporated in the Bill. The only difference is that one is a statutory scheme and the other is a non-statutory scheme.
There are advantages in the scheme being non-statutory. One of the disadvantages of a statutory scheme—as was pointed out at the time the amendment went through your Lordships' Chamber—is that it confuses where the ultimate responsibility for a child lies—whether it lies with the adviser or with the social services. Under the non-statutory scheme there is no question of where the responsibility lies; it lies with the social services.
The noble Baroness said that that is only half a loaf. I thought that that comment was a bit mean and penny-pinching because we have given a great deal. We have tried to meet the spirit of the amendment. It referred only to children who came into this country at ports of arrival, whereas the non-statutory scheme will apply also to those children who are already in this country and who appear at the Home Office seeking asylum.
Under the statutory panel, an adviser had to be provided for each child. Under the new scheme a statutory adviser will be appointed only where that is considered necessary by both the adviser and the social services who are responsible for the child. Hillingdon, which houses Heathrow, has a great deal of experience in dealing with those children. It would

941
be inappropriate to say that each new applicant had to have a special adviser. Where the requirements are that an adviser is necessary, one will be appointed.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, flew off—if I may say so—and accused the Government of being penny-pinching and mean and would not even approve of the payment of £64,000 for those children. That story was rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The Government are not being mean. We are spending £100,000—the amount being given to the Refugee Council in order to set up the panel. It is not a question of being mean or penny pinching.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tried to take me to task for saying that it would be for only a year. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was concerned about that also. I made it perfectly clear that no government can commit themselves for more than a year. But we certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable it to have a full and fair opportunity to prove its worth. That is as generous an undertaking as one can give.
My noble friend Lord Brentford said that we should try the scheme and monitor it. I can assure him that that is exactly what we shall do. We shall monitor it extremely carefully.
The noble Baroness was concerned about advisers. They will be volunteers; but of course they were going to be volunteers under the statutory scheme. They will be trained for this purpose and that will be the responsibility of the council to decide.
The noble Baroness also referred to returning children to other countries. I accept the noble Baroness's implication and that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that when children come into this country in that kind of state of course they have to be dealt with with great care. That is our desire. That is what the social services do now. If we get the advisers incorporated too, that should go further to protect their position. One could not rule out the possibility of ever returning children to their country or to third countries, but I can give the firm commitment that this will happen only after a very full consideration of each case on its merits. If that were to happen we would have to satisfy ourselves that there would be proper and satisfactory reception arrangements in another country.
I hope therefore that your Lordships will realise that by not accepting the amendment another place has nevertheless undertaken to fulfil the requirements of and the sentiments behind the amendment. I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships that this will be the case. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he made a statement in his closing speech that the statutory scheme would also have consisted of volunteers. I have looked back at the amendments and there are indeed specifications about the qualifications of the advisory panel proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the provision that officers or employees of the Immigration Service shall not be eligible. But there is
942
no statement in the amendments that the advisory panel would consist of volunteers. I cannot recall any suggestion in debate that that should be the case. I wonder whether the Minister would care to reconsider that statement.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I understand the position, the panel would have been drawn up and they would have been an unpaid panel. The noble Lord shakes his head. I understand that it would have been an unpaid panel and that probably the chairman would have been paid and the other people would have been paid expenses. So far as I am aware there is no difference in what we are suggesting other than that of the statutory panel.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, would he like to join with what many of us feel should be congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on achieving this quite considerable improvement in our social provision which, as your Lordships will recall, originated with his efforts? Would he also say that the noble and learned Lord and your Lordships' House have both performed a very useful function?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree wholly with my noble friend. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, raised a point of considerable importance. It was one which had the acceptance and the approval of the House and it is one which the Government have taken on board and have undertaken to fulfil in the sentiments in which it was required. The only difference is whether it should be in a statutory form as opposed to a non-statutory form. Apart from the fact that another place has required it to be in a non-statutory form, I actually think that a non-statutory form is better because it has far more flexibility, far less rigidity and does not blur the areas of responsibility. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and indeed your Lordships' House as a whole have done a great service to this batch of people who can suffer difficult problems when they come to this country in those circumstances.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 10, page 7, line 35, at end insert:
("(3AA) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is, by virtue of subsection (3A) above, no right of appeal; and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament." ")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
3A Line 8, at end insert:
'(3AB) The Secretary of State may pay to a person appointed under subsection (3AA) above such fees and allowances as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3.

943
Your Lordships will remember that the House approved an amendment at Third Reading in the name of my noble friend Lady Flather which requires my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to appoint an independent person to conduct a periodic monitoring of refused entry clearance applications. The amendment simply provides the necessary authority for the payment of fees and expenses for that person.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3 —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 16, page 10, line 2, at end insert:
("(2) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
4A Because it is unnecessary.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4A.
Amendment No. 4 provided that nothing in the Act should involve a charge on public funds. I understand that its insertion in the Bill, when the Bill was last before your Lordships' House, was an error. I moved the amendment. I was in error. I apologise to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Finsberg, and with his fiat, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Morris.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Power of delegation]:
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved the amendment:
Page I, line 5, leave out from ("1981") to ("there") in line 6 and insert ("(which makes provision as to the Commission for the New Towns)—

(a) in paragraph 5(2) (quorum etc. of committees)—

(i) for "committee set up under paragraph 3 above" there shall be substituted "committee or sub-committee of the Commission", and

(ii) after "the committee" in each place there shall be inserted "or sub-committee",

(b) in paragraph 5(3) (validity of proceedings) for "such a committee" there shall be substituted "a committee or sub-committee of the Commission", and

(c)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be of help to the House if I quickly explain the purposes of the amendment. The first part of the amendment is purely a matter of clarification. On the substitution of the words in brackets in lines 5 and 6 it will be made more obvious on the face of the Bill that the provisions proposed relate to the Commission for the New Towns. The second part of the amendment deals with an omission in the Bill. Paragraph 5 of the existing schedule to the New Towns Act 1981 provides that the. validity of any proceedings of the commission shall not be affected by any vacancy among its numbers or any defect in the appointment of its members. This is a usual provision relating to statutory bodies and its. scope will be extended to any committees or sub-committees of the commission. Again, it follows the precedent of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill on arrangements for the Urban Regeneration Agency.
It should be explained that the existing wording of paragraph 5 also relates to,
"such a committee".
The committees referred to are town committees set up under paragraph 3, of which there is only one. This deals with the housing management matters at Basildon. Paragraph 3 committees are there for particular purposes and do not enable the commission to make the delegation that it now seeks. It would be useful for the House to know that this amendment has been requested by the Government. I most warmly commend the two changes to the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the amendment is of a purely technical nature but is essential to ensure that the Bill will actually enable the commission to achieve the purpose for which it has been designed. The Government therefore support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Morris.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Railways Bill
4.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have given notice to the noble Earl who will be dealing with this matter of two points about which I am deeply concerned. The first is that the Government have tabled at a very late stage a number of highly significant and complicated amendments. I believe that the Minister will concede that. I also believe that his reasoning is that he would rather be able to state the Government's point of view about these amendments at a fairly early stage. But

945
that places us in a difficulty in terms of being able to analyse and to scrutinise properly and to consult with people who are involved in these matters about the adequacy of what it is that the Government are proposing.
All I say at this stage is that I respect the Government's views, but we are put in a difficulty. I feel that it would not be possible for us to give full consideration to these matters in so far as they fall to be dealt with today. It may be that we shall have to deal with them at Report stage.
An even more disturbing issue has arisen which relates to Schedule 10 and the caveats which have been expressed by the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers concerning the effect of that schedule. I am in some difficulty as to how we are to deal with the matter adequately. It is a subject which is of very great significance to the House because it affects its powers and whether we should be dealing, in the way that the Government recommend, with the issues which affect something like 340,000 pensioners involving £8.5 billion and the pension fund. That has caused deep concern to the Select Committee.
At this point I mention what the Select Committee has to say because I believe that the House should be seized of it without wishing to invite a debate on the matter. The pension rights of these individuals are obviously of very great concern to them. Therefore, the House is urged to consider with care whether the arrangements for British Rail pensions after privatisation can appropriately be left to delegated legislation. That is the first fundamental point which is raised by the Select Committee.
The second point which it raises deals with the provision in Schedule 10, paragraph 11(2) which states:
"If, apart from the provisions of this sub-paragraph, the draft of an instrument containing an order under this Schedule would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument".
That means that people will be denied the opportunity of petitioning. As I have already indicated, this matter involves the interests of several hundred thousand people.
The Select Committee says on this subject:
"We … urge the House to consider with care whether, if it is agreed that the matters to be delegated under Schedule 10 are appropriate for delegation, paragraph 11(2) does not exclude an appropriate form of parliamentary scrutiny. In view of the extent of the powers, the substantial assets involved and the number of people affected, we urge the House to consider most carefully whether, in spite of any precedents, there is sufficient justification for the exclusion of the hybrid procedure in this case".
Those are very important caveats which have been entered. Unfortunately, we were not privy to this document at the time that we agreed on the order of debate in Committee. The problem which arises here is that Schedule 10 falls to be debated, in all probability, on the last day of Committee stage and just before we enter the Recess and therefore virtually at the last moment. That is where that schedule would normally fall to be debated and voted on.
946
I do not believe that that can be regarded as satisfactory when we are dealing with a matter which is as significant to the interests of this House and its procedures as this issue very clearly is. If we cannot, through the usual channels, find a way of elevating this issue so that it can be properly debated and voted on at a reasonable hour, I ask the Minister to agree to make an early statement well before we get to this item so that the Government's response will be very clear before the debate and so that we can consider it. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable request. We shall have to consider, through the usual channels, what can be done in this respect.
As we are about to go into Committee I thought it appropriate to alert the House to this issue because some noble Lords may not have been aware of what the Select Committee had to say. I hope the House will agree that it was wholly appropriate for me to raise the issue at this time so that we can give consideration to the way in which this matter can be properly debated and voted on if necessary.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not wish to go into the substance of the debate on Schedule 10, as regards which I have an amendment standing in my name to delete that schedule and also to amend it by deleting the last paragraph if that were necessary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who has probably made the first half of my speech on Schedule 10. We are placed in some difficulty. We have been greatly assisted by the Select Committee. As one who was on the Jellicoe Committee and witnessed the delegated powers scrutiny committee being set up, I congratulate him on what it has done as regards this Bill which is an excellent piece of work. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right to express concern for the situation in which we are placed concerning a subject which is a very important matter for your Lordships' House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I very warmly support what has just been said about the undesirability of this immensely important schedule being taken in the middle of the night. Will my noble friend give an undertaking that, whenever it is taken, it will be taken in reasonable, daylight hours during which the schedule can be fully discussed in view of its admittedly very great importance to a very large number of people? It would be a shocking thing to take it at 11 o'clock at night.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has just said. I have tabled an amendment as regards the clause on pensions about which there is widespread anxiety. Like the noble Lord opposite, I have read the report of the Select Committee. I agree with him that it would be very undesirable to go straight ahead as though we did not have the benefit of the Select Committee's thinking on this very important subject. It would be very dangerous from the point of view of the reputation of this House if we were to find ourselves deciding an issue of this importance in the middle of the night.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers was published only last Monday, 28th June, when some of us were very heavily engaged on other matters which have been the subject of dispute in this House. From an examination of the report, which I have only recently carried out, and particularly of paragraphs 10, 12 and 15, it is perfectly clear that some very serious matters have arisen. I do not propose to deal with paragraphs 12 and 15 which deal with what we call the Henry VIII procedures and which are not really relevant for the purposes of this afternoon's discussion.
In paragraph 10 the Select Committee draws the attention of the House to the possibility that the Bill itself may be tainted with hybridity as regards Schedule 10 which is brought into operation by Clause 121 of the Bill. I have no specialist interest in the Railways Bill itself, but I do have an interest in the activities of the Select Committee. It would surely be entirely proper for the House to debate the report of the Select Committee before it proceeds on a detailed consideration of the amendments before it. If the Bill is ultimately proved to be tainted with hybridity, a very long procedure would have to be adopted. Much of the labour of the House on the Bill would have been lost.
I do not think that it can be said that the Railways Bill is of such a nature that it demands the overwhelming support of the country or of any of the political parties for its urgent enactment. Nobody exhibits any particular enthusiasm for it. Therefore, I submit that it might be for the more economic use of the time of the House if the report of the Select Committee were to be considered first and the whole question of hybridity disposed of and, on the assumption that it is disposed of, for the House then to proceed to resolve itself into Committee. I shall take anybody's guidance on this, particularly that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who is well versed in these things. But those are my observations on the Bill for the moment and I hope that they may prove to be of assistance to the House.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like briefly to support what has been said by other noble Lords, and particularly by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis from our Front Bench. Having lived through the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in another place, I react to the word "hybridity" rather like the old cavalry charger out to graze hearing the distant bugle, but I shall leave that for the moment.
When one moves from the other place to this place, there is naturally a substantial fall-off in the amount of correspondence that one receives because one no longer has a constituency to be served. However, I must advise your Lordships that on the subject of the railway pensions fund and pensioners I have received a reasonable amount of correspondence, not only from old colleagues but from people who live in the Bristol area where there is widespread concern. In view of that, I hope that some rather more felicitous timing can be arranged.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with care to everything that has been said. With regard to the first point which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised, yes, a number of government amendments have been tabled and there are more to come. Many seek to fulfil commitments that were made in another place. I am doing my best to ensure that none of the government amendments is a starred amendment so that your Lordships will have at least some time to consider the propositions which we wish to put before your Lordships' House.
With regard to the clause on pensions, Schedule 10 and the report of the Select Committee, such reports will, of course, always be published only at the last minute, thus there will always be a tight timetable. Your Lordships will remember that that was accepted by the Jellicoe Committee when it was set up. This is a problem that will face your Lordships' House from time to time.
Having said that, I have listened with care to what has been said and I understand the importance of pensions. I remember pensions being an issue during the deregulation and privatisation of the buses. We are still in discussion with British Rail and the trustees on the question of pensions and we shall wish to bring forward amendments to Schedule 10 in due course. However, I am sure that whatever time we discuss that —and the time when we discuss matters is often in the hands of the noble Lord who leads the Labour Party —the House will give the matter the very thorough consideration which I certainly agree that it deserves. I shall draw what your Lordships have said to the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that we are grateful for what he has said. Although we understand what he said about the timetabling of reports from Select Committees, which, as he rightly said, will always be late, our difficulty is that the Motion governing the order of consideration and setting out which clauses should be taken in what order was moved by his noble friend the Leader of the House before we had had the benefit of the report from the Select Committee. I am sure that there is nothing between us on a party basis; it is simply a matter of how we can get round the new situation which we face today and which we may very well face again in the future. It is a question of whether there is some mechanism for looking back at the structure of the debates that we have already agreed to on the basis of the Motion that was moved by his noble friend or whether we can go back to the drawing board to find some other way of moving Schedule 10 up the Marshalled List in some way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the Minister replies to that point—if he is going to reply to it—I was interested in what he said about tabling further amendments, which I rather expected. The Minister has been extremely helpful in providing noble Lords with Notes on Clauses. Would he be able to provide noble Lords with notes on the amendments that he proposes to table, bearing in mind that they are likely

949
to be tabled at fairly short notice (even if they are unstarred) so that we can better understand the purpose behind the Government's tabling of them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again I take note of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has raised. As he agrees with me that this situation could recur in relation to other pieces of legislation, I think it appropriate that my noble friend the Chief Whip looks at the whole question.
With regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has just made, I hope that he has in his hand a letter from me explaining the government amendments which have been tabled recently. The letter was copied to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Tordoff. It is difficult to write to all of your Lordships because there are over 1,000 Members of your Lordships' House and I am sure that 999 would not want the letter in any case. However, I shall ensure that those of your Lordships who are actively involved with this Bill are kept in touch.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("General Duty of Secretary of State
. It shall be the principal objective of the Secretary of State in exercising any powers conferred on him by or under this Act to promote an efficient, comprehensive and safe rail network in the United Kingdom, with due regard to the environmental benefits which may come from the development and use of railway services.").
The noble Lord said: It will be remembered that there was considerable discussion on Second Reading about the objectives of the Bill and the Government's aims in introducing it. This is an enabling Bill. It sets up new structures, but nowhere in Part I of the Bill is there any indication of what it aims to do or of the duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the railways in general. I therefore felt it important that we should find some form of words at the beginning of the Bill to say what the Secretary of State is about. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 1, which states:
"It shall be the principal objective of the Secretary of State in exercising any powers conferred on him by or under this Act to promote an efficient, comprehensive and safe rail network in the United Kingdom, with due regard"—
to other matters which we shall be debating in some detail later.
It is probably true to say that in all previous railway Bills there has been some form of opening clause setting out the general duty of the Secretary of State. That is true of many Bills that pass through your Lordships' House because education Bills, for example, state that it shall be the purpose of the Secretary of State for Education to promote education in the country. This Bill, however, has a great yawning gap at the beginning. It seems to me self-evident that something ought to go there. I have had a stab at it, but I do not know whether the drafting is correct. If, however, the Government will agree in principle to
950
provisions of this sort but are not satisfied with the present drafting, I hope that they will come up with some better wording.
It seems to me that the danger is that by accepting the Bill as it stands, we are taking all long-term responsibilities for the railway system in this country away from the Secretary of State. Who is going to be responsible for ensuring that in the future the United Kingdom has a decent railway system? Various functions are specified later in the Bill for various directors in conjunction with the Secretary of State, but nowhere is there a clear statement of what the aims of the Secretary of State shall be in promoting the railway network in this country.
Perhaps I should have said earlier that we are discussing also Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 11 and 11A. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, will wish to speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 3, to which I have put my name and that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will wish to speak to her environmental amendment. My noble friend Lord Redesdale will speak to Amendment No. 11. I need say no more. The matter is self-evident. It seemed to command approval from all round the Chamber on Second Reading, and, therefore, I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may take up the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 in the name of the noble Lord, myself, and other Members of the Committee. Amendment No. 3 is a paving amendment which lays the ground for Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 6 deals almost exclusively with the need for a national rail strategy. Those three words "national rail strategy" must strike a chord with all Members of the Committee in whichever part of the Chamber they sit.
As a political realist, I accept that, barring a snap general election—I must make it clear at this stage that if there were to be a snap general election before the implementation of the Bill, its provisions would not be implemented—we are faced with the possibility, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, this is a paving Bill, that the Bill's provisions will be enacted and implemented eventually. Against that background I see my responsibility as seeking to improve the provisions and proposals contained within this paving measure.
One of the provisions that I want to improve relates to the need for a national rail strategy. In the Bill, we are faced with the establishment of a number of organisations, the principal two being the track authority and the franchising authority. The track authority will be under the chairmanship of Bob Horton, the former chairman of British Petroleum whom I know well and who, if I may say so as an aside, was a good colleague of the Secretary of State for Transport at St. Andrews' University. I have discovered that college days seem to live on and on and on. The student relationships that are built up seem to pay off in years to come. I know Bob Horton

951
well, because in Grangemouth in my former parliamentary constituency, where BP has its massive refinery, I had occasion to meet him from time to time.
So we are faced with the track authority, under the chairmanship of Bob Horton, and also with the franchising authority. Those two organisations need not have, and, in my view, will not have, the same interests. That is why I regard, as will, I am sure, Members of the Committee in whatever part of the Chamber they sit, the need for a national rail strategy as being of paramount importance. I do not need to paint the picture, but every politician who says that then goes on to say, "but, I hope". Indeed, I shall paint a picture of those who may seek to franchise. I shall give one or two illustrations; for example, the Virgin organisation, which has made it clear, even at this early stage, that it is interested in certain profitable aspects of BR's existing operation. On the other hand, in the context of the Scottish services, the Stagecoach company is already saying that it is interested in certain routes operated by BR.
Both those organisations—quite rightly, and I do not criticise them for this—will be interested, and indeed it will be of paramount importance to them, in receiving a profitable return on their investment. They will have little regard for what happens to the rural services that serve the mainline services that they seek to obtain in their bid for the franchise. We could easily be involved in a situation where Virgin, on the one hand, and Stagecoach, on the other, obtain a franchise for mainline services without having any regard whatever to the feeder services from the rural areas that serve those mainline services. Far from having a national rail strategy, we shall have a fragmented rail strategy.
We shall have different standards in different parts of the country, depending upon who is successful in obtaining the franchise. I readily admit that there will be companies which will obtain the franchise and which will make an excellent job of running the services in the franchise area that they obtain. But equally there will also be companies which will make an appalling job of running the services in the area of the franchise that they obtain.
In case the Minister is tempted to deny that proposition, let me just refer him to what happened late last week in one of the areas covered by Scot Rail. The company involved in the franchise of catering services in the North East of Scotland went out of business overnight. Passengers travelling reasonably long distances the following morning were without any catering services on a route upon which they had become accustomed to having those catering services. I hope that the Minister in his response to my argument today will not say that in awarding the franchise there is some guarantee that somehow those companies which are successful in obtaining the franchise will be successful companies in perpetuity. Recent history is certainly not on his side.
I want to make it clear—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is in agreement—that we shall want to test the feeling of the Committee on this matter, because it is essential that in a national rail strategy there is at least some uniformity of
952
performance and availability of service to the travelling public, to freight users and to all those who use the rail network throughout Great Britain.
I referred to rural services. The Minister may not recall —I do not blame him for not recalling—my Second Reading speech in which I described how the SNCF in France had modernised its rail network through modernising its rural services. They are referred to by SNCF as "pick-a-back" services. There is a need to establish a series of rural locations where people are brought in to the mainline services to be transported from point to point. If that system—I said as an aside in my Second Reading speech that it had been financed to the extent of 48 per cent. of total investment by the EC—were not adopted and developed in this country, under the Government's proposals this country would be faced—the Minister will have to acknowledge this—with a rail network that serves mainline stations only.
I am not making a political point here at all. I am making a point on behalf of the travelling public who use the rail network and whom we want to encourage to use the rail network in even greater numbers. However, if we make it difficult, and even impossible, for those who use the rail network to reach mainline stations, it will be our fault as parliamentarians if the rail network is not a national rail network in the sense we want it to be. If there is no national strategy, that will be our fault. It will not even be the fault of those who obtain the franchise; nor will it be the fault of the track authority.
The track authority will be tempted to invest in modernising track and all the facilities. The pressure on the authority will be to invest in the routes that are franchised. By charging the franchisee a rent for the track, the authority will obtain a return on its investment. In my view the authority will be reluctant to invest in rural areas where the railway route is not franchised and is therefore a social responsibility.
I hope that the Minister will say what responsibility the track authority will have for investing in the rail network where the network has not been franchised. I can understand the temptation of the authority to invest in the franchised areas of the rail network because that is where it will receive a return on its investment. However, by and large, routes in the rural areas of Great Britain will not be franchised. It is as simple as that.
We come back to this whole question of social responsibility. On Second Reading the Minister said that the Government would accept responsibility for any subsidy that had to be given to the rural areas and those areas of the network which were not franchised. I must again say to the Minister that history is not on his side. When British Telecom was privatised, far from the Government accepting the social responsibility for uneconomic telephone kiosks, that responsibility was eventually passed—as governments do—from the Government to local authorities.
I envisage that sooner rather than later areas of Devon and Cornwall and rural areas throughout England, Wales and Scotland will discover that the responsibility for maintaining uneconomic lines will be passed from the Government to local authorities.

953
That is a simple step to take. Local authorities will say to those people who have to pay council tax, "We cannot possibly afford to keep those rural routes open." The rural routes will close simply because the Government do not have a national rail strategy. We are trying to be helpful to the Government here.
I turn now to the Government's determination to get as much traffic as possible off the road and on to rail. I agree with the Government that the matter is of crucial importance in environmental terms. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, did not speak to his Amendment No. 11. I am sure he will accept that Amendment No. 11 deals with the environmental and social aspects of the rail network. If we are to attract as much freight as possible away from roads and on to the rail network, that, too, requires a national rail strategy.
I wish to mention a good example of that. The Minister has responsibility for shipping matters as well as rail matters. I am sure the Minister is perfectly well aware of what is happening at the present time, and what has happened for a number of years in the Scotch whisky industry. I know that industry well, and not because I patronise it or drink most of its products. For a number of years that industry has been subject to what is known as the grid system. Ship owners who own the vessels which take the whisky abroad say it is cheaper for them to pay the road haulage costs from the distillers, blenders and bottlers in Perth and the West of Scotland where whisky is produced down to the port of Felixstowe than it is to steam a vessel from Felixstowe to a Scottish port. The net result is that our motorways—and also the rural roads leading to the motorways—are congested with heavy goods vehicles which transport the whisky from its point of manufacture to its point of export at the port of Felixstowe.
The road haulage costs are paid by ship owners who know that it is cheaper to pay those costs rather than steam vessels to Scotland. We must consider how we are to attract freight from road to rail. We shall not achieve that objective on the basis of the fragmented approach to franchising that the Government have adopted in this legislation. I hope the Minister will not mention the Channel Tunnel as there are three substances that will not be permitted to pass through it. Those substances are liquid gas, liquid petroleum and whisky. Whisky will not be permitted to pass through the Channel Tunnel because it is highly volatile. I often wonder therefore what damage whisky does to us poor mortals as it passes through our kidneys. I hope the Minister will not say that the Channel Tunnel is about to open and therefore whisky can be transported from Perth straight through to the Continent, because that will not happen. Whisky will always have to be transported by sea.
The matter is quite simple, and I cannot comprehend why the Government and their advisers cannot grasp this. If we wish to attract freight from road to rail we must adopt a national rail strategy. These are important matters. At the minute there is a whole series of transport users' consultative committees. The Bill effectively abolishes the TUCCs, including the central transport users' consultative
954
committee. The TUCCs concern themselves with railways but in Scotland they also concern themselves with the CalMac ferries sailing between Dunoon and Rothesay and all the other ferry points in Scotland. In the north east of England they concern themselves with the Tyne and Wear Metro. In the Manchester area they concern themselves with the Manchester Metro. Indeed, the bus services which British Rail has established—for example, the King's Lynn to Peterborough service—all fall within the ambit of TUCCs. Therein lies, in one form or another, a national strategy for transport.
Before the Minister checks the Bill, I accept that later on the problems of CalMac, the Tyne and Wear Metro, the Manchester Metro and the King's Lynn to Peterborough bus service are dealt with, but there is fragmentation. The cohesion is broken up. Our amendments argue that there should be cohesion. There should be a national strategy. There is absolutely no evidence of that in the Bill. The sufferers will be the rural areas of Great Britain. Therefore, I urge all sides of the Committee to consider seriously the need for a national rail strategy.
The Government should be required to publish their proposals for a national strategy. I accept that that can happen only after the Bill has been implemented because, as I said at the beginning, I am a political realist and, barring a general election, the Bill will be implemented. The Government should be obliged to publish their proposals in order to give sufficient time for them to be considered before they are implemented. It should also be possible to amend those proposals so that all parts of the country can enjoy an equal standard of service, whether it be in John O'Groats or Land's End. There should be no discrimination. I know that the Minister will say that there are no rail services to John O'Groats and Land's End. That shows Members of the Committee what have been the effects of Beeching and the onset of a Conservative Government. The combination of those factors has been disastrous. However, I am now seeking to persuade the Minister that he should turn away from the error of his ways and accept the advice of Members of the Committee on all sides. He should accept our advice and our proposal that there should be a national rail strategy. I am pleased to speak to both Amendments Nos. 3 and 6.
Lord Redesdale: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 11.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may say—
Lord Tordoff: Amendment No. 11 stands in my name and I did suggest that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, might speak to that amendment at the beginning. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, may then wish to speak to Amendment No. 11A before we have a general debate on the issue.
Lord Redesdale: Amendment No. 11 makes it a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to promote the environmental, social and economic benefits of the railway. When the environmental and social benefits are linked with the economic benefits, in the short term there seems to be something of a

955
paradox because, as we all know, the railways are quite expensive to run. However, it would be an extremely short-term view not to include Amendment No. 11 in the Bill because in the long term, there is a strong feeling in the country that we already have too many cars and motorways. If we continue to build more roads and put more cars on the roads, the environmental costs may be extremely high in the future.
A case in point is the road which will destroy the ancient woodland at Oxley's Wood. If it is not made a duty of the Secretary of State and the regulator to study the long- term effects of going from one transport system to another, then, environmentally, we may make the country far poorer in the future and the cost may be a great deal higher in the long run. Although, in the short term, it may cost money, I believe that the needs of the country should be looked at in the long term.
An article in the Evening Standard today points out that although there has been a drop in the number of people using the railways due to the recession, trains are still overcrowded because there has also been a reduction in the number of trains. In fact, there is serious overcrowding on Network SouthEast trains during the commuter rush hour period. In economic terms that is the way in which the system will run under the Bill. If there is no consideration of the long-term benefits of a working, integrated rail system, which is integrated with other transport systems, the Bill could prove to be extremely expensive for the country in the long term.
Lord Renton: I do not see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, attached to any of the amendments which we are discussing, although I was extremely interested in what he said. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in his admirably short and clear speech, about the need, especially in the case of a long and detailed Bill such as this, to declare the intention of Parliament as to the purposes of the Bill and to do so in an early part of the Bill.
The Government have gone some way towards meeting that need, but not, alas, in Clause 1. They have done so in Clause 4, which Amendment No. 11 is intended to amplify in an important respect. I believe that there is a case for reconsidering the setting of the first four clauses of the Bill. I should like to see a purpose clause—a clear statement of principle—at the beginning containing the purposes which are expressed in Amendment No. 1 and those already expressed in Clause 4. I should perhaps remind the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—because I do not believe that he has quite taken it on board—that Clause 4 places obligations on the Secretary of State as well as upon the regulator.
Having said that, perhaps I may disclose that I started my working life in 1931, after coming down from Oxford, in Paddington station for the Great Western Railway. Alas, I was not a railway porter. I was not paid at all. I was there as a pupil in the lawyers' office. However, I became a railway enthusiast, and I still am. I accept the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord,
956
Lord Ewing of Kirkford, that, for the various reasons which they have expressed and which I believe are shared on all sides of the Committee, we need to have a new railway scheme which will, from the public point of view, make it attractive to travel by raid instead of increasing the traffic on our roads.
I should not expect Members of the Committee opposite to agree with me but I believe that this Bill will, with good fortune—and it needs good fortune —achieve that purpose. But let us have those good purposes which are intended stated early in the Bill.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to Amendment No. 3 which is in this group. With respect to noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment, that kind of detail should go into a schedule as it does not come very well at the beginning of the Bill. They may care to bear that point in mind.
The noble Lord. Lord Ewing, spoke to Clause 6. I am sure that we all rejoice that, as he expressed his views so fully and at such great length just now, we shall hear many much shorter speeches from him during the rest of the proceedings.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness, who has done so much during his years in the Government to help to protect the environment, will realise that there is a strong case for the Bill to contain as one of its purposes the benefit that can be achieved for the environment.
I hope that we do not have a Division on this first group of amendments. We want a free discussion; we want the Government to show that they have an open mind and we do not want to commit ourselves just yet to any of these amendments. As I have pointed out, even the very good amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, overlaps with Clause 4. It is unthinkable that they could both remain in the Bill.
With those, I hope, encouraging words to all concerned, I shall be very interested to hear the rest of the debate.
5 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I should like to confine my remarks to Amendment No. 11A. I do not need to remind most noble Lords about the value of national parks. They are among our greatest national assets containing as they do some of the most beautiful countryside in Great Britain. They were created in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act in 1949 which stated the statutory purposes to which my amendment refers. Those purposes are to preserve and enhance the natural beauties of these areas and to promote their enjoyment by the public.
Unless safeguards are built into the Government's plans for the future of the railways, there is a serious risk that they will not only lead to damage to the unique landscapes of the national parks and their wildlife, but will impose access restrictions on many of those who wish to enjoy them.
We have heard how essential the existing railway network is to the economy of rural areas, and we shall hear more about that from the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on a later amendment. However, the provisions of the Railways Bill, which includes breaking up the network, the abolition of crossrail subsidies and

957
encouraging private sector competition between lines, will put many of those lines in danger. At the same time the Government have announced that they plan to halve their expenditure on railways in 1995–96.
Many of the rural railways which are so important in national parks rely heavily on public sector subsidies because of the high costs of maintaining the track. For precisely that reason those lines are most at risk from closure. Some potential operators have already indicated that they would not be willing to take on those lines, yet it is those very lines that are of such fundamental importance to the livelihoods of the people who live in those areas. Should some of those lines escape closure, it is more than likely that many would face cuts in the frequency and standard of services. That would greatly reduce the value of those lines as a means of transport.
Many of the 100 million people who visit the national parks every year do not own cars. If the railways close or become unaffordable, visitors to national parks must stay at home or use private transport. A policy that forces people to stay away is not in accordance with the second statutory purpose to which I referred earlier; namely, to promote their enjoyment by the public. As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, increasing use of cars can only mean more congestion or new roads. Are we aiming at national parks or national car parks? That is basically the position. Some parks already suffer greatly from congestion and any further shift of freight from rail to road will only increase pressure for new roads, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said. More new roads in the parks would not only be disastrous in themselves, but the excavation of raw materials for those roads, many of which come from quarries in the national parks, would lead to even more degradation. Those quarrying rights exist under ancient mineral rights which can only be extinguished at great cost and are therefore likely to continue.
National parks are a part of our national heritage valued by us all. The Government have often stated their intention to maintain them. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to further national park purposes not only in the interests of all who live and work in the parks, but in the interests of all of us. I hope that the Government will look kindly on the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to start by saying that any noble Lords who find themselves speaking against the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, are at a very great disadvantage. He is always so persuasive and manages to inject a little humour which is very welcome. He will have moved all noble Lords to share in his lamentation at what I admit was news to me; namely, that Scotch whisky would not be accommodated in the Channel Tunnel. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is known for his sympathy to such heart-breaking pleas, will make it his early duty to see that something is done about that.
I wonder whether it is wise to include in legislation words which amount more to pious hopes than binding duties. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, sought to put upon the shoulders of my right honourable
958
friend the Secretary of State the duty to make the railways efficient, comprehensive and safe. There can be no controversy about wishing to see the railways earn that description; but I have great misgivings. First, I should never wish to join those who encourage Secretaries of State in the belief that they are in any way possessed of miraculous powers. Secondly, I must tell my noble friend that I have such misgivings about the Bill that I think it would be positively unkind, if not cruel, to put upon my right honourable friend duties which the Bill itself would make it difficult to perform.
I have always thought it very unwise for former Ministers, especially as the years go on, to revisit the scenes of their—I was going to say "crimes", but perhaps not—previous activities. I cannot remember doing so until today, at least on the subject of railways. However, perhaps I may be permitted just one moment of autobiography. I recall a conversation that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh (who I know is much concerned about the Bill) when he first became chairman. It was quite short and simple. I said to him that I was sharply aware that his job would be very difficult and that I was even more sharply aware that my own was impossible. I assured him that I would support him both publicly and privately until I told him contrary. I also said that there was one thing for which I would not forgive him; namely, if he allowed me to be surprised when it was within his power to avoid it.
The present Government, and my right honourable friend, for whom I have very great and genuine regard, have the good fortune to have as chairman Sir Bob Reid who is a most unusual and talented manager. He is someone who I believe has already rendered very significant service to the railways. Sadly, it will take time for that service to produce a harvest. However, it is my conviction that, given the chance, it will. If I were in the position of my right honourable friend, I would say to Sir Bob Reid, "Please, take account of these things which I think are important; but, otherwise, get on with the job and do it your way".
Perhaps I may now move on to cover two further points. As I see it, one of the problems is the incredible labyrinthine relationships which will be established as a result of the Bill. I should like to read out the list to Members of the Committee because I am very anxious not to omit any of those involved. First, there is the Secretary of State; secondly, British Rail; thirdly, there will be Railtrack; fourthly, there will be the regulator; fifthly, there will be the Franchising Director; sixthly, the suppliers of the industry, which ought not to be forgotten as they employ many people in the country; seventhly, there will be the customers, whether passengers or those who put freight on the railways; and finally—and I put them last because I wish to place particular stress upon the situation—there will be the staff and the morale of the staff.
When I say "staff", I refer to men who have spent their working lives in the railways. They will find themselves still being British Rail people but working for Railtrack. Moreover, quite apart from having an uncertainty as to where their loyalties lie, at the end of

959
the day such people could experience very considerable worry that their rightful expectations as regards pensions will not be honoured if the Bill is not amended. I have tabled an amendment for a later stage in that respect, but there is no point in my expanding upon the matter at present. I can only say that I believe that that will be a very important factor in the future.
While talking about staff, I should also mention their role in handling the business of the shadow franchises. In my view, it will be asking a great deal of people to accept that sort of split in their roles and their loyalties at a time when they will wonder whether they are doing themselves something of an injury.
In this country we have a love of complex—I would almost say "unworkable"—procedures. I fear that that network of different sections of people and different interests to which I referred will be a very severe handicap and will in fact make what is already a very difficult problem almost insoluble.
There is one further point that I should like to make on the amendment. I refer to the question of if and how the very much needed investment will be sustained. The one single advantage that I see in the Bill—although it will not be realised by any means—is that it would offer some hope of at least a measure of separation. if not divorce, from the Treasury. I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee for any length of time by delivering my opinions about that body. However, I have long believed that it is a body of very clever people, situated in the midst of our affairs, who are very good at conducting their own pattern of procedures and very good at defending themselves; but whose familiarity with the problems of industry, especially in the long term, is very slight indeed. The only good fortune that the Bill may bring to the railways is some degree of separation from, as I said, that body of very clever men who are capable of inflicting such great harm.
I am not prepared to vote in favour of the amendment because I think in the first instance and in all the circumstances that it expresses unreasonable hopes; and, in the second instance, that it would impose duties on my right honourable friend which no man could possibly perform.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt: Amendment No. 11A, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was only brought to my attention very shortly before the Committee stage began. However, having enjoyed the pleasure of being president of the Council for National Parks for a number of years, I should like to say a very brief word or two in strong support of her amendment.
The noble Baroness gave what one might call a "global figure" of the number of visitors to our national parks every year. If I had had the opportunity, I would have brought with me particular figures relating to the more popular of our national parks. None of your Lordships who has visited national parks, particularly those which are most popular, could be unaware of the extent to which already every year in the summer the purposes of the
960
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 are being negated by the nose-to-tail queueing of cars along the roads, quite apart from the other incidental environmental damage which is caused by so many private cars.
In my view it is essential to minimise the continuing growth in the invasion of our national parks by private cars by ensuring that the existing rail links are maintained and continue to be provided. We must also ensure that public road transport is used within the national parks to connect with trains at the railheads and other pick-up points to mitigate to some extent that invasion of our national parks by the private car.
Those parks which come immediately to mind which are at present well served by the rail system are the Lake District, the Snowdonia National Park and the Yorkshire Dales. There is no doubt that they have efficient systems of public transport to connect with rail. In my view, it is of great importance that those rail systems should be maintained.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I want at the outset to declare a personal interest in the Bill. I am one of the millions in this country who do not drive. I am also a member of an increasing number who are getting on a bit. We look to any Minister of Transport or any transport policy to guarantee us mobility. Indeed, the job of any Minister of Transport should be to maximise the mobility of all sections of the community, drivers and non-drivers, rich and poor, those in rural areas or in busy city centres. It is for those reasons that we so urgently need a statement on the intention behind the Bill before we get down to the minutiae.
When you take as your goal maximising the mobility of everyone two things become obvious. The first is that you cannot do that without a railway system. The second is that you cannot do it without a national network for those railways.
I want to pay tribute to what British Rail has always managed to achieve, underfunded as it has been and sniped at with the roads always being given preference over rail. I believe that it has served us magnificently. One of the glories of the present system is the ability to make a cross-country journey from North to South by a direct line, in comfort, peace and security, without having to change trains. I have done that many times. I have relatives in Cumbria and I join them more than once a year. Obviously, I do not go in my own car.
When making that journey, I have been placed on the train, say at Oxford or Reading, bought a through ticket having been advised by the very nice gentleman at the ticket office of the cheapest form of fare to help me on my way. (I can just see that continuing under the new system!) Then I have sat in a comfortable seat on the train—and with a buffet if I wanted it. I have travelled all the way to Penrith without having to move. The return journey was the same. I did that not long ago. The train had come from Glasgow. It went all across the North of England and the Midlands and ended up eventually in Brighton. Nobody on that train had to go and get another ticket or to change to

961
a train provided by another operator, scramble out with heavy luggage and cross to another platform to get on another train.
I say advisedly that this Bill is a direct threat to that kind of facility. It is absolute nonsense to say, vaguely because it has not been worked out yet, that all the franchise holders will come to agreement. Just imagine the cat's cradle of bureaucratic agreements there would have to be to cover the journey from Glasgow to Brighton. How many franchise holders' territories would one have to pass through? Who would offer a comprehensive, cheapest possible fare at the outset of the journey? It is nonsense, and we know it.
In my view, one of the most hypocritical parts of this Bill is Clause 4. I have just been reading subsection (1) (e), which states that one of the aims of the Bill will be to promote measures to facilitate the use of services provided by a large number of franchise holders. Therefore, the Government admit that the network will be broken into fragments and then say that there has to be some magical bureaucratic glue to stick it all together again.
I have one simple piece of advice to the Minister, if he really wants to facilitate long cross-country journeys: do not fragment the railways in the first place. That is the challenge that we must make throughout the whole course of the Bill, because a fragmented service will be a nightmare. What is more, it will be inferior.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In these last few minutes, the debate has become a reconstruction of the Second Reading debate. The vigorous, entertaining and admirably delivered speech of the noble Baroness was really an opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill and not, as I understand it, addressed to the series of amendments which is before the Committee.
It is perhaps right that before we settle down to the consideration of detailed amendments, we should discuss briefly the situation as it stands at the moment. All that I would say to the noble Baroness on the merits of the matter is that although much of what she said is perfectly sensible, she appears to overlook entirely the position from which we are starting. We are starting from the position of a nationalised industry. At Second Reading I mentioned the Bill in another place which nationalised this industry. We really must go back to that in order to have a full understanding of the difficult problems which now face the Government in deciding how to deal with the issue. I do not underrate for one moment the tremendous difficulties which are faced by the Government and the very real problems which it would be silly to ignore. I beg of the Committee to understand that the Government are not starting from scratch or evolving a new system for a new organisation. They have to deal with an existing situation which is difficult and with a position which most people who consider it carefully regard as wholly unsatisfactory at present.
With regard to the amendments, there is an interesting point on the structure of the Bill. If accepted, Amendment No. 1 starts the Bill off with a declaration of policy and the way in which it should be
962
conducted. There is a useful argument for that. However, as I believe my noble friend Lord Renton observed earlier, one cannot have the introduction proposed in Amendment No. 1 at the same time as Clause 4. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister as to whether any general declaration of policy should come at the beginning, in Clause 1. There is certainly an argument for that. The alternative, at present adopted in the Bill, is to put the policy approach rather oddly in Clause 4.
I add one further word of caution. It would be a pity to set out a mass of detailed instructions in the Bill as to how the newly-reformed industry is to be conducted. If one sets the instruction out in statutory form, the legislation becomes somewhat inflexible in dealing with a changing situation. It invites litigation. It invites people who are interested to go to the courts to seek to obtain decisions against the railway authorities or the Government as the case may be. While some general observation as to what is intended is rightly and sensibly inserted, I should have thought in Clause 1 of the Bill, to seek to set out a long and detailed statement as to the duties of the various functionaries would be a mistake. The proper vehicle for that kind of thing is a full Ministerial Statement on which the Minister can be challenged in either House if it is felt that he and the government of the day have not carried out in principle what they have stated they wished to do.
Therefore I make two suggestions to my noble friend: first, that he reconstructs the beginning of the Bill by including some general observation, probably on the lines of the present Clause 4, as to the duties to be performed by the various functionaries, but that he should not be led into trying to spell out in detail in legislation exactly how the job is to be done. It will be a changing job as the years pass, and as techniques and technologies alter. The methods to be used will have to vary. Therefore I suggest that a good deal of flexibility, such as flows from basing policy on Ministerial Statements rather than legislation, seems wise.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I agree with so much of what my noble friend says. However, will he bear in mind, first, that Ministerial Statements are not part of the law and are not binding upon the users of statutes? Secondly, Ministerial Statements are not binding upon the successors of the Ministers who make them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, that is so; and, indeed, that is part of the advantage. When one deals with the handling of a major industry in a changing economy such as our own, one does not wish to tie oneself down with great rigidity to exact provisions which can be, and are likely to be, litigated upon by those concerned. I fully understand my noble friend's natural liking for anything which can be litigated upon. It is something that he does awfully well. But I am not sure from the point of view of the conduct of government that it is necessarily the ideal solution.
Therefore I leave it to the Minister to give the Committee his views on two points. First. I refer to the

963
actual arrangement of the Bill, to which the amendments directly relate. Should the policy indications which are to be included in the Bill be inserted in Clause 1, with Clause 4 telescoped into it? Secondly, perhaps he will tell us the degree to which he feels it is wise and helpful, and in the interests of the industry, to put those policy indications into legislation.
Earl Attlee: I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on Second Reading speeches. I enjoyed listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. He referred to the transport of Scotch whisky. I wondered whether he was speaking on behalf of the road haulage industry. He presented a fine case for road haulage. But could the problem be that the loading gauge on the railways will not accommodate a standardised container?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. First, under no circumstances was I speaking on behalf of the road haulage industry. I take the view that the vessels should be steamed to the ports in Scotland to take the whisky. The problem with whisky, liquid gas and petrochemical products is that in bulk form they are all highly volatile. That is why they will not be allowed to go through the Channel Tunnel. That is why I made the point that if whisky is too dangerous to go through the Channel Tunnel, what damage does it do to us mere mortals as it goes through our kidneys?
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I take on board his comments. However, we still have a problem with the loading gauge of containers going through the railway system. Perhaps the Minister will guide us on that. I look forward to the Minister's comments on the amendment before coming to my decision.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: There was a moment during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, when I was overcome by an infirmity of purpose. I was present to support my noble friend Lord Tordoff. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to the indelicacy of placing any responsibilities on the Minister because of the nature of the Bill, I felt that it might be ungenerous and intolerant of me not to follow his example and leave the Minister free to interpret the Bill as he wished should it eventually receive, Royal Assent.
However, on further reflection, I believe that the proposed amendment goes to the heart of the matter. It is a question of the relationship between Ministers and the chairmen of what were once nationalised industries. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, were relevant when he referred to a conduct of Government issue. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to his relationships with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he was a Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was chairman of the Railways Board.
It is an interesting and important issue. On the basis of the Morrisonian principle, upon which some of our industries were nationalised, over the years there was a delicate relationship—the noble Baroness, Lady
964
Castle, was fully aware of it—between the Minister (whoever he or she might be) and the chairman of the nationalised industries, including the chairman of British Rail. What were the respective areas of their responsibility? I believe that it was the job of the Secretary of State to listen to what the chairman said, to give him occasional advice, to be warned of dangers ahead, but to let the chairman get on with the job of running the industry, the job to which he was appointed. Equally it was important for chairmen of nationalised industries to be sensitive to their role and to the role of Ministers who answered to Parliament. On the whole, I believe that the system worked reasonably well because both parties to the dialogue understood their duties.
I believe that the whole House agrees that the Bill is extremely complex and it makes the present relationships between the Minister and the industry seem infinitely simple. We must all hope that, whether we like it or not, if the Bill were to receive the Royal Assent it will be a success. However, the likelihood is that the Minister will have to intervene and will be drawn into decisions which are not properly his or would not have been, as a result of the wide spread of duties which are embodied in the Bill. If that is the case, if there is now a spread of responsibility—that was accepted on Second Reading—is it not important to define, if we can, what the Minister should principally be concerned with?
That brings us back to my noble friend's amendment and the idea of defining early in the Bill its real purpose. I looked at the Long Title. It is rather clumsily worded, as many Long Titles are. Having read it, I find it easy to ask: to what end? What is the point of the Bill? What is the point of the railways? What is the role of the Secretary of State? Why have this legislation at all?
No doubt the Minister will argue that we have the legislation to make the railway industry more efficient and, we hope, to result in a smaller burden falling on the taxpayer. However, that is not a sufficient goal for Government, nor is it a sufficient role for the Minister. He ought to know the purpose for which the wheel turns; in other words, the objectives which lie behind the wording of the Bill and the duties of those who are called upon to perform under it.
I do not ask—and it would be unreasonable to do so—for a White Paper embodied in the Bill. That is not the way we proceed in these matters. However, listening not only to the arguments of my noble friend but also the arguments on other clauses, which were powerful, I thought that what the Bill lacks, with all its shortcomings, is a definition of purpose. It is for that definition of purpose that my noble friend asks.
Apart from mischievously indicating why it would be unkind, if not cruel, to place a Secretary of State at such a disadvantage, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that the chairman should be told to get on with the job and "Do it your way". However, the chairman has special responsibilities and no doubt the several chairmen and regulators in the Bill will get on with the job and do it their way. But the Secretary of State cannot escape so easily. He will be asked: to what end? I believe that far from placing an unreasonable burden

965
on a Minister who may be obliged to operate a nonsense of a Bill, it is fairer to assist him, if we possibly can. We may not like the Bill, but in all generosity we should assist the Minister by supporting the amendment which my noble friend moved.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I am perhaps revealing my ignorance of procedures in Committee when I say that I found the grouping a little odd. Amendment No. 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is on a general and important subject. Then there is the detailed Amendment No. 11A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I wish to say a word on both amendments. If I am silly in raising the grouping point, as a newcomer I apologise.
My noble friend Lord Caithness knows that I am deeply concerned generally about the Bill. I mentioned that on Second Reading, as the Committee may recollect. On the other hand, I wish to give him and the Government constructive support with the Bill. By that, I mean I hope that during its passage through your Lordships' House some amendments and improvements will be accepted.
First, I wish to say a word about the mandate for the railway, as is proposed by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. There is probably benefit in including some such a general statement in Clause 1, but I am attracted by the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter: that one would not wish to enshrine in statute something which by its nature is bound, from time to time, to change. I suggest something much closer to the analogy of the Treasury's medium-term financial strategy which is announced and published and can be debated as the responsibility of the Minister and the Government of the day.
A large subsidy of money is put directly into British Rail through the public service operation grant. It is currently still over £1 billion. I think I am right in saying that the innovation was originally started by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, when she was Minister of Transport. It is a good idea that it should be possible to pay to British Rail from public funds those moneys which are needed to undertake socially desirable services which are not of a commercial nature. That is sensible.
My anxiety is that we know far too little about how that money is spent at the moment. It is related too little to the objectives of the day. It has decreased. It was over £1.5 billion in 1982. It decreased significantly when the InterCity operation turned losses into profits, but it is still a large sum. As to the future organisation of British Rail, I have an irreconcilable political difference of view from the Opposition. I believe that the people of this country could be better served by a privately run railway than a publicly run one. I do not share the rather rosy recollections of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, of the magnificence of the railway. Nor, thinking of the airlines, do I agree with her that a privately run rail service would necessarily mean that the nice man in the ticket office
966
would not tell us the cheapest price. Competitive airlines are constantly trying to sell one the cheapest way of flying. However, that is another point.
I do believe that we need a general statement at the beginning of the Bill. I could not vote for the words proposed in the noble Lord's amendment, but it might be useful to include some requirement for the Government to announce annually their mandate for the running of the railway. It could then be related to the expenditure of public money specifically to achieve that mandate.
Secondly, I wish to say a word about Amendment No. 11A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I support it in general, but I do not think she would expect such a limited point to be put directly into the Bill. In a way I would have preferred it to be debated under Amendment No. 9 to be moved shortly by my noble friend Lord Wade. Perhaps we may discuss that.
I wish to emphasise the needs of the more remote rural areas. The national parks are a good example. It is not a matter of improving the situation under the so-called privatisation proposal. It is necessary now. I wish to quote one example. There are 10 national parks, plus the Norfolk Broads, which are the equivalent of a national park. The Broads are served by the line from Ipswich to Lowestoft. British Rail has recently published its new timetable for the line, which includes 12 stations, but it has omitted eight of the stations from the timetable, including Oulton Broad. This is astonishing. So the national parks are not even well served at the moment.
I contend that that is against British Rail's Passenger's Charter. The fourth point of that charter specifies "clear and up-to-date information." If it publishes a timetable omitting the names of the stations served, it will not encourage people to go to those places. I wrote to Sir Bob Reid and received a very nice personal letter back from him. However, he said that the omission of the names of the stations was to save money. This indicates that something is seriously wrong with the lower scales of management of the railway. I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness might take that up with British Rail.
It is very important that we take into account the needs of rural communities generally. That could be included as a general statement in an amendment, perhaps supplemented by what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter had in mind; namely, an ongoing but changeable statement of the public purposes of the railways.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with care to what the Committee has said with regard to these amendments. They have been grouped together for the convenience of discussion. But, as several Members of the Committee have pointed out, they are by no means consequential upon one another. As a result, it is inevitable that we have had something of a Second Reading debate at this early stage.
It was mentioned that these amendments have a number of common elements with which, I am sure, everybody in this Chamber has some sympathy. I am

967
sure that we all attach importance to the environmental, social and economic benefits of the railways, and to the economic needs of rural areas and the importance of our national parks.
As regards efficiency, we believe that privatisation —giving the private sector the opportunity to operate existing services and introduce new ones—is the best way to bring about an efficient railway with the improvements to services which we all believe are needed. Efficiency is about providing value for money for both the taxpayer and the passenger, as well as giving passengers the punctual and reliable services that they want. Introducing competition and fresh private sector management into the railways will bring about greater responsiveness to passengers' wishes for improved efficiency and better services.
The rail network will continue to be comprehensive. We have made it clear that we will continue to support socially necessary services which are reliant on subsidy. There is no reason to believe that our proposals will lead to the closure of lines or to reductions in services. However, if in future, circumstances change, and closure of a line or a service is proposed then, as now, statutory closure procedures would apply. Those procedures are very rigorous indeed. I am sure the Committee will agree with this conclusion when we have had the chance to debate the closure provisions of the Bill later in our proceedings.
We will also promote a safe rail network. Safety has been of paramount importance in the formulation of our proposals. The Health and Safety Commission has produced a report with 37 recommendations. The Government and the chairman of British Rail have welcomed the report and accepted its recommendations.
The new safety regime which will result from the commission's report will ensure that high safety standards on the railways can be maintained. All operators will have to produce a railway safety case to show that they can operate safely before they can start operations. This will have to be validated by Railtrack. Railtrack's own railway safety case will be validated by the Health and Safety Executive. There will he monitoring by Railtrack and by the HSE to ensure compliance with safety cases. All operators, and Railtrack, will have to comply with safety standards set or recognised by the Health and Safety Executive, which will enforce standards across the rail industry. Therefore I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, that there will not be disparities throughout the country. There will be a very high and equal standard, monitored and enforced by a very reputable organisation.
So far as concerns the environment, we are committed to a greener future for transport in Britain and want to see the railways play their part. We recognise the very substantial advantages that the railways can offer: they often cause less environmental damage than road transport, and can be energy efficient. Here, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Renton had to say. Surely the only way to realise this potential is to get more people to choose to use rail, and that must mean offering them the services they want, both passengers and freight. By ending British
968
Rail's monopoly and introducing private sector competition—and private sector investment—we are providing the right conditions to make this happen.
The importance of rail freight was mentioned on many occasions during the Second Reading debate, and again today. It is worth repeating, therefore, that the Bill contains two measures specifically targeted at assistance to rail freight, where it brings environmental benefits. First, a new and expanded freight facility grant scheme for the railways, with a counterpart for inland waterway transport. Secondly, a completely new grant for freight train operators which will contribute towards track charges for freight flows which would otherwise disappear, or could not be attracted to rail, subject to an assessment of the environmental and other benefits. Again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford: there is opportunity here, and I hope that businesses throughout the land will be able to take advantage of these two special facilities and schemes that we have been able to offer.
I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Peyton had to say, and we have discussed this Bill outside the Chamber. At one stage he mentioned the labyrinth nature of the relationship resulting from the Bill. That involves the Secretary of State, the regulator, the franchise director and the consultative committees. I am sure that if my noble friend paused and thought for a moment, he would agree with me that the only new person coming on to the railway scene is the regulator. At the moment BR does all the jobs of the franchising director and many more. The great difference with this Bill, as I am sure my noble friend will understand, is that for the first time it will make for transparency in regard to what has been going on under a monopoly nationalised industry.
I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Marlesford had to say. I agree with the point that he made about subsidy. Again, it is the transparency resulting from our proposals that will tell us for the first time where the vast amount of taxpayers' money is going and where the social subsidy will be best targeted in future. These are factors that we do not know at the moment. The very great advantage of our proposals is that we will make better use of taxpayers' money than we have been able to do in the past. All these issues and more will be discussed at future stages of the Bill.
Let me now turn in detail to the amendments. First, although, as I have indicated, I have sympathy with the sentiments underlying the new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not believe that it is appropriate to put general statements of this kind in the legislation. I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, had to say, and to my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In particular, when it comes to legislation, the whole Committee pays particular attention to what my noble friend Lord Renton has to say. But on consideration, the noble Lord might think that we have got it right. The Railways Bill is similar in structure to other privatisation legislation. I would refer the House to the Telecommunications Act, the Electricity Act and the Gas Act. It has not been the

969
practice to include in such legislation any opening objectives in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We do not consider it appropriate to depart from the precedent in the Railways Bill. I can understand the need to do so on other transport Bills, but when it comes to a privatisation measure, I think that there is a difference, as indeed I have been able to demonstrate.
We have dealt with the various elements of the principal objective proposed for the Secretary of State in specific duties and objectives in the Bill where they are relevant and properly directed.
Clause 4 places duties on the Secretary of State, and on the regulator, in exercising their powers under Part I of the Bill. These duties deal, for example, with protecting the interests of rail users, something close to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle; promoting the use of the rail network—another point that the noble Baroness mentioned, and a matter that we shall take care of; promoting efficiency, economy and competition, taking into account railway safety, and having regard to the railways' impact on the environment.
I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the Bill is structured to establish the new players in the industry, the regulator, the franchising director and the consultative committees, before dealing with their duties and functions. I hope that my noble friend will think that we have got that in a logical order in the Bill.
The Secretary of State is given a principal duty in Clause 106 which is directly and appropriately related to exercising his powers in Part II of the Bill. I believe that that is the proper way to deal with such matters. However, of course I have taken note of what the Committee has said and I shall discuss the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I turn, secondly, to the matter of national rail strategy—I refer to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford. These would require the Secretary of State to formulate and from time to time review a national policy for the rail network. He would have to have regard to the desirability of operating the policy consistently throughout Great Britain, ensuring that it was formulated in sufficient time to achieve effective implementation and safeguarding and developing the rail network in rural areas. In addition, he would be required to specify objectives for the railways in contributing to reducing road congestion, environmental impact and casualties and meeting the needs of those without access to private transport. The amendment provides for consultation with rail users' representatives over the development of policy and for annual review with reports laid before Parliament.
Our view is that a centrally imposed national policy of that kind would be quite inappropriate for the new privatised railway. It would be inflexible and very quickly out of date, as several Members of the Committee have pointed out. Privatisation is the Government's strategy for the railways into the 21st
970
century. It is a strategy outlined in last year's White Paper and fleshed out in the Bill that is now before the Committee.
I listened to the noble Lord's most entertaining speech. I think that he is still under some misapprehension about what we are trying to do in this Bill. I hope that he will consider that it is wise not to move his amendment when we come to it shortly but to listen to the detailed discussions that we shall have in the six days of Committee stage. I believe that many of his worries will then be put to rest. We shall be discussing some of the items that he mentioned: the duties of the Secretary of State, the franchise director, the regulator, the consultative committees, the pensions and safety—we shall discuss all those issues in detail.
I should like to take up three points in particular. The noble Lord asked for assurances that franchisees would not go out of business overnight. The Bill contains specific provisions to ensure that services are not interrupted in the event of insolvency. I refer to Clauses 53 to 58 which we shall debate in due course. They establish a special insolvency regime for railway operating companies. That is one example where future debates will help the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked also whether it was the case that rural services would not be franchises. It is the intention that all BR's existing services should be franchised. The Government have already announced the pattern of franchises based on BR's existing profit centres. Subsidy will be available to support unprofitable rural services operated by the franchisees. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also is under a slight misapprehension. The franchise will be based on the BR timetable at the time of awarding the franchise. Neither the noble Lord nor the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, need fear that there will be a sudden and overnight diminution in the amount of services. The service will be based on the service currently provided by British Rail at the time of the franchise.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, also mentioned the transport users' consultative committees. It is true that provisions relating to the various services covered by the new rail users' consultative committees appear in different parts of the Bill. In the case of services provided by British Rail and franchisees, the committees will report to the rail regulator. In the case of Caledonian MacBrayne ferry services, the Tyne and Wear Metro and other services mentioned by the noble Lord, the rail regulator will have no role and the committees will report to the Secretary of State. Therefore the provisions have to be made in a rather different way.
But let me assure the Committee that those services which are now covered by the committees will continue to be covered by the new committees. So the noble Lord did not understand the situation absolutely rightly. When we go through the Bill in detail, he will see that that point and various other points that I have mentioned will put to rest many of his concerns.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 11A and 11, which add to the duties in Clause 4(1). Amendment

971
No. 11A adds a duty to further national park services, as defined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will know of my interest in national parks from my days in the Department of the Environment, where I had responsibility for them. In addition to what I have already said about the franchising, I would stress that the closure procedures that we shall discuss later in Committee are very strict indeed and very similar to what we have now. I hope that her mind will be put at rest on that point.
Amendment No. 11 adds a new duty:
"to promote the environmental, social and economic benefits of the railways".
I do not believe that it would be appropriate to refer specifically to national park purposes in the general duties on the Secretary of State and the regulator. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that there is already a requirement. I draw his attention to Clause 4(3) (b). There he will find that there has to be:
"regard to the effect on the environment".
I believe that it would be over-specific to single out the national parks separately, important though they are, and to include the amendment that the noble Lord wanted.
We have had a very useful discussion. I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee that we have its concerns very much at heart. Many of the issues mentioned are already covered in the Bill and we shall discuss those matters in greater detail. I look forward to doing so. The concern on all sides is to improve the railways. That is the purpose of the Bill and we want to work together to get it right.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Earl sits down, I must say that I am very impressed by all that he said. However, I should like to get clear one point regarding the idea of what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter called "statements of policy". Generally they are called statements of principle and of purpose.
I can well understand my noble friend's desire to follow what has been done in other privatisation Bills. However, would he agree that Clause 4 achieves what is normally attempted to be achieved by statements of policy, statements of purpose or statements of principle—call them what you will? Incidentally, one of his colleagues in the Government, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on at least two occasions has commended it.
The Earl of Caithness: Again my noble friend Lord Renton shows his expertise in this matter. This is not the moment for me to take issue with him. I hope that he will permit me to to go away, cogitate on what he said and discuss it with my right honourable friend.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to those who have joined in behind this modest amendment, which took me three minutes to move one hour and 38 minutes ago. We have had a wide-ranging debate. We have heard what might be called a Second Reading speech and almost a Third Reading speech in one case.
I should like briefly to go backwards through the amendments that we have been discussing. I can add
972
nothing to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Hunt said about Amendment No. 11A. They said everything and I do not propose to speak again on that amendment, except to say that it is very worthy of support.
I draw attention to the wording of Amendment No. 11. The important words in that amendment are "to promote". The Minister agreed that there is reference throughout the length and breadth of the Bill to doing one's best arid doing whatever one does in an environmentally friendly way. I am sure that that is the intention of the Government. But there is a difference between that and promoting environmental, social and economic benefits as a principal item. It is not just an ancillary afterthought; something that we shall do if we can manage it, once we have created greater efficiency. That thought needs to be in the forefront of people's minds whenever they make decisions on such matters, especially matters of transport. And it relates of course to the interrelation between rail and other forms of transport.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said and do not propose to go over that ground. I turn to my Amendment No. 1 and would like to deal with one or two of the comments that have been made. There has been widespread support for the idea of having a general statement at the beginning of the Bill. The Minister said that it would be found in Clauses 4 and 106. In fact, at one stage I was tempted to pave Clause 106 right back to the beginning of the Bill. But I realised that Clause 106 refers only to the second part of the Bill and Clause 4 only to the first part. It is that fragmentation of the obligations which worries me. The question is: where does the buck stop?
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was kind enough to say that he thought that it was a good thing to have a general statement of objectives at the beginning of a Bill. I must say that I was greatly touched with the news that there was life at Paddington before Paddington Bear. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was the counsel of despair. I can understand that he does not believe it possible for the Secretary of State to do much about the railways. I accept what he said regarding the way in which British Rail is performing at the moment under Sir Bob Reid. I have known Sir Bob Reid for many years; he was a senior colleague of mine in our previous incarnations. I have the feeling that there is a new spirit in British Rail and it is a pity that it has not been allowed to carry on for a few more years to allow that spirit to run through the organisation; we would have seen a great deal of improvement. But that is not to be.
I accept also what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about divorce from the Treasury. Make no mistake about it: the dead hand of the Treasury is one of the great malignant forces which has stopped money going to British Rail in investment which this country so badly needs. If it has to be that private capital must be brought in to improve the railway

973
service, in principle I am not against that. However, I do not believe that the way in which it is being done in the Bill is the right way.
My quarrel with the Bill is that the Secretary of State does not seem to have any basic, fundamental objective written into it. There are bits and pieces of it all over the place, but there is no fundamental objective right at the beginning. I thought that my noble friend Lord Rodgers, talking of definition of purpose, put his finger right on the point. The buck for the transport system, including the railway system, has got to stop with the Secretary of State. The Bill does not provide for that. The Secretary of State must be answerable to Parliament for the rail network and nowhere in the Bill is that crisply spelt out.
This is an important aspect of the Bill and we need to be clear about it at this stage in our discussions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
6.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. I) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Meston, L.

Chorley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rea, L.

David, B.

Redesdale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rix, L.

Eatwell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Shannon, E.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waverley, V.

Ilchester, E.

Wharton, B.

Jay, L.

White. B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Arran, E.

Annaly, L.

Ashbourne, L.

974

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mancroft, L.

Barber, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bauer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bethell, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Munster, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cadman, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Northbrook, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Peel, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Pender, L.

Coleraine, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranborne, V.

Renton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Davidson, V.

St. Davids, V.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sharpies, B.

Downshire, M.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B,

Strathclyde, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gisborough, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,L.

Sudeley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvington, L.

Teviot, L.

Hemphill, L.

Teynham, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hertford, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kimball, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Leigh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 [The Rail Regulator and the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising]:
6.20 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Preparation for Franchising Director) below,").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also consider Amendments Nos. 5, 10, 22, 48 to 50 and 59. Few would dispute the significance of the discounted rail fares that apply over so many areas of our national network. The Government believed, initially at least, that this matter could be left to the commercial judgment of operators and should not be enshrined in legislation. The report of the Select Committee on Transport in another place had this to say about the preservation of network benefits—through ticketing, cross validity and discounted fare schemes:
"The Government's arguments regarding experience of the bus industry have not removed our doubts. We foresee far greater difficulties in securing voluntary agreement among two or three dozen train operators to the continuation of uniformly discounted fares, fares tapered over distance, railcards and the like".

975
The Government's response to that view is said to be reflected, in part at least, in Amendment No. 48, to which we shall be coming later. I shall want to say one or two words about that though I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. What I would say at the very outset, however, is that Amendment No. 48 is clearly far less specific than the amendment I am recommending to the Committee now. We cover the entirety of the range of the fares that we are talking about whereas the Government do so in a very generalised way. There are major defects in the Government's proposal at first sight.
Around eight out of 10 rail journeys are made with rate-reduced tickets in one way or another. Around 50 per cent. of all journeys cross current profit centre boundaries. The significance of that is that it appears to be the Government's intention under the Bill that each profit centre may be operated by a different franchise. If that is the case, around 40 per cent. of all journeys will be available only at full fare unless an operator has reached a special agreement with another operator. Therein lie the anxieties that were expressed by the Transport Committee in another place.
Each franchisee will set the fares for journeys on his own trains. What he cannot do is set fares to stations outside his own franchise area. It follows from this that his trains can operate only at full fare unless all relevant operators have agreed to accept each other's reduced rate tickets. That seems to be a nightmare situation. It is not only long distance journeys that will be affected and be dearer in consequence. Distance is but one criterion in that the larger the distance the more likely is it that boundaries will be crossed which will lead to the problems which I just cited. Short distances will also be affected —Southampton to Portsmouth; Reading to Banbury; Coventry to Wolverhampton; and Glasgow to Fort William; all will be adversely affected in this way. It has been reliably estimated that the loss of discount through ticketing could well lead to a doubling of fares.
What about what in the airline business is called interlining—tickets being valid from one operator to another? Bus deregulation has set a very doubtful precedent. Tickets are very rarely transferable. What one might be able to do, along the lines practised by airlines, is that a passenger with a return ticket but travelling on a different franchisee's train or on an open access operator's train may have to pay a supplement, but the supplement would be at the rate of full standard fare.
So far as concerns railcards, it would be right to say that British Rail has been very innovative in its marketing. Discount railcards are available to young people, disabled people, the over 60s, families and so on. They represent very good marketing techniques. They are an incentive for greater rail travel. They increase revenue. For that reason the Government argued at the outset that it followed from that that the new operators would find it in their best interest to offer the same range of tickets as is currently the case. All that they were prepared then to enforce was full fare through tickets.
What they failed to appreciate in this context is that their proposals were designed to break up the whole of
976
the national rail network. So how can they ensure that railcards can be valid on a national basis? Would one operator accept another's railcard? How can we be sure that that will be the case? How can we be sure that the franchise director will be able to achieve that basis? I shall turn later to some of the further difficulties I foresee in that respect. There is another problem. Is it possible that the regulator may find practices of this kind to be anti-competitive, because that happened in another context?
The Government continued to insist on their assertion that all would be well if it were left to the operators right until the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, except for the single retreat that had been announced allowing railcards for disabled people. But, significantly, they would not be available to those accompanying disabled passengers. That is a very significant omission from the Government's proposals. Nor do I see any evidence in Amendment No. 48 that that lacuna has been dealt with.
Then, somehow or other, things began to happen. There was the Newbury by-election. The Government had a whole host of their own troubled Back Benchers in another place. More retreats in those circumstances took place because the Government took fright. They announced in a series of U-turns that they would amend the Bill to safeguard railcards for senior citizens and for young persons. I have already dealt with one omission. It will be interesting to know whether the omission is taken up by subsection (5) of new Clause 48.
It remains to be seen, therefore, what that clause will achieve. Will family railcards be caught up by the new clause? That is of great importance, particularly for those non-car owning families to whom my noble friend Lady Castle referred earlier. What about armed forces railcards and the whole panoply of railcards that are now in existence? Will they be maintained? We are talking about Rail Rovers, BritRail passes and promotional offers, which have been extremely popular. With regard to BritRail, the concessions for visitors from abroad with which we shall be dealing later have been very helpful in promoting tourism in this country. That is the subject of a separate amendment. I shall not pursue it now.
I do not believe that it is enough for the Government to agree that because these aspects are popular the franchisees will necessary continue to utilise them. The precedents afforded by bus privatisation illustrate the problems. There was a once-universal wander bus ticket; since deregulation, it is infinitely more limited. I believe that the multitude of rail operators will inevitably stand in the way of the operation of such schemes, except perhaps in a rather limited way, despite the attempts of the Government to impose certain obligations on them.
What about the Travelcard? It can be used for unlimited travel on Network SouthEast, the London Underground and buses, with the revenue being split three ways. But after privatisation Network SouthEast will be operated by several franchisees. It is far from clear that all of them will issue or accept the

977
Travelcard. There are bound to be major administrative problems which will represent a disincentive; having to share revenues between 10 or more participants, for example.
The Minister for Transport in London, Mr. Norris, said in another place that he would quit and stake his job and reputation on the card which provides cut-price travel for millions of bus, Tube and rail passengers across London. That was described as an astonishing pledge although nothing is astonishing these days. If he goes he will be just one in a whole train of Ministers. But we shall see.
We are here talking not just about multi-modal ticketing via the franchise director, which was the phrase used by the noble Earl at Second Reading. The Travelcard, which we are seeking to retain, would specify zonal fares used on a general basis with other forms of passenger transport. That is a far more precise definition.
Another example of concessionary fares not operating is the Manchester Metrolink. That is a private franchise tram scheme. It does not participate in the Greater Manchester Travelcard. It found that it was not in its commercial interests to do so. Therefore there is offered only limited access to British Rail stations.
Amendment No. 22 deals with the need to ensure that the reduced fares will be comparable with the position which they occupy at the present time. That is of vital importance. A limitation on the power to reduce a range of tickets and fares which are available to users of the relevant services has to be examined very carefully. I do not believe that what the Government are seeking to do provides sufficient safeguards. The Government should accept our Amendment No. 22, which is far more specific. It provides a real protection for people who avail themselves of those facilities.
I now turn to some of the problems that I foresee as regards Amendment No. 48. It commences by saying:
"A franchise agreement may include provision with respect to the fares to be charged"
and not "shall". There is no obligation. The franchising director has immense powers. Apparently, he does riot have to consult because there is no duty on him to do so. It is within his discretion to determine whether the facilities should be used. He has to determine whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. That provides him with an immensely wide discretion which is far wider than he ought to enjoy. It is in stark contrast to what we offer in our own amendment.
What are the criteria that he will deploy? How will he go about making the decision? Can we be sure that under the criteria which he has to operate the kind of facilities that are offered by London Travelcards will continue within his discretion? There is no certainty about that; there is no certainty that the present facilities will continue.
I believe that the Minister referred to Clause 53 dealing with the continuation of services where there has been an insolvency. One might have something
978
rather less, which could provide real problems. I invite the Minister to reply to the points which I shall make. What happens if a franchise agreement requires the franchisee to participate in a discount fares scheme only for the franchisee to find, midway through the franchise, that it is really uncommercial? He shares the view of the Manchester organisation, to which I referred. He is not operating in a very profitable area and finds the scheme a great disincentive to his operating at all. He tells the franchise director, "I am sorry, I cannot go on doing this".
As I understand it, the franchising director can then consider the position. He can say, "I am going to give you notice that you have to continue the service." The franchisee replies, "I am very sorry, but I cannot. What are you going to do about it because I can't do anything in order to continue the service?" Will there be prosecution? That does not solve the passengers' problems. Will there be civil action? That does not solve anything either. So we could have a lacuna. How is that to be filled in those circumstances? What does the franchising director do about it?
That is a question which needs to be resolved. I do not see any sanctions which are available in the later clauses of the Bill which deal with that commercial situation. It is a matter which we need to consider very carefully indeed. I commend Amendment No. 2 to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: It may be helpful if I speak now because there are government amendments and also amendments to the Government's amendments, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wishes to say something. However, if I explain the Government's position now I believe that it would be helpful.
I shall deal very quickly with one matter because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will return to it time and time again. I refer to the analogy of the experience of the bus industry. That is a misleading track to go down. Outside London, buses operate commercially in a deregulated market. There is no regulator or franchising director for the bus industry. In recognition of the fact that the rail network must operate on an integrated basis, the Bill provides for a regulator and a franchising director to co-ordinate the arrangements between the parties. So the fear that the network benefits will disappear are misplaced.
I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said. Rather than the amendment which he has moved, I commend to the Committee government Amendment No. 48. That new clause would be added to the Bill after Clause 24 in the section on franchising. It would implement two commitments given by the Government at Report stage in another place.
First, subsection (2) of the new clause places a duty on the franchising director, where he considers it necessary in the interests of passengers, to ensure that franchise agreements contain provisions to ensure that fares are in his opinion reasonable. The Government have brought forward this provision in recognition that there has been some concern that fares will rise as a result of privatisation. We believe that that concern

979
is misplaced. There is no reason to expect fares to rise unduly when services are franchised. Subsidy will continue to be available for socially necessary services. Moreover, it has always been the intention that the franchising director should, through franchise agreements, control fares where franchisees enjoy monopoly power. But until now there has been nothing on the face of the Bill in respect of fares control by the franchising director.
The new clause rectifies that omission. The franchising director will have to consider in each case, whenever he lets a franchise, whether the interests of passengers require him to include in the franchise agreement provisions to ensure that fares are reasonable. The duty is not limited to cases where franchisees are likely to enjoy monopoly power, although this could be expected to be a factor that the franchising director will want to take into account. He will have to consider all the circumstances of the franchisee's operations and exercise his judgment accordingly. I hope that the Committee will agree that this subsection represents a valuable addition to the Bill. I believe that there is much common ground in the Committee on that point.
I turn now to discount fares which are the subject of subsections (3) to (5) of our new clause (Amendment No. 24). of Amendment No. 5 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and of Amendment No. 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. which deals explicitly with discounts for the disabled. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has tabled amendments to the Government's Amendment No. 48 in relation to the family Railcard.
The new clause fulfils the commitments given by my right honourable friend in another place to impose a duty on the franchising director to require, through franchise agreements, participation by franchisees in discount schemes for disabled people, the elderly and the young. Perhaps it would help if I set out the present position on discount cards offered by British Rail. Under the present arrangements, all discount cards are offered by BR on a purely voluntary basis. BR developed these Railcards on its initiative. BR is free to withdraw any or all of them at its discretion. It does not need an Act of Parliament or secondary legislation; it is at BR's discretion. Discount cards are, with one exception, offered for purely commercial reasons—to increase patronage and revenue, particularly during the off-peak period—and they are, in general, profitable. The one exception is the disabled person's Railcard which does not make money but is provided by BR in recognition of the special needs of disabled people.
I am convinced that private sector operators will see commercial opportunities in providing similar discount schemes. It would be remarkable indeed if the private sector could not make a profit where BR can. Indeed, as one of the benefits of privatisation, we expect private sector operators to develop new marketing initiatives to make their services attractive to passengers and it is important that we should not unduly constrain their ability to do so.
The Government have, however, accepted that as a fall-back precaution there is a good case for statutory
980
protection for discount schemes for three groups of passengers—disabled people, senior citizens arid the young. So subsections (3) to (5) of government Amendment No. 48 impose a requirement that every franchise agreement should contain provisions requiring franchisees to participate in discount schemes for those three groups. The schemes would be approved by the franchising director. I hope that the amendment will provide the assurance which noble Lords and others have sought that discount schemes for those groups will continue after privatisation.
Lord Renton: I think that there is a difficulty here which I do not know whether my noble friend has appreciated. He is imposing a fresh obligation on the franchising director to introduce schemes as mentioned in his Amendment No. 48, but what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I and others want is a continuation of existing schemes because freshly introduced schemes might not be quite so good.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that my noble friend will bear with me because I shall come to the point that he wants me to come to in a moment.
Lord Renton: I am sorry for interrupting my noble friend.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also spoke, goes further than the Government propose and I hope that I shall be able to persuade the Committee that it goes too far.
First, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish regulations specifying discount schemes. We believe that this is unnecessary and cumbersome. It would not be sensible to enshrine the details of discount schemes in regulations. The current schemes are frequently adjusted by BR in response to market demands. Each year detailed changes are made. These discount schemes are not, have never been and should not be set in concrete. It is important that this flexibility should be maintained.
Secondly, the requirements in terms of age limits and other qualifications for discount are highly specific. Again, I believe that it would be wrong to set these down in legislation in this way. To do so would make it impractical for franchisees and the franchising director to tailor schemes to future needs which at this stage may be difficult to predict.
Thirdly, Amendment No. 5 would require participation in a wider range of Railcard schemes. I do not believe that there is the same justification on the basis of social need to provide statutory protection for all these schemes. The Network Card, for example, is available to anyone who wants to buy it and simply encourages passengers to make more off-peak trips than they would otherwise make. There is no strong case for requiring franchisees to participate in this sort of scheme if it is not in their commercial interest to do so.
Indeed, it is important to strike a balance between putting a straitjacket on the marketing activities of private sector operators, on the one hand, and risking

981
the disappearance of socially valuable discount arrangements. There is a danger that, unless we are careful, we shall fix the railways' arrangements in these areas, while none of their competitors —and transport is a highly competitive business—faces any externally imposed requirements. This in the long run would be to the great commercial disadvantage of the railways, imperilling the very advantages of rail which noble Lords have spoken about so eloquently this afternoon. We believe that our amendment strikes the right balance.
Amendments Nos. 48A and 48B would require franchisees similarly to participate in discount schemes for families. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has referred to the family Railcard which provides discounted travel for anyone over the age of 18 accompanied by between one and four children. It is not restricted to families as such. It is so clearly a marketing initiative developed by BR for purely commercial reasons that it is not properly comparable to the schemes for disabled people, the elderly and young people which provide a different order of social benefit. Discount arrangements for group travel with children should be left to operators to develop in line with their assessment of market requirements. Again, no restrictions are placed on rail's competitors. Having said that, I look forward to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will say, but I hope that she will bear in mind the points that I have just made.
We have already made it clear that we expect multi-modal ticket arrangements like the London Travelcard to continue. The Government recognise the concern that has been expressed over the future of such schemes. As the Bill stands, the franchising director will be able to require franchisees to participate in the London Travelcard scheme and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has undertaken that he will be giving the franchising director guidance in that regard. Franchisees will then be required to participate in Travelcard in accordance with their franchise agreements. The same mechanism could be used to secure participation in Travelcard arrangements outside London. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, it certainly does not.
The Earl of Caithness: Concern has been expressed about the continued participation of other modes, particularly buses, in the London Travelcard. For as long as bus and Underground services in London continue to be secured through London Transport this issue will not arise. We will look at this in the context of our proposals for the deregulation of buses in London. We could not, in any event, use the Railways Bill to bind bus operators.
Amendment No. 10 would place a specific requirement on the regulator to promote multi-modal ticketing. I have to say that, for the same reason as the Bill cannot bind non-rail operators, I do not believe that this is an appropriate duty to place on the regulator. His functions are limited to the railways —and so they should be. He has no powers over
982
operators of other forms of public transport which would enable him to perform the duty proposed in Amendment No. 10.
I turn now to the Forces Railcard, which is also referred to in Amendment No. 5, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. This is a commercial deal negotiated between British Rail and the Ministry of Defence. There is no reason why the ministry—or any other major customer—should not negotiate direct with operators in the future. There is no need for a statutory provision.
I turn now to the point which is, I think, of concern to my noble friend Lord Renton. Amendments Nos. 21 and 50 both make specific provision for discounts for people accompanying disabled passengers, as does the present BR disabled person's Railcard. We have already given a commitment that the benefits which are provided by the existing Railcard should be broadly maintained. I would expect that to include discounted travel for those accompanying severely disabled passengers. I do not, however, see any need to refer to that specifically in the Bill. It can be covered in the guidance which the Secretary of State will give the franchising director.
I turn now to Amendment No. 22.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I hope that the Minister will not ignore the questions that I put to him.
The Earl of Caithness: No, certainly not. I shall return to them later, because I shall obviously have to listen and respond to what is said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Rix, my noble friend Lord Renton and others who wish to take part in the debate. I thought that it was right to set the scene now because of the government amendment.
Amendment No. 22 would limit the franchising director's ability to agree to a reduction in the range of ticket and fare prices available only if he is satisfied, after consulting rail user groups, that such reductions would not materially disadvantage users and potential users of the services in question. The amendment is based on the premise that the franchising director will be seeking to keep a grip on franchisees' actions. It assumes that franchisees will be required to carry forward all BR's existing ticket and fare types and only withdraw them with consent. Our intention is for the franchising director to adopt a rather lighter touch. It may, for example, be necessary for the franchising director to specify, through the franchise agreement, that a franchisee provides certain ticket types; for example, for the purpose of satisfactory fares control a franchisee may be required to offer a standard single and a monthly season ticket, subject to a certain price ceiling, probably set by formula.
It might also be necessary for franchisees to offer certain types of fare to facilitate inter-operator ticketing arrangements. The intention generally is to give franchisees the freedom to offer the ticket types and fares that they judge appropriate in response to passenger demand, rather than for the franchising director to have to approve every departure from BR's current range. There is no magic about BR's current range of ticket types and special offers. They represent

983
BR's attempt to match to passengers' demand the products on offer and the prices. Franchisees may have other ideas. I hope that they do, and are successful in attracting more people to travel by rail.
We have already given the commitment that the franchising director will consult rail user groups, in particular, the RUCCs. The franchising director will be able, through those consultations, to assess passenger requirements and form a view on which ticket types might need to be protected. We have also debated the amendments in my name covering the duty of a franchising director in respect of fares control and participation in discount schemes for the elderly, the young and the disabled.
There is a great deal of similarity between what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and other Members of the Committee require. There is however a fine difference between us; namely, the question of encouragement for the private sector to come up with new ideas and incentives to encourage people to travel by rail—something that we all wish to see. We do not want to put the private sector in a straitjacket. We want the franchising director to have certain duties, but again, not a heavy hand on the tiller. I hope that on consideration the Committee will feel that the Government amendments are the right ones. They fulfil a commitment made in another place.
Baroness Stedman: The Government promised in another place, having agreed that they would put the disabled person's discount card on the face of the Bill, that the senior citizen's card and the young person's card would continue. I am grateful that the Minister has put that into his amendment and that it will eventually be on the face of the Bill.
I am worried about family railcards. The only assurance given in another place was that existing family railcards would he valid until their expiry dates. I do not know how much contact the Minister has with elderly grandparents or young families. I do not know whether he realises what a great benefit the family railcard has been to those groups of people. Many young families would never be able to visit their elderly relatives as a family, because the cost would be prohibitive unless there was some form of discount similar to that offered on the present family railcard. Most such visits are made by families at weekends. That probably means that they do not use a car. They are therefore travelling by rail and taking traffic off the roads at weekends which are the busiest times.
I tabled the amendments as probing amendments to remind the Minister that there are family railcards with discounts, with the hope that we can throw that into the pool of our general discussions, and at the same time find out whether the Minister has any views to offer the Committee about the Britrail card referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It has brought in a great deal of revenue to BR from overseas travellers. There is now also the InterRail card which can be taken up by many people, not just the young, who travel around Europe. Surely it would be difficult for those people who have been used to having, or are becoming used to having an InterRail
984
card to travel around Europe if we do not provide anything in its place. How do we get on with our European neighbours?
Lord Tordoff: I shall speak briefly about Amendment No. 10, but more generally first. The mistake that the Government are making in all this is that they are saying, "Yes, it will be all right, because market forces will operate, and if it is commercially viable then things will be all right". I accept that in Amendment No. 48 the Government have gone some way from that position. Members on all sides of the Committee will be grateful that they have taken up the obligation that they laid upon themselves in another place. But I believe that there is still the underlying feeling in the Government's mind that all will be well, because if the service is commercially viable it will be provided.
The Government are forgetting that the network will be fragmented. The Government can say what they will do if there is to be a monopoly of the whole network. But, for instance, in London, with about 16 operators operating, it is unlikely that they will all feel. that there will be a great benefit to them from continuing with travelcards, for instance. We have seen that in the Buses Bill and in a great deal of legislation recently that there is an assumption that all will be well, while practice shows that that is not the case. Multi-modal travelcard schemes are important in the London area and other metropolitan areas. They must not be allowed to be damaged. The Minister says that we can perhaps have another look at this matter when bus deregulation in London comes in. By the time bus deregulation comes in. in whatever form—that is another long battle we shall have one of these days—it may be too late. Travelcards may have declined. People will then be forced to get out their motor cars and travel by road again.
We shall find over and over again throughout our discussions on the Bill that the Government do not take into account, as much as they should, that there are forces outside the purely commercial ones at which we should be looking. I have no objection, as I have said, to trying to improve the efficiency of the railways, to making them more attractive and to bringing in new capital, but we must always recognise that there is another major element. We must try to do everything that we can, by every means, even if it is an uncommercial means, to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transport, particularly the railways. That is what Amendment No. 10 is all about. It is trying to preserve the multi-modal travelcard which has been of such great benefit in London and the other metropolitan areas of the country.
7 p.m.
Lord Rix: I am conscious that the curtain is about to come down for dinner, but before that happens I should like to respond to the Minister. I am grateful for the government concessions given in Amendment No. 48 and the Minister's reassurances as to our

985
Amendment No. 50. But those reassurances do not go quite far enough in regard to the disabled person's railcard.
There is a story about two gentlemen discussing a dog belonging to one of them. It is an animal of considerable potential but uncertain temperament. The non-owner who was being encouraged to take the dog on trust said to the owner, "You know that dog will not bite, and I know that dog will not bite; but the dog does not know that he will not bite".
We have received from the Government much reassurance and some concessions, and all of that is welcome; but my experience as a man of the theatre encourages me to take the view that promises and declarations of intent gain something extra from being incorporated in legally binding requirements. I found in my younger days that a contract in my pocket and the first day of rehearsal concluded was a certainty of a job rather than an assurance that a reliable third party had given a firm undertaking that a job would shortly become available—in theatrical parlance, "Don't 'phone us, we'll 'phone you".
We have made some progress with regard to the disabled person's Railcard but the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends —I hope I may say that—from all parts of the Chamber seeks to build on that progress and to make sure that the new arrangements start with a baseline of existing discount arrangements and move on from there as circumstances allow. I have a further important though somewhat tangential point. At present the disabled person's Railcard can be used to purchase through tickets as buying tickets at various ticket booths en route would be a virtual impossibility for the majority of disabled people. Can the Government give an assurance that such a facility to ease their right of passage will be maintained? I fear that Members of this Chamber and Members of another place would hardly escape blame if we left it open to operators to slide away from the minimum level of decency which people with disabilities now enjoy.
Lord Renton: I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Rix—whom I also call my noble friend —has said about Amendment No. 50. Like him, I acknowledge what the Government are doing in Amendment No. 48; but there is a difference still between the two. We cannot vote on Amendment No. 50 today because it will not be reached today and it has not been moved today. Between now and the next meeting of the Committee (which will be next week) I want to study very carefully what has been said by my noble friend. But it seems to me that requiring discount schemes for disabled people to be introduced in future but leaving the details to the operators is not as good as saying—as I think the Bill should say and as this amendment states—that existing discount schemes shall remain in operation.
There is another factor here. It may well be that if a disabled person and the person who has to accompany the disabled person, take out a scheme which is intended to last 12 months—there are such schemes—and if meanwhile privatisation takes place,
986
it really would be awful if those existing schemes could not be carried into privatisation. But I do not think even that is enough. As a keen supporter of privatisation, I want to make sure that nobody is going to be worse off as a result of it. As I say, I hope that my noble friend Lord Rix will reserve his position as to moving and voting on Amendment No. 50 until our next meeting. Meanwhile, we must consider the matter.
Lord Mountevans: I will not touch on Britrail cards as I believe we shall discuss those later in the evening. However, I wish briefly to express my considerable concern about the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It is all very well to say that things will work out but what my noble friend has not yet told us —I do not believe the Government have yet mentioned this—is how things will work out. Will we have a private enterprise company seeking to collect revenue from multi-modal tickets and then distributing it? Will those tickets be controlled by the dominant operator, whether that is a road or rail operator or, in the case of London, probably an Underground operator? Those are the anxieties that I have.
The Earl of Caithness: The contributions we have just heard have made a useful addition to our discussion on this important topic. I shall of course read with interest and care what Members of the Committee have had to say. I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the franchising director. As he pointed out, the franchising director will have discretion in exercising his functions under the Bill. He will, however, be subject to the duties which the noble Lord will find in Clause 5, and in particular his duty to fulfil the objectives given to him by the Secretary of State. For example, the Secretary of State would be able to give him guidance as to the basis on which franchisees should participate in Travelcard arrangements. The matter will also be subject to judicial review if the franchising director acts unreasonably.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also asked about the franchising director's power to deal with breaches of franchise agreements if the franchisees failed to carry out their obligations to participate in network benefits that they entered into on signing their franchises. We shall discuss the enforcement powers that the franchising director has in Clauses 49 to 51, and we shall deal with that matter in some detail. Again, that matter comes back to the point I made on the first amendment; namely, it is only when we have gone through the Bill and considered all these matters that we shall see how the Bill holds together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the family Railcard. The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment to the Government's amendment on that matter. She spoke convincingly of the need to maintain the family Railcard to enable families to travel at weekends and to enable children to see their grandparents. Alas! I no longer have grandparents to see; but I certainly have young children, and I understood many of the remarks of the noble Baroness. I shall of course read with care her remarks.

987
Again, it is a question of wishing to encourage people to travel by rail I am sure the private sector will encourage that. If one considers other travel operators that have entered the private sector, for example British Airways, one can see that some of the incentives that company offers are considerably more original and are an improvement on the incentives it offered when it was in the public sector. I have no doubt that the same will apply on the railways.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to Travelcard. I ask the noble Lord to read my remarks with care in the Official Report. I said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has undertaken that he will give the franchising director guidance in regard to Travelcard and the franchising director can then include it in the franchise. I believe the noble Lord's concern will be satisfied. I agree with him that the whole point of these benefits is to encourage people to travel by rail. That is what we want to see, and I am sure that is what the franchisees will want. The more people they have travelling on their routes, the better it will be for the franchisees.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Renton said we had not gone far enough with regard to disabled people. My advice at the moment is that the noble Lord's amendment goes further than the existing British Rail agreement. However, I shall consider that further because, as I understand it, the existing British Rail facilities for people accompanying disabled persons only apply when severely disabled people are travelling. I believe that is the position but I shall make sure that is the case. I hope I can talk to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, between now and another stage of the Bill.
Lord Renton: We only ask for a continuation of existing provisions. We do not want to go any further than anybody else.
The Earl of Caithness: I noted that with interest. That is why I said this is a matter we ought to discuss between now and another stage of the Bill. This debate has been helpful. I again commend to the Committee the Government's Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 59. These have gone a long way to meeting the anxieties mentioned by so many Members of the Committee and they fulfil the commitments made in another place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With the greatest respect, I do not believe that Amendment No. 48 is satisfactory in its present form and I shall refer specifically to one other matter to which the noble Earl did not allude in his reply.
Suffice it to say that the Minister has come under very strong pressure not only from this side of the Committee but also from the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I suspect that the Government will concede this matter. I hope that they do. But they need to be made to concede it now. This is the opportunity that we have to deal with this specific matter.
The Minister has given us words of hope and expectation and guidance but no certainty and no
988
assurances. It is all hidden by the belief that our proposal will somehow or other stifle initiative and innovation. With respect, that is a lot of nonsense.
The form of privatisation or commercialisation that is to be introduced here will bring about a totally changed situation. Even the Minister said in a previous debate that it is not akin to other methods of privatisation. For that reason we must be reasonably sure that the benefits which accrue at present will continue. That was the burden of the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and that is the case that I adopt.
I am not satisfied with general words about the franchising director being guided and coming to certain conclusions. The franchising director does not have to consult with anybody. He may consult arid he may be guided to consult but at present, we do not know that. No statutory obligation is imposed upon him.
Another point that I wish to make was not dealt with at all by the Minister. At present Amendment No. 48 is restricted to franchised services. Earlier the Minister referred to the commitment that was given on Report in another place to allow the franchising director to examine both monopoly and non-monopoly franchises. However, nothing is said in Amendment No. 48 about open access services. Let us assume that the Great Western main line is in due course operated by a mix of open access and franchised services. Network benefits should be retained for all groups, in particular disabled and elderly travellers. They should be able to use the services of all operators, whether or not they are franchised. That is not dealt with in the Bill or in Amendment No. 48.
Therefore, there are strong arguments that in addition to its open and unrestricted nature, Amendment No. 48 is misconceived and misplaced in many respects. Amendment No. 5 and the amendments coupled with it are to be preferred. I am not satisfied with what the Minister has said. I believe that there are so many holes in what he has said that the Committee should divide on this issue.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord goes any further, perhaps I may point out that he rather implied that his amendment meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I have made about the continuation of existing schemes. However, it would not necessarily do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not see why not. Indeed, paragraph (3) (d) of Amendment No. 5 encompasses the point which is made in the noble Lord's own amendment. I do not believe that there is any question about that. I commend Amendment No. 2 to the Committee.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Rea, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Shackleton, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Attlee, E.

Leigh, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bethell, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B

Mountevans, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Cadman, L.

Orkney, E.

Caithness, E.

Pender, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Renton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Rix, L.

Coleraine, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cox, B.

St. Davids, V.

Cranborne, V.

Seccombe, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Sharpies, B.

Davidson, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Downshire, M.

Stedman, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swansea, L.

Geddes, L.

Teynham, L.

Goschen, V.

Trumpington, B.

Grantchester, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harvington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waverley, V.

Howe, E.

Wilberforce, L.,

Ilchester, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion may I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before twenty minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Assent
7.22 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): 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:
Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act,
Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,
Osteopaths Act,
Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act,
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act,
London Underground (Jubilee) Act,
Dawat-e-Hadiyah Act.

Bail (Amendment) Bill
Report received.
Clause 1 [Prosecution right of appeal]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 12, leave out ("High Court or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may use understatement, a certain amount of discontent was expressed in some parts of your Lordships' House in Committee with regard to some of the Bill's provisions, not its policy. A most useful meeting was arranged between the Committee stage and this stage of the Bill which took place yesterday.
I should like to express my thanks, and I believe that I express the thanks of my colleagues in the House, for the arrangements that were made for that meeting. It was attended by Mr. David Maclean, the Minister of State at the Home Office, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who has had the task of assisting with the Bill on the Government's behalf, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who has sponsored the Bill in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Mr. Michael Stephen was also present and added considerably to the usefulness of the meeting since he is the sponsor of the Bill in another place. We were also helped by officials from the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The result of the meeting was that I and other noble Lords would move amendments on Report. They will either be accepted, as I understand it, or certain assurances of which we were told will be given by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, or on the Government's behalf. The people who attended that meeting believed that those undertakings and assurances were satisfactory in all the circumstances and your Lordships will perhaps take account of our views when deciding whether you are similarly satisfied.
I move Amendment No. 1 in that spirit, and very briefly. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee the amendment was linked with the difficulty of legal aid. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I was party to the discussions to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred and I understand why he has tabled the amendment. I have no hesitation in inviting the House to support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("on the grounds that there is a serious risk to the public or that such person was likely to interfere with the course of justice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may remember since it was moved in Committee, the amendment seeks to ensure that these appeals are brought upon definite grounds and assume a minor number, not a major number. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the concern which underlies this amendment and it is a concern that we all share. He is concerned that appeals against the grant of bail should be brought only in the most exceptional cases and not simply where the prosecutor disagrees with the magistrates' decision. Mere dissatisfaction should certainly not be enough. This power is intended to be used only in rare cases where there is a serious public interest.
I think that the noble Lord will accept that his amendment, as drafted, would not allow a right of appeal in certain cases where most would agree that it should exist; for example, where a person has been charged with serious offences and the prosecutor believes that there is good reason to suppose that the defendant will abscond. On that ground alone, therefore, it is not acceptable. We could, of course, probably all think of alternative wording which could be used, but the danger with attempting to set out in statute the precise circumstances in which the power might be exercised is that something will be missed and a case will arise where all would agree that an appeal should be brought but the wording of the Act will not allow it. A better course therefore, in our view, is to adopt the Scottish approach to these matters, which is to leave open in statute the circumstances in which an appeal might be brought but to lay down clear guidelines for prosecutors.
We had much discussion at Committee stage about what the guidelines to the CPS might contain. Your Lordships will appreciate that, as the Bill has yet to complete its passage, it would be unrealistic to expect guidelines already to have been drafted. Nevertheless consideration has been given to what such guidelines might say and I can give noble Lords some reassurance on that point. The guidelines will, in the first place, make it clear that the CPS foresees the number of cases in which it would exercise the right of appeal as small.
The broad effect of the guidelines will be that the right of appeal would be used only in cases of the greatest concern where there are substantial grounds under the Bail Act on which the court could refuse
992
bail. Prosecutors will apply an overarching test of whether there is a serious risk of harm to members of the public or other significant public interest grounds. The public interest grounds will not be used to justify appeals in minor cases. In making their assessment prosecutors will take into account the seriousness of the offence. Examples of such cases might include offences of violence where weapons are used, serious sexual offences where there is an element of violence and serious arson cases. I hope that your Lordships will accept that guidance to this effect provides the best way of meeting the anxieties which have been expressed and that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we welcome what is a most productive approach. I endorse very shortly the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon about the very helpful meeting that we had, especially regarding the anonymous public servant who produced an admirable minute. He deserves every congratulation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords., I have but one question to put to the noble Viscount. I believe that we discussed the point on Monday. When the guidelines have finally been drafted, it would be most helpful if those of us who have participated in the proceedings could have copies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am delighted to give the noble Lord that assurance.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the assurances given by the noble Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No 3:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("and such appeal has been authorised by a person having at least the status of a member of the Crown Prosecution Service with four years' seniority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the same point as that detailed in Amendment No. 4, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It raises the question as to who will determine whether the appeal on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service should be made. I believe that there was general anxiety, certainly so far as concerns the noble Lord, myself and my noble friend Lord Wigoder, that that decision should be taken at a senior level in the Crown Prosecution Service. One would not want a situation in which a relatively junior and inexperienced Crown prosecutor, possibly in office for a matter of only three or four months, did in fact decide to announce that he was going to appeal without any reference to a senior officer, or without taking any subsequent action to obtain the authority of a senior officer, with the result that a defendant was wholly unreasonably kept in custody for 48 hours, which would be the effect of announcing the appeal.
We discussed the matter at our unofficial "Committee stage" yesterday evening. After the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has spoken, I shall be most

993
grateful if the noble Viscount can give us some indication as to what is the agreed position. My amendment deals with a relatively senior member of the Crown Prosecution Service, whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, puts forward an alternative form of wording. We await with interest to hear the noble Viscount's response. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I need not add anything to the very clear explanation of what happened at yesterday's meeting given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the amendments reflect the concern that a decision to appeal against the grant of bail may be taken on flimsy grounds by an inexperienced prosecutor, with the result that a person whom a magistrates' court has decided should be granted bail is, therefore, held in custody. We are all fully aware of the special nature of the power that the Bill is creating and of the need to ensure that it is exercised sparingly and judiciously. Our concern is that such an amendment would introduce a requirement which simply could not, for very sound practical reasons, be met in all cases.
In many cases—certainly those where a defendant is brought before the court having been arrested the previous day—Crown prosecutors will receive the case papers only a short time before the day's business begins. Every effort should be, and will be, made to ensure that there is prior consultation before a decision is taken to appeal against the grant of bail. I hope that your Lordships will appreciate that the speed at which business moves and the impossibility of ensuring that a branch Crown prosecutor will always be available at the end of a telephone means that imposing an absolute requirement of that sort could have the effect of preventing an appeal being lodged in a case in which it is clearly justified. It is perhaps worth registering that one branch Crown prosecutor may have all the prosecutors working in all the courts in a shire county reporting to him or her: it is simply not possible to guarantee that one person will always be available, even if the prosecutor is able to get to a telephone within the half-hour or so before the court business begins.
While the Crown Prosecution Service will undoubtedly do everything in its power to ensure that only those appeals which are clearly justified are brought—and the guidance to which I have already referred will help to ensure this—those practical constraints must be taken into account and therefore lead the Government to resist a statutory requirement for authorisation within a given period or at a specified level.
I can assure your Lordships that the guidance which will be issued to Crown prosecutors will make it clear that appeals should not be made by junior prosecutors without seeking approval from more senior lawyers. The phrase "more senior lawyers" means lawyers of at least four years' experience within the Crown Prosecution Service. In any case where Crown prosecutors consider that it might be appropriate to use the right of appeal, they will,
994
wherever possible, obtain prior authority to do so. If at the hearing when they have heard all that the defence has to say, and that view is confirmed, they will have authority to lodge the appeal. If, in exceptional circumstances, it is not possible to obtain prior authority, Crown prosecutors will seek a subsequent review of the decision to appeal by a more senior lawyer. That will be done within the time limit for giving written notice of appeal, if possible; but if not, within 24 hours at the latest.
That will be spelt out in the guidance to Crown prosecutors, and I hope will reassure your Lordships that there will always be a "double check" by a more senior prosecutor in cases involving an appeal against the grant of bail. On that understanding, I hope that noble Lords might agree to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, speaking on behalf of myself, my noble friend and, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I think that the noble Viscount's answer does in fact meet the anxiety that we expressed on the matter. Subject to one point, with which I shall deal shortly, I shall withdraw the amendment. The only additional point I make is that I should certainly like to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his thanks to the official who drafted the "heads of agreement" of yesterday evening. It was an admirable piece of work. Whoever did it deserves considerable congratulation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert, ("and such appeal has been authorised by a person having at least the status of Branch Crown Prosecutor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order that the spirit of unanimity which appears to have gripped the House should continue, I should also like to associate myself with the vote of thanks expressed in regard to the person who so accurately, and in such a businesslike way, composed the minute, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred. For reasons similar to those advanced by the noble Lord, I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 21, leave out from ("prosecution") to ("granted") and insert ("made representations that bail should not be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a technical matter which was observed by the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I believe that I am right in saying that they have agreed to accept the amendment. I have but one comment to make. It concerns what lawyers would call a comment under the "slip rule". We all received such help from the Bill department that I should not like any words of mine to be regarded as criticism of those involved.
However, there was a misprint in the amendment in Committee to the effect that the word "representation" should be in the plural. I pointed that out to those concerned and was informed that it would be put right on Report with the insertion of the word

995
"representations". Under the slip rule, if the amendment is accepted, I hope that the plural of the word will go into the Report. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I agree that the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, amounts to an improvement in the Bill. The wording is more felicitous; and, if I may say so, the same applies to the proposed wording for Amendment No. 6. I therefore invite the House to accept the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, all I can say is, thank you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("objection was") and insert ("representations were").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I repeat my thanks. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("one hour") and insert ("two hours").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. The amendments offer a possible alternative to Amendment No. 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I accept the principle behind the noble Lord's amendment that it should be clear on the face of the Bill that a failure to lodge written notice should lead to the appeal failing and the release of the defendant. To make sure that this is a realistic timetable for prosecutors to work to, the amendments would, with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, extend the time limit from one hour to two hours.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refers to the appeal being null and void. Those words might suggest that the oral notice of appeal is retrospectively invalidated and might raise questions as to the lawfulness of the detention of the defendant in the interim period. The amendment which appears in my name refers instead to the appeal being,
"deemed to have been disposed or
if the prosecution fails to lodge written notice within the two-hour limit. "Disposed of" are the words used in Clause 1(6) of the Bill, which has the effect that once the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed of the defendant must be released from custody. I therefore hope that noble Lords will accept Amendments Nos. 7 and 9. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has set out the position very fairly. I am content with his amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("failing which, the person shall be released from custody and the prosecution appeal shall be null and void.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, given the circumstances which have just been explained, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Bethel Lord Bethel moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(6A) Where the prosecution fails, within the period of two hours mentioned in subsection (5) above, to serve one or both of the notices required by that subsection, the appeal shall be deemed to have been disposed of.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("commenced") and insert ("determined").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 deal with the anxiety expressed in Committee that the term of custody, should be as limited as possible in the circumstances and that the hearing of the appeal, as your Lordships have already heard, should be expedited. It is in that spirit that my amendments have been put down. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has something to say about them. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government accept the serious anxiety behind this amendment about the length of time a defendant spends in custody pending the resolution of the appeal. It is an argument of compelling principle that a person to whom the courts have already granted bail should spend as little time as, possible in custody pending the hearing of the prosecution appeal. That is the desire of all those involved. The expectation should be that, save in exceptional circumstances, appeals should be not only commenced but determined within 48 hours. The fact that the Bill now restricts the prosecutors who may exercise a right of appeal, and the assurances which can be given about the circumstances in which an appeal may be launched, provide reassurance that this power will be used only in a small number of cases. The courts will want to hear appeals as quickly as possible within the 48-hour period.
There may be circumstances when it would be in the interests of justice to allow a short adjournment beyond the 48-hour time limit; for example, where some further information not immediately to hand might assist the judge in reaching a decision. Such cases should be very rare—we would expect most appeals to be heard quickly and on the basis of the information already available—but it might be unjust not to allow for them. I believe that the noble Lord himself recognises that point. I hope that because of that anxiety he may be persuaded not to press the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also spoke to Amendment No. 11. I have spoken several times about reassurances which the Government are prepared to give in response to concerns over aspects of the Bill. In addressing that amendment, I have to ask your Lordships to recognise that it would place heavy burdens on those responsible for bringing appeals of this kind and those tasked with making arrangements for their hearing.
The Lord Chancellor's Department proposes to consult the judiciary with a view to providing guidance to the effect that in those cases where the time limit would, but for the formula provided in the Bill as it now stands, expire on a Saturday or public

997
holiday, everything possible should be done to expedite the hearing. Where this proved impossible, consideration would be given to the possibility of making special local arrangements to bring on the appeal on a Saturday or public holiday.
That encompasses the desire expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, on being consulted about this prosecution right of appeal, that everything should be done to avoid the necessity of defendants being held in custody for long periods. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, has indicated that where the appeal is launched just before a weekend or bank holiday he would expect the appeals to be heard wherever possible on the same day.
Those undertakings move the Government as near as they are prepared to go to the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. On that basis I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I associate myself with the comments made by my noble friend. It is a measure of the respect with which we have taken into account the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords opposite, that we have gone into such detail and arranged the assurances which my noble friend has put before the House. I hope very much that noble Lords opposite concede that those assurances go a long way to meeting the points raised by the noble Lord. I hope that in the light of what my noble friend said the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for what has been said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a mere spectator I should like to say what an agreeable and unusual experience the passage of this Bill has been.
Earl Ferrers: Order!
7.45 p m.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of this day):
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Bethell.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in dealing with the Motion which has just been so eloquently moved, perhaps I may say that I have learnt two lessons from the course that this Bill has taken. First, when one is informed that no amendments are possible if a Bill is to be kept alive, I advise my brethren not to believe it. The second lesson is that if one does believe it, one still has a duty, as a Member of this great House, with its duties and powers of revision, to say, "So far and no further". If amendments are necessary, especially
998
where the liberty of the subject is concerned, one must not be constrained and this House must never fall to that temptation.
Having said that, I believe that other noble Lords who have been concerned with this matter will agree that I have been treated with the greatest courtesy by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the Minister. It has not been easy to reach agreement on these very important matters in a short period of time. It would not have been possible without the co-operation and the courtesy of those involved.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the honourable Member in another place who promoted the Bill. Secondly, perhaps I may compliment the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, upon the way in which he has steered the ship into harbour in your Lordships' House after a short, but somewhat stormy voyage. Finally perhaps I, too, may express my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the assistance that he has been able to give on behalf of the Government in ensuring that the legitimate anxieties about the Bill were satisfactorily met.
I conclude by underlining one point. There is nothing in the Bill that should lead in any way to the relaxing of the standards which magistrates have to apply in deciding whether bail should be granted. The prima facie entitlement to bail set out in the Bail Act 1976 remains unaltered. The grounds of objection to bail which have to be proved before a person can be remanded in custody remain wholly unimpaired; and the presumption of innocence, of course, remains completely untouched.
I am sure that the Government will agree that there is nothing in the Bill which can or should lead to the still further overcrowding of our remand prisons.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the honourable Member for Shoreham. The principle of the Bill was received in this Chamber with general and enthusiastic support. However, I believe that it will leave the House as a greatly improved Bill which will be much welcomed by the judiciary as a tool in the pursuit of justice.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bethell on, I hope successfully, taking this short but important Bill through your Lordships' House. I, too, wish to thank those noble Lords who have contributed to our discussions on the Bill, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Wigoder, Lord Williams of Mostyn, Lord Mishcon, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lady Seccombe. I believe that we have shown that whatever timetable we face your Lordships are able to deal with the Bill. Your Lordships are also able to give it proper consideration. I am sure that noble Lords are right in saying that we added to the Bill.
I am grateful for the words that noble Lords opposite said about the officials who helped with the Bill. It has been a busier time for them even than for your Lordships. I appreciate the noble Lords'

999
comments. I am grateful for all the work that my officials have done. I trust that the Bill will now be given a Third Reading.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I, too, thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion of the Bill. I concede the point made by noble Lords opposite that the Bill has been considerably improved by amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others. I wish to assure noble Lords that when I advised the House on Second Reading that it would not be possible to amend the Bill and for it to become law, I spoke in good faith on the basis of information given to me, no doubt equally in good faith, by the department and others. No one is happier than I am that it proved possible for another place, and for the Government, to arrange for the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others to he incorporated into the Bill before it returns to another place, we hope tomorrow morning. The, so to speak, shadow Committee stage of the Bill which took place not a million miles from this Chamber yesterday—it might have been irregular, and ideally, not to be emulated—was a very useful exercise. I hope, therefore, that we have got the Bill right.
A number of noble Lords opposite have referred to the need to protect miscarriages of justice whereby under the Bill an innocent person given bail by a judicial hearing could conceivably be incarcerated for 48 hours or longer. I hope that noble Lords will also concede that, balanced against that consideration, is the need to protect members of the public from an unwise decision to grant hail. There have been one or two such instances in the recent past. Those who moved the Bill had that consideration in mind also.
Having said that, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have participated, in particular, the officials and others who co-operated so well in our discussions yesterday and earlier. I hope that the Bill will receive a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

School Tests: Implementation by Regulation
7.55 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the current difficulties about testing in schools, they will in future refrain from introducing contentious matters by regulation.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry if any of your Lordships thought five minutes ago that I had perhaps skipped bail. I assure the House that I was in fact on remand not far away and am now in my place. It is not my intention to make a party political speech. Whether I shall achieve that intention I do not know; but I shall try. I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to the Minister, that I shall try.
Some questions are too important to be used for party politics. I am concerned about the need for consent in the processes of government and the difficulty of achieving that consent. That should never
1000
be a party matter; and I hope that it will not be. In the specific context of school tests, I say only that I very much hope that we shall not be discussing them in this Chamber in a year's time. Whenever the Dearing review reports, and whatever it states, I hope that the review will give rise to a genuine dialogue, and that whatever comes out of that dialogue will be a system that those concerned can, with conscience, operate.
I do not believe that anyone in any quarter of the House can regard the present situation with entire satisfaction. I wish to suggest that the bad politics of this situation are the result of a faulty parliamentary and legislative procedure. I remember extremely well the debate of 5th May 1988. It was my first full day in Committee in this Chamber. Therefore I remember it a good deal better than I may remember other days. In that debate it was clear that there was support in every quarter of the House for the principle of school testing and a great deal of doubt about what type of tests the Government intended to introduce.
As the debate continued, it emerged slowly that the Government did not know. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who was at the Dispatch Box, said:
"It was never the Government's intention to put this sort of detail into the Bill. It is a framework Bill".—[Official Report, 5/5/88; col. 707.]
I place that remark beside the memorandum of the Hansard Society when giving evidence to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House, which stated:
"We emphasise that statutory delegation should never leave an Act bare of everything except a framework of ministerial powers, with all the real substances being left to ministerial regulations".
In 1988 the situation was even worse because the decisions on those vital and contentious questions of how tests should be conducted were left not even to statutory instrument, nor to the affirmative or negative procedure, but simply to a plain executive order. The effect was to let the Secretary of State off the lead of the requirement to look for consent. When let off the lead, it is a great temptation to start chasing hares. He was let off the lead, and I think that the effects were unfortunate. In making something like this work, there is a need for bargaining, consultation, adaptation and even occasional changes of mind. Most vital, there is a need to recognise that there are independent professional values, even if they should happen to be wrong. One cannot expect self-respecting members of a profession to operate procedures which they believe—however mistakenly it may appear to be —by their own professional standards to be wrong. There has to be a diplomatic negotiation.
Therefore, we need a procedure which ensures that that takes place. This procedure by executive order does not allow that at all. As my noble friend Lady Seear said in 1988, it looks like a diktat handed down from on high. In fact, it was a procedure without the proper safeguards. It had no proper safeguards for ensuring that what was put forward was ready. I shall not go into the detail of key stage 3, but I make the point that when trouble arose, there was an attempt to deal with it, in effect, by hectoring. That is what

1001
happens when one is rushed into a situation and one has no chance of getting out of it, except by driving straight on.
The Government have spent so long dealing with trade unions that they tend to see trade unions under everything. Therefore, I shall quote on this something which is about as far from a trade union organ as I can think of: the editorial in the Oxford Magazine in the first week of this term. It said that the Government,
"showed an unhealthy (and not unfamiliar) mistrust of a profession's ability to do its job without rigid specifying and recording, … [this] would explain far more recalcitrance than teachers have yet shown. So far from being quick to resist, they have been remarkably patient".
That is an opinion which I think ought to cause some anxiety.
It is also vitally important that we should not be in this position in a year's time when the Dearing review reports. Dr. John Marenbon, a fellow historian whom I know and like, said that the time limit would not allow for the thorough reconsideration of basic principles which is needed if national testing is to survive.
Those last words are important, for national testing cannot survive unless a dialogue takes place between the Government and the teaching profession, with the understanding that their values are different. Unless some point of accommodation can happen, nothing can be done.
That is where it is so important to have a procedure which allows not only for the consultation, but also for time in which mistakes can be ironed out. No one is perfect, every proposal when first put forward contains some things which are not right and which may not work. The other point which is of vital importance is that in this culture there is an indissoluble association in most of our minds between the giving of consent and the process of voting. Many professional associations outside Parliament know well that the best chance of defeating any government proposal to which they find it difficult to consent is in this House. So when this House cannot vote, it is a great deal more difficult to achieve consent in the outside world.
I would not wish to imply by that any doubt about the legal force of regulations. Were I to do that, as soon as he reads this, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would be quick to put me right. Regulations, if they are intra vires—and the Woolwich building society will stress that that is a vital qualification—are legally as binding as Acts of Parliament. However, they do not feel as if they carry as much consent. Without the process of voting, there is not the sense of giving consent.
Those of us who were in the Chamber in 1988, during the Local Government Finance Bill, will know that, after the number of times we voted on the Bill, to refuse to consent to the legislation afterwards would have been not merely morally wrong, it would have felt utterly ridiculous because we had voted on it so many times. We had had our chance and we felt bound by the result of the vote. So there was an emotional as well as a legal force behind it. It is that emotional force which I think we lose by having a procedure to put
1002
through contentious matters on which we in this House have no chance to vote. I believe that that undermines the fabric of government by consent. That is a good deal more serious even than any mistake which may or may not have been made in the course of testing. Government by consent is more difficult than I used to think. I should be sorry to see us do anything to make it harder.
8.6 p.m
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put down a Motion which draws your Lordships' attention to contentious matters: the question of testing in schools. I shall delay your Lordships for only a moment because I believe that some of the contentious nature arises from the background which needs to be examined, and some of it from perceptions of the effects of the proposals for testing. I am not sure that those perceptions are well founded. It would be useful to have the Minister resolve that doubt.
I am only looking at a narrow aspect of the subject: the testing of English at the age of 16—next year, 1994. I am aware of some of the anxieties because of a useful conversation that I had with the National Association for the Teaching of English.
I understand, as your Lordships will understand, that the syllabus to be tested at the age of 16 in 1994 will have already been in the schools and taught for a year. Noble Lords will recall that during the last term —the term in which it is tested—much of the time will be spent in revision. That means that we are looking at a syllabus for which only two remaining terms of teaching are left.
When the syllabus was introduced, I understand that it was published on time in the summer of 1992. It was nevertheless subject to revision later on, and there were a number of doubts about it which had to be resolved. I have had it said to me twice now that changes were made to the syllabus in the first term in which it should have been taught. If so, that is a matter for concern and would explain some of the anxiety of the profession because programmes have to be worked out, teachers have to read the material, books and so on have to be bought before the school year begins. If the syllabus is not finally in place before the school year begins, the teaching will not be fully effective until well into the first of the five-and-a-half terms available for teaching it. That is the background.
As to the substance and effect of the orders, I understand that from 1988 to 1991 there was a seven point, A to G scale for assessing work. That work could be 100 per cent. course work, if so wished. In 1991, course work was reduced to a maximum of 30 per cent. and at about then, the change was predicted to a 10 point numerical scale. That gave rise, I understand, to unease and was contentious.
Later, Sir Ron Dearing was brought to bear on the problem as to the future of this scale. He suggested that it would be wrong to implement it while it was under his consideration, and proposed—and the Government accepted—that A to G scales should be reintroduced, but augmented by an A* grade for exceptionally outstanding work.

1003
Teachers who have been preparing themselves for the 1-10 numeric scale, and who may be new to the profession, not having had experience of anything else, are concerned about their ability to convert A to G. I would be most grateful if my noble friend could confirm that they can use the old (or rather the new, and now shelved) 1–10 scale and submit that, with their evidence for the marks for the scales that they have awarded, to the boards, and that the boards themselves will convert them from the numeric to the alphabetic scale. If that is so, my noble friend might like to comment on the reflection of some teachers that this helpful service will in some way put them one remove further away from assessment of their pupils themselves.
My final point relates to the draft English order now out for consultation. I believe that it is due to be made in September. Because of the anxieties and lack of trust that are about at the moment, there is a general suspicion that this order will affect syllabuses that will he due to be tested before two years have elapsed from its making. I hope I have made that clear. It is clear (is it not?) that if an order is to be made affecting the way children are tested, the way they are taught and the syllabus that they are taught, that order must be made in time not only for the teaching to begin the day after, but for the preparation for that teaching, and the purchase of the books, and so on, if necessary, to be done ahead of the first term in which it is taught. If my noble friend can give an assurance that that will indeed be the case, that will also do something to relieve the anxieties which at the moment, I have to tell her, are very real among the profession of which I used to be a member.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I enter the list on an education debate in your Lordships' House for only the fourth time in almost two decades. I do so for two reasons. The first is that in the last year I have become a governor of a large comprehensive school in Taunton, and therefore know just a little about what the Question euphemistically calls the "current difficulties" of testing in schools. The other is that when I first saw the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I was struck, as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments by the generality of the concept behind it. The noble Earl could so easily have chosen, say, social security orders or the upgrading of prescription charges, or a whole range of order-making powers —in which case, of course, this debate would have been answered by another Minister. I therefore empathise with my noble friend Lady Blatch, and gently suggest that a debate such as this would have been perhaps rather better answered by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Be that as it may, I believe in the old adage that the electorate gets the government it deserves, and, by extension, that means the elected MPs it deserves. By slightly further extension, I believe that Parliament gets the primary legislation that it deserves. My comparatively recent interest in statutory instruments has reinforced that view.
1004
The joint committee is bound by three things: the standing orders of both Houses; their terms of reference; and the Acts of Parliament providing for the many pieces of subordinate legislation that we examine each year. In passing, perhaps I may put in a plea for fewer, better drafted, orders. In 1983, according to the First Report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, the joint commit tee considered and reported on 1,965 orders. Nine years later (that is, last year) the number had grown to a massive 3,359. I can report that the latest figures that I have show that we have considered 2,155 since the start of this Session of Parliament. A better comparison, however, might be to say that we have considered some 1,700 since 1st January this year.
At present the joint committee is under-resourced, which means that our reports are not always as timely as they might be. But a paper is always produced when Parliament wishes to discuss a particular order. In my view, that is putting the cart before the horse, and I have argued on occasion that reports should be produced in time for Parliament to decide whether it wants to debate an order. I see a nod from the noble Earl opposite.
Tonight is not the appropriate time to discuss this particular hobby-horse of mine any further, but I trust that the House will forgive my mentioning it. It is germane to the generality of the Question that we are discussing.
The joint committee considers the orders that it receives mostly in terms of "vires"; clarity of drafting —which incidentally accounts for some 25 per cent. of all our comments; of unusual use of powers; and of exceptional financial provisions. Of these, the one that matters tonight is vires. It is important that it is outside our terms of reference to discuss the appropriateness of a particular order-making power in the parent Act. That, as we all know, comes in various forms, the most serious of which is that giving rise to instruments requiring affirmative approval and draft instruments requiring affirmative approval (the difference here is largely technical); through instruments subject to annulment (that is, the negative resolution procedure) and which may or may not include some Northern Ireland legislation; on through instruments not subject to parliamentary proceedings laid before Parliament; finally, to the group which particularly concerns us this evening: instruments not subject to parliamentary proceedings, not laid before Parliament. It is this last group that Parliament has decided, through enacting the Education Reform Act 1988, and particularly Section 4 thereof, is appropriate for the implementation of key stage attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements for the national curriculum.
I decided that it was worthy of some study as to how that position was reached. The noble Earl, as a good professor, prompted me to carry out just such a study. It took me a little time, as the Education Reform Bill was rather like the Maastricht Bill in the thorough way in which the House debated it. Indeed, it gives me a little ironical amusement that this debate comes the day after the end of the Committee stage of

1005
the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. The House spent two days on the Second Reading debate; seven days in Committee; five days on Report; and two days on the Third Reading. The noble Earl was too modest to say that not only was it the first Committee stage that he was involved in but that it was also the Bill on which he made his maiden speech.
That said, my memory is that key stage assessment testing turned out to be slightly faulty. I discovered on Second Reading that the subject was certainly a minor issue—I think the noble Earl would agree. My evidence is the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, winding up for the Liberal Democrats did not mention the subject at all; nor did the noble Lord, Lord Peston, sitting in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, this evening. My noble friend Lady Hooper, the then Minister, did, however, touch on it by commenting on the report which had aroused the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, earlier and some others. The noble Baroness concluded:
"I assure your Lordships that the attainment targets, programmes of study and assessments taken together will be carefully constructed to ensure that they do not lead to a narrowing of focus that could undermine the Government's whole policy for the curriculum".
The issue, then, at that stage was a minor one. That, however, as the noble Earl said, was not to be maintained. It flared up in Committee and was the subject of the first Division on the second day. Even then it was not about testing per se; it was about the type of testing which was then envisaged. The amendment was not carried, but the important point is that my researches on Clause 4 at Committee stage revealed no mention of upgrading, still less attempt to upgrade, the order-making power to negative or even affirmative procedure. That was in Committee.
I pursued my inquiries to the Report stage. I eventually found Amendment No. 61A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to the effect that any order which was at variance with the advice of the National Curriculum Council or the Schools Examination and Assessment Council should be by affirmative resolution, and that any dispute as to the extent of the disagreement should be settled by judicial review. That was certainly rather a novel procedure but the matter was debated. Perhaps because of its novelty the amendment was resisted by the Government and subsequently defeated. I suppose it is just possible that the result, and certainly the debate, would have been rather different and better informed if we had had the advice of the Select Committee on delegated legislation, as we have for this year's Education Bill, as my noble friend will know. The whole subject had died away by the time that the Bill reached Third Reading.
The net result was that so far as the order-making provision in Clause 4, the Bill that arrived in your Lordships' House was the same in every respect as when it left it. We all know that since then the subject of key stage assessment testing has risen higher and higher on the political agenda. In the words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor, the Government are "in a hole". If my noble friend is to follow the implicit advice of the noble Earl, she has one of two courses open to her: either to drop any idea
1006
of laying any more orders on testing or to change the law to allow a fiercer order-making procedure. As I said, Parliament gets the legislation that it deserves.
As a parent and a governor I hope that my noble friend will resist both proposals. I want to know how well my child is doing at school in competition with his or her classmates. I want to know how well the school is doing vis-à-vis the other schools in Taunton. The hole in which the Government find themselves is a political and not a legislative one. It is a political solution that is required. I am therefore particularly grateful for the wise advice of my noble friend Lord Elton on how to achieve the solution. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will follow that advice.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for having introduced this subject tonight. He was obviously right to emphasise that this is not a party political issue and that what concerns us above all are the interests of children. It is important that we face up to the weaknesses in the system and to what has gone wrong.
First, perhaps I may say that it has been a particular pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has presided with such charm and effectiveness over so much of our work in the Education Committee. It is good to hear him participate in this little exchange this evening.
Since the inception of the national curriculum and the assessment arrangements, decisions over what is taught in schools and how it is assessed seem to have been rather dominated by top-down regulations. A characteristic of both the national curriculum subjects and testing appears to have been that no significant aspect has been agreed by genuine discussion and agreement between the Government and teachers, parents and governors. Despite that, some national curriculum orders have indeed gained acceptance and support from teachers because of the sensitivity of their subject working groups. The best examples are arguably the English order and the orders for modern foreign languages, art, music and PE. But such examples have been rather unusual.
The truth is that all too often the Secretary of State appears to have ridden roughshod over the views of teachers. The clearest example was when the Government, despite overwhelming opposition from the profession, parents and governors, drastically reduced the coursework element of GCSE. Most contentious was the reduction of the coursework element in English to an upper limit of 30 per cent. At a stroke, in that subject, as in others, teachers' ability to motivate young people was drastically undermined.
One of the characteristics of the national curriculum subject implementation has been the impossibly short timetable which the Government have forced on schools. That has been almost totally rigid and non-adaptable. It has led to tremendous work overload, especially in primary schools. For example, Coopers & Lybrand's 1991 investigation

1007
into the cost of introducing the national curriculum into primary schools detailed the effects of overload on teaching pupils the basic skills. I quote:
"There is no doubt that the National Curriculum and present levels of resourcing have changed the balance of the primary curriculum away from reading, writing and numbers towards the other National Curriculum subjects. As we have seen, time spent listening to reading has particularly been reduced".
A recent Ofsted report confirmed that finding. In that report a 1991–92 overview of the teaching of English found that:
"The pace of improvement in English in Key Stages 1 and 2 has slowed. This seems to be associated with the fact that teachers have had to respond to implementing other national curriculum subjects and the assessment of them, leading to less time for planning and less attention to developing the teaching of English".
When teachers, parents' and governors' groups have attempted to put moderate and reasonable proposals to the Government about how to find a way forward based on consensus, I am afraid that such proposals have been largely ignored. For instance, the Government, the current NCC, SEAC, the future SCAA and LEAs have the 1988 Act (Section 16) regulations at their disposal. That would permit the national curriculum to he wholly or partially suspended to allow experimental and developmental work on the curriculum and assessment. But the use of those regulations has never been considered. In fact, when a joint deputation from the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Head Teachers, the parent-governor organisations and CASE met the Secretary of State in October 1991 to present alternative assessment proposals, it was suggested that those proposals should be tried out in pilot schools. That suggestion was turned down flat by the Secretary of State. More recently, the Government's determination to stick to their goal regardless of mounting opposition has led to what I hope will not be considered overdoing it when I describe it as new heights of absurdity.
The last minute decision by the Secretary of State to switch to forms of testing of key stage 3 English, with materials being introduced into schools in the middle of the year, led to damaging disruption in secondary schools. The recently released survey of the 1993 national curriculum assessment arrangements in English in key stage 3 by the National Association for the Teaching of English, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, found that:
"By September 1992 almost all schools had established detailed plans (schemes of work) for Key Stage 3 based on the English order. But during the month that followed, most schools had been forced to make substantial changes to these schemes … The test requirements and the late announcements had led to substantial reductions—and in some cases omission —of elements of the National Curriculum programmes of study … Schools had set budgets and purchased books before the resource requirements of the SATs were published. As a consequence, schools had to find substantial additional financial resources".
The controversy over testing in schools this summer is part of the failure by government to listen to teachers and parents about the kinds of tests that are needed for the national curriculum. Quite unnecessarily the Secretary of State has alienated teachers, parents, governors and educationists. I find it highly disturbing that his concession to review the national
1008
curriculum was not the result of some reasoned discussion between himself and parents, governors and teachers but because of industrial action taken in despair.
Unfortunately, it is still all too evident that the Government have yet to learn one fundamental lesson; namely, that it is just not possible to improve the quality of education and increase teachers' morale by top-down order and diktat. Only recently the Secretary of State introduced new regulations which require the reporting of test results at key stage 1 in English, mathematics, science, technology, history and geography and at key stage 3 in English. mathematics, science and technology. Yet he knows full well that practically all schools in England and Wales have not completed the assessment arrangements and are not prepared to report the results this year. Further, the Secretary of State's decision to suspend assessment in technology, history and geography at key stage 1 in 1994 and to reconsider whether assessment should go ahead in technology at key stage 3 in 1994 seems to indicate that his right hand does not know what his left hand is doing.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the Dearing review itself is in danger of being compromised. When Sir Ron Dearing started the first of his round of consultative conferences on the review of the curriculum and assessment, he reassuringly said:
"I came to the task with no preconception. The agenda is on the table; the questions raise fundamentals and we shall be studying everything that is said in reply".
Yet the Minister has shown how far removed she is from those hopes. She firmly refused to recognise that the new powers of assessment audit which the Education Bill introduces could well alienate teachers even further. She has equally firmly refused to recognise the hopes of teachers, parents and governors. In short, she has imposed severe restraints on the ability of Sir Ron Dearing to reach agreement.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will recall that as recently as 21st June she said,
"I end by saying that three principal factors are absolutely crucial and are not negotiable. One is the framework of the national curriculum. The second is a system of assessment and testing; and the third is public information on performance". —[Official Report, 21/6/93; col. 89.]
The Government still have a chance to allow the Dearing review to do its job convincingly. The Secretary of State could regain considerable credibility and respect by facing up to reality and recognising the irrelevance of this year's assessment and testing arrangements. He could describe his 11th May Statement as a contribution to the review, not fixed in stone, and make clear that it is capable of rejection by the review's interim proposals. The Secretary of Stale could insist that the review must not be rushed and that the views of teachers', parents' arid governors' organisations are fundamental to the direction of the review.
In Scotland regional negotiations followed a decision of government in 1992 to withdraw regulations on imposed national tests and to introduce flexibility and improve new areas of professional discretion into the assessment arrangements. We on these Benches support testing schemes that. are

1009
coherent, meaningful and manageable. As we have repeatedly made plain, we support a system similar to that in Scotland for England and Wales.
It is manifestly inconsistent and most unfair to deny the parents, children and teachers of England and Wales the benefits of a system which has been conceded by the Government in Scotland. Although not perfect, the Scottish system enjoys the confidence of the vast majority of those concerned. That is why we seek assurances from the Government that the Dearing review will not be prevented from examining the possibility of extending the Scottish system of testing school pupils to England and Wales.
We, like our Liberal colleagues—with whom I am glad we share so much in common in our approach to education—seek assurances that the Government will not continue to proceed with contentious issues by regulations.
8.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am going to stick, if I may, to the Motion on the Order Paper. I should like more time to take issue with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. A great deal of what he said was unsubstantiated and some was innuendo. Given that he was going to remain apolitical, it was an extraordinary 10 minutes of his time in the debate.
I shall take the advice of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. We are discussing a subject which is in any event contentious and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has made no secret of that. He has said something contentious about the system of assessment and testing many times since his entry into this House. Therefore any order or regulation that comes before this House I feel would not meet with his acquiescence.
I wish to make two points in regard to the Ron Dearing review. First, I do not intend to come to this Dispatch Box and pre-empt the outcome of the review. On the one hand I am accused of interfering with, pre-empting or stifling that review; and on the other I am invited to say something definitive about it. Secondly, there is an extensive dialogue taking place with teachers. It has a wide remit. I am not going to do anything to inhibit that, nor do I intend to enter into any redefinition of what the remit should be.
I have listened with interest to the debate. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, if one removed the issue of testing one could talk about any order, any regulation and indeed the use of subordinate legislation for issues which might be considered contentious—which is what I thought the Motion was concerned with.
I am very conscious that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others who have spoken in the debate have made a thorough study of these matters. The noble Earl made a distinguished and powerful contribution to the debates which led to the establishment of the House's new Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers—and indeed played an equally influential part in informing the analysis which appears in the committee's first report.
1010
The Government's position on the use of delegated powers and secondary legislation was set out in the memorandum we submitted to the Select Committee in January this year. I shall not try the patience of your Lordships by repeating today all that we said in that memorandum. But I would emphasise that what we are seeking to do—and what the Select Committee itself seeks to do—is to steer a sensible and proper course between the demands of effective scrutiny of legislation and the no less pressing demands on the time of this House.
No one would dispute the need to distinguish between primary legislation and the detailed secondary legislation which is consequential to it and flows from it. Like everyone else who has looked into this subject, the Government have considered carefully whether some set of criteria could be drawn up which would provide a clear test of when something was primary and when it was consequential; and in the latter case, where a delegated power was appropriate, whether there were criteria which could be laid down in advance to determine whether a secondary measure should be introduced by means of an affirmative resolution, a negative resolution or without scrutiny.
We concluded, as have previous governments, that that is just not practicable. Those matters have to be determined case by case on their merits. The new Select Committee on scrutiny came to the same conclusion and indeed quotes the Government's memorandum with approval on that point in its own list of conclusions.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, makes the particular point that a measure should not appear in secondary legislation if it is contentious or controversial. That is an attractive proposition. The noble Earl's evidence to the Select Committee, and published as part of the committee's first report, states his view that major matters of political controversy should not be embodied in regulations. The noble Earl went on to say—and I hope that he will forgive my quoting his words:
"It is not, of course, possible to draw up constitutional lists of matters of political controversy. This is a matter of political good sense rather than the making of rules."
I would endorse that. It is clearly not possible to know what matters will provoke great concern. It is certainly not necessary for an issue to stray outside the basic structures and principles established in a piece of primary legislation for it to provoke debate. Moreover, what is contentious to one person is not to another. What is controversial now may not have been so in the past and vice versa.
With the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers we now have a potentially powerful mechanism for considering in an informed way just those questions as Bills come before the House. My noble friend Lord Elton is an eminent member of that body. The Government, as your Lordships will know, have undertaken to provide a separate memorandum to the Select Committee on each Bill as it comes up. I have no doubt that the Select Committee, under its chairman, my noble friend Lord Rippon, will be quick to report if it feels that an inappropriate proposal has been made and that something should appear on the

1011
face of a Bill which at present does not. My department had the honour, or at least the distinction, of producing the first such memorandum in relation to the Education Bill.
I turn now from the general to the particular of the national curriculum assessment orders. The principle of assessment and testing is not itself contentious. It is an integral and vital element of the national curriculum. Parliament gave its assent to assessment as part of the national curriculum in passing the Education Reform Act.
The noble Earl did however raise the question as to whether the assessment orders and associated tests should be subject to affirmative or to negative resolution. We have to ask whether it is realistic to expect Parliament to approve the details of the assessment and testing arrangements. Those are essentially operational matters and matters of detail.
The orders give effect to the arrangements for assessment and testing. They cover such matters as the way in which an overall score for a subject is derived from the constituent parts of the tests and teacher assessment. They set out provisions for the case where a pupil misses a test for various reasons. They provide for the verification of the results from the tests.
Those matters are the bare bones of the assessment arrangements. While teachers and others naturally have an interest in them—and that is why we consult on the orders —they are not really the stuff of which controversy is made.
Of course I accept that the tests themselves this year have provoked heated debate. The question then arises whether Parliament should scrutinise the tests. I cannot accept that it is right for Parliament to do so. My reasons are three-fold. First, the tests are largely taken "unseen" by pupils. It would not be a fair test of what pupils can do if the papers are public knowledge well in advance. That would defeat the purpose of testing. And how could the tests be kept confidential if Parliament were asked to scrutinise them?
Secondly, the tests are in their nature detailed documents. Looking at the tests of 14 year-olds this year, each pupil takes three papers in each subject. There are different sets of papers in each subject depending on the ability of the child and the level for which he or she is entered. There is surely too much detail here for it to be appropriate for Parliament to get to grips with.
Thirdly, it is not Ministers who write the test questions. They are not written by officials in my department. The School Examinations and Assessment Council commissions those with a particular expertise in examining to devise the questions and to try them out. Ministers and our officials are not well placed to determine what the questions should be and how they should be put. I would argue that the same consideration applies to Parliament and that it is a rare noble Lord who would be well-placed to consider the tests.
I think that the Government's record in this matter is an honourable one. In addition, I believe that both the findings of the Second Report of the delegated powers scrutiny committee on the Education Bill and
1012
the response of the House and of the Government to those findings augurs well for the important role of this House as a revising and scrutinising Chamber.
My noble friend Lord Elton was kind enough to give me notice of some specific questions. If I may link his questions with what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, resolving teachers' concern about assessment and testing is not a procedural issue. It is a practical one and one of policy and perhaps even of politics. That is why Sir Ron Dearing is conducting the review. But I shall answer the specific question of how the GCSE levels 10 to 4 will be converted to grades A to G. For written examinations, conversion between the two grading scales will be undertaken by the GCSE examining groups. For course work, schools have been advised by the School Examinations and Assessment Council to submit marks or levels to the examining groups which will combine course work and examination marks to determine subject grades.
I was asked whether I was aware that English syllabuses for 1992–94 for the GCSE examination cycle were issued to schools late and then altered in the autumn. As my noble friend said, the syllabuses for English courses introduced in the classroom last September were sent to schools in April 1992. This was a little later than usual. The programmes of study underpinning the syllabuses had been with the schools since March 1990. That needs to be understood. I also understand that subsequently some late additions were made by the GCSE examining groups to certain of the English literature syllabuses. However. in contrast to what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the impact on schools of these changes was minimal and none of them affected the national curriculum English syllabuses.
I was asked how the GCSE syllabuses geared to the 10-level scale could be used for grades A to G. The syllabuses are geared to the programmes of study in the national curriculum. The Government and the School Examinations and Assessment Council have both recently taken steps to reassure teachers and schools that the recently announced grading changes do not mean any discontinuity in the GCSE work that they started last September. I can assure my noble friend that there will not be changes before they sit the examinations.
I was also asked whether schools would suffer further disruption to GCSE studies in English because the syllabuses which pupils are now studying will be changed before they take their examinations in 1994. They will not. The plan is that a new English order will come into effect in 1994 in key stages 1, 2 and 3, anti in 1995 in key stage 4. Pupils will not therefore start to study new GCSE syllabuses based on new curriculum requirements for English until the autumn of 1995, and will not be examined on those syllabuses before the summer of 1997.
It has not been the easiest of years. It certainly has not been easy for teachers and schools. We recognise that and understand it. We wish Sir Ron Dearing well. There is a real dialogue taking place between Sir Ron, his colleagues, the teachers and the schools. We hope that will continue and produce a positive outcome. I

1013
can say to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that we will take careful note of what the committee and the House have to say on these matters and of what your Lordships have said today.

Railways Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("appoint") to end of line 20 on page 2 and insert ("an officer to be known as the Director of Railway Regulation and Franchising for the purpose of carrying out the functions assigned or transferred to the Regulator or (as the case may be be) the Franchising Director, by or under this Act.
(2) An appointment of a person to hold office as the Director of Railway Regulation and Franchising shall be for a term not exceeding five years; but previous appointment to this office shall not affect eligibility for re-appointment.
(3) The Secretary of State may remove any person from office as the Director of Railway Regulation and Franchising on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour.
(4) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) above, a person appointed as the Director of Railway Regulation and Franchising shall hold and vacate office as such in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(5) When discharging the functions of the Franchising Director, the Director of Railway Regulation and Franchising shall act as a corporation sole by the name of "The Director of Railway Regulation and Franchising".
(6) The provisions of Schedule Ito this Act shall have effect with respect to the Director of Railway Regulation and Franchising.").
The noble Lord said: As my name is attached to the amendment, I move it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and myself. It is a probing amendment designed to make more understandable the necessity to separate the functions of the regulation of railway services and the procurement of railway services in the public interest through franchising. The franchising director is to be given powers of regulation of fares on non-franchise services, if assurances given in the House of Commons are followed through. This suggests that there is a considerable overlap between the roles and a lack of clarity in the Government's intentions for each of the new offices. It seems to us that combining the offices would reduce bureaucracy and simplify the new structure.
What is clear is that there is consensus that a triad —perhaps the Minister will disagree with this—or even a trinity is overkill. Looking at the emerging picture, it is increasingly clear that the Government are blurring the distinction between the regulator's role, which includes the protection of the public interest, and the franchising director's role, which must also include the public interest in the way in which he specifies services. Charging—that is to say, fares—is normally looked upon as a regulatory matter: yet here it is to be with the franchising director. So although in the purest sense one could say that licensing and regulation are logically separate from procurement of services, in a complex industry like the railways the overlap becomes quite considerable. What the Government apparently
1014
propose in respect of fares exemplifies this. Therefore the amendment suggests that one new officer can discharge both functions, simplifying the tiers of bureaucracy with which operators and the public have to deal. The Government need to produce some rather better arguments than they have so far to justify the separation.
In addition to simplification, there is need for more development and not mere regulation in the Bill. The proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrats 18 months ago suggested that there should be a rail enterprise and development office. We fear that the way the legislation is going will preserve the bureaucratic aspect of the 19th century concept of railways. I am sure, based on what he has said today, that that is not what the Minister intends. But new technology and the great advances made in road and air transport—and freight in particular—should not lead to the demise of rail freight but its parallel development. So the figure at the top should not be a regulator but one who is responsive to enterprise and to development. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for moving this amendment. He is a signatory to it and it is a probing amendment. We wish to find out what is the Government's view on it. The Bill rests on a triad of rail masters who control a large supporting cast. It is a unique venture separating the trains from the tracks on which they run and requiring that both the providers of the infrastructure and the operators of the train services to operate commercially. Nowhere else in the world, nor in the entire history of the railways of this country, have these things been done.
The first member of the triad operates anonymously. The name of Railtrack, while nowhere on the face of the Bill although the first new body to be described in A guide to the Government's Proposals, which was issued to your Lordships' House before Second Reading, will provide the infrastructure, track, signals and stations.
On the Railtrack network the Government hope that soon they will be running the trains of a myriad of railway operating companies. Most of them will hold franchises, with British Rail itself operating companies. Most may be completely commercial open access passenger services. But all freight will be on the open access basis.
The second person in the triad is the regulator—a Godfather-like creature. He is to grant licences, guard access rights and seek to promote and protect the users' interests. He will also develop the railway services. Regulators in other privatisations, notably of gas, electricity and telephones, have looked after the availability of services and the prices charged to customers.
The third member of the triad is the franchising director. He is the human face. As someone put it, he is the Mr. Nice Guy, the smoothie, the purchaser, the specifier of passenger railway services needed for the public good; the facilitator of some of the regulator's aims of promoting and developing rail services. He

1015
will secure the compliance of the minor players to the standards required for the carriage of passengers and he will exact penalties when they fail.
A most significant additional duty emerged for the franchising director at Report stage in another place. The Minister will he aware that Mr. Roger Freeman, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill, said:
"First, a duty should be imposed on the franchise director in respect of fares … clause 5 is probably the most appropriate for that to be introduced".
Clause 5 deals with the duties of the franchising director, a topic which we believe is something which can be looked at with pleasure. Mr. Freeman went on to elaborate three other matters:
"Secondly, … a duty in relation to fares exercised through the franchising agreement … some services will run outwith the franchising arrangements … existing railway services throughout Great Britain will be subject to franchises. Therefore, the agreements into which the franchising director will enter will cover all services".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/93; col. 814.]
Looking at the emerging picture, it is increasingly clear that the Government are blurring the distinction between the regulator's role, which includes protection of the public interest, and the franchising director's, which must also include the public interest in the way he specifies services. Charging fares is normally looked on as a regulatory matter, yet here it is to he with the franchising director. As set out in the Bill originally, that is not his job.
Although in a purist sense one could say that the licensing and regulation are totally separate from the procurement of services, in a complex industry like the railways the overlap becomes considerable. What the Government apparently propose in respect of fares shows that very clearly. Therefore, the amendment suggests that one new officer can discharge both functions, simplifying the tiers of bureaucracy with which operators and the public will have to deal. I believe that the Government need to produce good arguments to justify continued separation as proposed in the Bill. Therefore, I fully approve and support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
The Earl of Caithness: I am delighted to share the enthusiasm to cut down bureaucracy and streamline the new system, as put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. It will not come as any surprise to them that we thought very long and hard about the number and nature of new offices to be established under our privatisation proposals. Our aim has been to minimise the bureaucracy involved while grouping responsibilities in a way which makes good, practical sense. We concluded that the offices of the franchising director and the regulator should be separate because the functions of each office are different.
The regulator is to have oversight of the railway industry as a whole. He will be concerned with use of the network by train operators as well as the use of train services by passengers. He is to be responsible for licensing operators, for overseeing access agreements, for promoting competition, and for promoting the use of the railway network. His interests will cover freight as well as passenger services.
The franchising director will be concerned with the franchising of passenger railway services. He will have
1016
a budget for paying subsidy provided by the Secretary of State, and, using that budget, he will be responsible for securing the provision of socially necessary passenger railway services throughout the country, working jointly with the PTAs and PTEs in their areas.
The franchising director will naturally have an interest in seeing that access to the track is made available as cheaply as possible to the franchisees. His natural inclination would be to see trainpaths awarded to franchisees above all others—freight operators or new open access operators. The regulator, on the other hand, while recognising the importance of franchised passenger services, will be concerned with the interests of all rail users and in seeing that these are efficiently catered for across the board.
While we have accepted that some moderation of competition will be necessary to get franchising under way, our aim ultimately is to create a competitive market for railway services, with operators competing for custom and bidding for trainpaths. Only through this process will the railway be turned around so that the focus is on providing the services rail customer; really want. That is why it is important for the regulator to be independent of both the franchising director and of the Secretary of State.
If the posts were merged, non-franchise operators and indeed Railtrack would always have the suspicion that the director of railway regulation and franchising would favour his own franchised services over others' interests. I hope that the Committee will agree that that cannot be right.
There will be a long-term role both for the regulator and for the franchising director. As competition develops and as more operators come on to the network, his role in overseeing the terms of access will become more important. But even in the long term we accept that some socially necessary passenger services are likely to continue to require subsidy. Those services will be procured by the franchising director.
I hope that I have made it absolutely clear why, after a great deal of consideration and having looked at the argument for combining both posts, we feel that it is better to separate them.
9 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister for that interesting reply. I actually heard the word "promote" once or twice, which gives me some encouragement in relation to what I was saying about the development of the service. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I have both said, this is a probing amendment and we shall clearly need to look at the reply. I begin to understand that there may be points at which the separation of services is of some benefit to the railway system as a whole, so perhaps I may leave it there for the moment. When we have read the Minister's reply and thought about it, we may come back on this point at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]

1017
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Rail users' consultative committees]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("Rail") and insert ("Transport").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 8. A fair amount of the subject matter of these amendments was discussed in relation to earlier amendments which many of us believed were so substantive as to lead almost to Second Reading-type speeches. I am pleased to be associated in this amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who will perhaps speak more fully than myself about it.
As currently drafted, the Bill proposes to abolish the existing CTCCs and TUCCs and replace them with committees, the titles of which confine them to matters relating only to rail travel. As the amendment clearly shows, we feel that that is too narrow and that the committees should be able to consider much wider transport matters. Wider functions in respect of the ferries, the Underground, and light rail and bus services are actually written back into the Bill at a later stage although at this early stage they appear to have been removed. We are concerned about the position of a number of transport users' consultative committees for the north east and the north west of England and for the Manchester Metrolink, as well as about the Scottish users' consultative committee. They deal with much wider forms of travel than purely the railway system. It would be an absolute tragedy if they should be lost in areas where there is a very good combination of rail, road, Underground and bus transport. In Scotland, there is also an important network of steamers on the Clyde and the sleeper trains which meet them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has tabled important amendments to Clauses 68 and 69 to extend the remit of the committees to allow for open access to rail services also. We hope that those amendments will attract wide support.
It is interesting that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, extend the powers of the TUCCs explicitly to bus users, with the primary roles of traffic commissioners and local authorities being, I believe, ingeniously preserved and built upon by his amendments. I hope that the noble Lord's amendments, to which he will speak much more fully than I have, will receive the deep consideration and support of the Committee.
Lord Teviot: It is a great pleasure to join the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in these amendments. I am sure that he will remember the many amendments that we shared in 1985. The noble Lord has considerably thrown me because I had thought that I was to move Amendment No. 7. I hope, however, that I am a sufficiently skilled parliamentarian—I rather doubt it—to condense my prepared speech and to leave out the points which the noble Lord mentioned. The first point on which I must take issue with the noble Lord is that I do not think that these matters have been discussed earlier.
1018
The first pair of amendments, to Clauses 2 and 3, reverse a change in title that the Bill proposes. Currently, we have a central transport consultative committee, the regional transport users' consultative committees and the London regional passengers' committee. I believe that passengers by all forms of land public transport in the UK need representation. The CTCC, TUCCs and LRPC have discharged the function admirably for railway users. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned Caledonian MacBrayne's ferry services in Scotland.
As the noble Lord mentioned many others also, I shall not do so, but shall move on to my next point and to the substance of the amendment. As the problems of congestion and environmental pollution increase, it will be increasingly important that we look at all forms of passenger transport together. Members of the Committee know that I take a close interest in the bus industry and in the excellent work that is carried out by the magnificent seven passenger transport authorities and executives in the main conurbations outside London. I believe that the Government wish the sort of entrepreneurial skills that have been shown by the managers of the newly independent bus companies to be applied to railway passenger services. Indeed, they hope that some of the bus companies will bid for franchises.
I am presuming that your Lordships are aware of the Reverend W. Awdry's railway stories, so I ask the Committee to consider the situation if Bertie's bus service successfully takes on Thomas's branch line. What better solution than Bertie and his colleagues delivering and collecting passengers to the stations along the route? But what if something goes wrong on the journey? If it is on the branch line it is easy. One contacts the users consultative committee which will weigh the complaint and take the necessary action. But if it is on the bus, there is no focus. The traffic commissioner may or may not be interested. The local authority may have an interest if it pays a subsidy. Surely that cannot be right. Passengers using Bertie's bus services to link with Thomas's branch line regard themselves as making one journey with several parts. One body should therefore represent their interests.
A more logical arrangement than that proposed by the Bill would be to retain the consultative committees as full transport consultative committees—in fact, as passenger consultative committees. They would perhaps discharge a wider function more effectively if responsible directly to the Secretary of State rather than to the regulator. At present, the CTCC and TUCCs report to the President of the Board of Trade. Clearly, they must work also with the traffic commissioner and local authorities. That is why in extending their functions to buses I have included those bodies in the proposed amendments to Clauses 68 and 69.
This is something upon which I hope the Government will wish to reflect. They may say that the market will ensure that the passenger is satisfied about open access rail services or commercial bus services, but many passengers may use fully commercial, subsidised or franchised services in the course of a single journey. The Government promote charters for

1019
consumers and encourage companies to gain quality accreditation under BS 5750. The setting up of transport consultative committees in the way that I propose gives passengers a watchdog that can act as a ginger group without in any way fettering the activities of any other bodies involved. Of course, many of the private bus companies have adopted the Bus and Coach Council's code of practice for dealing with complaints. Such procedures are adequate in the vast majority of cases. We hope that private railway operators will be similarly enlightened, but if problems cannot be resolved locally the wisdom and impartiality of bodies such as the CTCC and the TUCCs is invaluable.
The amendments are not, I am afraid, technically perfect. They are designed to allow the Committee to consider in more depth questions of consumer representation and, in particular, the need to place railways in the context of inland passenger transport as a whole. I hope that the Government will be persuaded to go more widely than the Bill does at present, so we may come back at a later stage with more comprehensive amendments.
Viscount Goschen: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to retain the old names of transport users' consultative committees and central transport users' consultative committee for the new consumer committees. I cannot recommend them to the Committee for several reasons. The new committees will differ from the old ones in certain aspects in terms of their constitutional and administrative arrangements. We have already expanded their role, and we intend to introduce amendments that will allow them to investigate all aspects of passenger services provided by franchisees, British Rail or on behalf of the franchising director. That will mean that for the first time the committees will be able to comment freely on all aspects of fares, levels of service, closures, franchises and any other matters concerning passengers.
I trust that the Committee will agree that to abolish the old committees and replace them with identically named ones would seem more than a little odd. The new names, which have the support of the committees themselves, will also better reflect their role. That is because, apart from some ferry services in Scotland, they will have no remit other than rail services.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 115 and 119. Those amendments seek to require the central rail users' consultative committee and the rail users' consultative committees to investigate matters relating to bus services. They are therefore outside the scope of this Bill. Even if that were not the case, de-regulated buses are open to market forces and we therefore see no requirement for a statutory users' committee. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: Before the noble Lord replies, I must tell my noble friend that I am wholly dissatisfied with that reply. I made various points, and I hoped to be given more information. It might be better to bring the amendments back on Report when matters are clearer and amendments can be more tightly drawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Amendment No. 7 suggests that the committees should not be involved with rail only. I am grateful to the Minister for the further explanation that they will be involved with fares, services and franchises. That is an advance for which we are grateful.
But, transport, particularly in urban areas, is not just a matter of rail services. When one is dumped at Victoria or Euston Station, one wants to continue one's journey. We want the TUCCs to concern themselves with connecting services. Perhaps Euston and Victoria Stations are bad examples to use in this context. However, if one travels to Gourock, one wants to take a ferry across to Rothesay or Dunoon. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I see the role of the TUCCs as not just being concerned with the railways but with the whole integrated transport system. That was what we obtained from good TUCCs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that—
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I was trying to stress that the word "rail" would better reflect the role of these bodies as we are principally talking about rail services. When I referred to "rail" I inferred that rail would cover the other services we are talking about which are rail based, for example the Underground. The London Regional Passengers Committee is an example of this point. The main thrust of our discussion concerns rail services. Therefore we feel that the term "rail" would better reflect the function of the committees we are discussing than the term "transport".
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I understand what the noble Viscount has said. Obviously we are not discussing bus services that do not run to railheads, for example. Therefore I do not follow the logic of the noble Viscount's argument. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I too feel that "transport" is a better term in this context. As I have said, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the fares, services arid franchises. He has gone a little further than we expected on that. If the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is agreeable to my suggestion, I am only too happy to take this matter away and examine it carefully. Perhaps we may have an off the record discussion with the Minister on the meaning of this provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish briefly to make a couple of observations. Clause 2(6) deals with the formation of the consultative committees. It will be the duty of the Secretary of State to appoint the chairmen after consultation with the regulator. What sort of criteria will the Secretary of State, together with the regulator, consider for the appointment of these chairmen? Are they to have specifically local knowledge and experience? I hope they will not be automatically supporters of the Conservative Party as happens with

1021
so many quangos these days. I hope I can rely upon the Secretary of State not to apply those kinds of criteria.
What then happens is that the regulator appoints between 10 and 20 other members but he has to consult with the Secretary of State and the chairman. What kind of experience will these people have? What kind of criteria does the Minister expect that the regulator will apply? I commend the Government on Schedule 2 which is associated with Clause 2. I particularly commend the Government for paragraph 9 of that schedule which has amended the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act by ensuring that when appointing members of the committee regard should be given to the desirability of appointing people who are disabled or who have experience of work among the disabled, or who have knowledge of the special needs of the disabled.
That is a significant advance. I have not often been in the business of applauding the Government, but I do so on this occasion. I have made a probing request and I have applauded the Minister, who was not present while I was busy doing so. I hope that what I have said in the latter respect will be regarded by the Government as helpful.
Viscount Goschen: I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that there is no statutory requirement as regards the appointment of the chairman. I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 which amends Section 14(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not understand that reply. In the Notes on Clauses there is specific reference to the provision that the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman of each consultative committee. On what basis will that be done? The noble Viscount says that there is no statutory duty. Is there no obligation on the Secretary of State? If there is no obligation, what will happen? I do not understand what the Minister is saying.
Viscount Goschen: The obligation is to select the best man for the job.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes, but I do not understand why the noble Viscount says that there is no statutory duty. Of course there is a statutory duty.
Viscount Goschen: There are no statutory requirements as regards deciding who shall be the chairmen of the committees. The Secretary of State will take into account a wide range of factors, including the prospective chairman's knowledge of rail services.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Viscount said: "The best man for the job". Are women excluded?
Viscount Goschen: Indeed, I made a politically incorrect remark. I should have said that the Secretary of State will choose the best person for the job.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
1022
Clause 3 [The Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [General duties of the Secretary of State and the Regulator]:
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert ("and having regard to the economic needs of rural areas").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, who sends his apologies to the Committee for his absence but he supports all that I shall say on the amendment.
Clause 4 seeks to establish the general duties of the Secretary of State and the regulator. We thought it appropriate to add to that clause a responsibility of the Secretary of State and the regulator to be aware of the importance of the rural economy. I know that that issue was raised earlier, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, but that addressed rural areas more generally. This amendment draws attention specifically to the economic needs of rural areas.
During recent years there has been a large upsurge in economic activity in rural areas, particularly as the agricultural industry has lost its importance in creating wealth in those areas. There has been a large movement of businesses and investments into rural areas. Therefore, the rail service is an extremely important part of providing services and products to those industries and, indeed, taking away the products. The whole concept of development in rural areas has been extremely important for people who have moved out of agricultural industries. It is particularly important in the more remote areas; for example, in Wales, Cumbria, on the East side of the country and in the South West.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the facilities and resources which are at present used to maintain those rail services in rural areas will be maintained. As I understand it, out of the total grant which British Rail takes from the Government, some £400 million per year goes towards maintaining those rural services. In addition, something in the order of £7 million comes from local authorities. I seek to ensure that those resources continue to be available and that the Government understand the importance of maintaining the economic viability of those areas. There is considerable anxiety in rural communities that the Bill may make the continuation of those services difficult if the Government do not ensure that that money continues to be available.
We wish to see the franchises operated in the rural areas, but, in order to do so, they will clearly need Government support. I should be most grateful if my noble friend would explain how that system will work, how he sees the franchisee being able to derive benefit from the grant that is now available to British Rail and whether he feels confident that the services that are now available to rural areas will continue under the new system.
I should like to ask my noble friend another question relating to this matter. I intend to withdraw

1023
Amendment No. 21 which raises a slightly different issue. Without going into that, perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that the electricity, telecommunications and water legislation made provision to ensure that charges in rural areas were not increased as a result of the extra costs involved in those areas. The Acts stipulated that there had to be an equalisation of charges. Rural communities are anxious that, under the Bill, the franchisee might well increase the rail charges both for freight and passengers in the more inaccessible areas. Clearly, it is important that the rates are not excessive and do not make it uneconomic to carry out businesses in those rural areas. I should be most grateful if my noble friend would deal with those matters. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. He is right to point out the importance of maintaining the rural economy, but it cannot be separated from the difficulties that will inevitably be faced by rural services. They face critical situations and there is always a shadow overhanging them. That point has been borne out by history over the past 30 years or so. The special problems that arise in relation to the Government's plans are that if the franchise director finds that he is running out of money —it is not impossible that that should be the case—he might find that he is not able to provide for rural lines which are the biggest loss-making area and which might therefore receive the lowest priority. He will have to work to a fixed budget and there will be strains on that budget. Consequently, there will be pressure to maintain rural services which may not be possible.
I do think that the costs of running rural services are likely to rise under the Government's proposals. Revenue could well be reduced. Extra subsidies are unlikely to be available to allow for that, at least on the scale that is required. The Government's plans in relation to the railways are to halve total rail spending over the next three years and there will therefore be less public money available for subsidy or investment. So, even if I were wrong about the last proposition, there can be little doubt that rural services are likely to come under threat.
The position is rendered even more difficult by the fact that there will be incentives to end the provision of cross-franchise services. Regional railway cross-country services have been something of a success in recent years. They have been considerably expanded and upgraded with new trains, but the trouble is that they fit rather badly into the different franchise areas and the danger is that administrative tidiness could well take precedence over passengers' needs. I understand that there is some talk of curtailing the East Anglia north-west services at Peterborough rather than Norwich in order to aid the franchising process.
I want to see the same objectives fulfilled as those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. You cannot glibly talk away the problems that arise because there is no doubt that rural services, sometimes representing those with the highest costs and lowest revenues, are
1024
likely to be particularly vulnerable. Therefore, the noble Lord's request is particularly apposite. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: On these Benches we support the noble Lord, Lord Wade, as regards the amendment. It seems that rural economies can suffer greatly due to market forces. In times of recession, there will be less use of the railway services. Moreover, if those services are under the pressure of market forces, they are vulnerable to closure. We would like the Minister to give some assurance that such services will be safeguarded.
Lord Marlesford: I support my noble friend Lord Wade in his amendment. I should like briefly to make two or three points. First, we are now in are new era compared to the days of Beeching; indeed, it is a time when people are moving into the countryside rather than out of it. Therefore, the idea that it should be necessary to close rural services is not sustainable.
Secondly, I am afraid that there is a temptation for British Rail under its present management to run down rural services, often by subterfuge or by pure bad management. I already gave the example this afternoon of the way in which the names of stations served by British Rail services are being omitted from the timetable, allegedly in the name of saving cost. Thirdly, in the case of unmanned stations—and it is quite right that they should not be manned—it is high time that British Rail introduced a proper communication service so that passengers who use those railway stations know when a train is either delayed or cancelled. At present, they are often unaware of the situation. That is an astonishing fact, but, nevertheless, it is true.
I should like to say a word about the public service subsidy. My noble friend Lord Wade suggested that of the £1 billion plus which goes to British Rail some £400 million goes to rural services. It is most important that we should know exactly which services receive the money. Further, the Government have a real role in allocating that money. It is not fair to leave it all to local authorities. The Government have a ready-made body which, I suggest, could be used to advise them on the needs in rural areas. I refer to the Rural Development Commission. If the commission was asked to have as part of its mandate the provision of advice on where the rural services are needed, where they are under threat and the extent of services, I believe that that would be extremely valuable.
Finally, with the privatisation of rural services—I like to think of it as privatisation; I have some difficulty with the franchise concept—far from being less efficient and less easy to provide such services, I believe that there would be much more initiative involved in providing them. Of course. people would have to be paid where it is wholly uneconomic as, indeed, they are at present. That situation would not change. However, I believe that we could have much enhanced rural services which would actually supplement the growing interest that there is for people to live in and visit the countryside. In cost

1025
terms, I am sure that it would be a great deal less expensive as well as environmentally more desirable than building many extra roads in the country.
The Earl of Caithness: I am glad that my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton has raised such an important matter. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that he has done, especially in the North West, in making the economy so successful in the rural areas. The Government recognise the important role that the railways play in many rural communities. I stressed that fact in answer to the first amendment moved this afternoon when we touched upon a similar matter. That is why we have taken pains to make clear on a number of occasions the Government's commitment to continue to pay subsidy for socially necessary, loss-making services for as long as is necessary.
We have also made clear that the statutory closure procedures will continue to be extremely vigorous. There is absolutely no reason to believe that privatisation will lead to more closures. Therefore, our policies already recognise implicitly the economic needs of rural areas.
Having said that, I have difficulty with inserting an explicit mention of economic needs of rural areas as my noble friend commends to the Committee because all of the objectives which the amendment embodies are already covered in the duties in Clause 4 as drafted. The duty in Clause 4(1) (a) to protect the interests of users of railway services and that in Clause 4(1) (b) to promote the use and development of the railway network to the greatest extent economically practicable are both relevant to the needs of rural areas as they stand. To add a specific reference to rural areas might imply that we thought that urban areas were in some way less important, which I am sure is not the intention of my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the question of regional railways and cross-country services. Those will be subject to separate franchises. Franchise areas are not necessarily geographically specific because the franchises will inevitably overlap, as BR profit centres do at the moment.
I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Marlesford had to say. Again, he returned to the issue of greater transparency regarding the loss-making services. I have no doubt that franchising and the work of the franchising director will be a revelation to many of us who wish to know where the taxpayer's money is being spent at present.
My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton also looked forward to Amendment No. 21. I have to point out that the railways are different from the gas, electricity and water services. I believe that if he reflects upon it he will see that Amendment No. 21 would have all sorts of unforeseen consequences in distinguishing between first class and standard class passengers. That would lead to problems that would be capable of being remedied only by allowing a franchisee to try to provide the service that most people in that part of the world wanted. It might be that in some rural areas there is a greater demand for first-class services than in other rural areas. To try to
1026
make everything the same would inhibit the travelling public from being given the type of services that they deserve and which we believe the franchisees will be able to give them in the future.
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important point. I hope that I have been able to set his mind at rest.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he replied to the amendment. There are a number of issues which I feel he did not address. I still do not understand how in practice a franchisee will be structured to be able to afford to run a rural railway and to make use of the funding which now goes to British Rail. However, in order to make progress, I shall not press the matter. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to contact him and have a conversation with him about that matter. If that is satisfactory, there will be no need to take the matter further at Report stage. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 11 A not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert:
("(c) the interests of users and potential users of services for the carriage of goods by railway provided by a private sector operator, in respect of—

(i) the prices charged for carriage of goods by means of those services; and

(ii) the quality of the service provided,

in cases where the circumstances appear to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Regulator to be such as to give rise, or be likely to give rise, to a situation where railway services are being provided where no competitive transport market exists.").
The noble Lord said: I put down the amendment two days ago and my noble friend Lord Kimball wished to support the amendment. Unfortunately, through a misunderstanding which I believe was entirely my own fault, my name was removed from the amendment and my noble friend Lord Kimball was left as its only supporter. That was a misunderstanding and I should like to move the amendment.
At Second Reading I said that I supported the full privatisation of British Rail but that, sadly, this Bill did not go so far as to permit that to take place. If we cannot have full-blooded privatisation, we must ensure that the present monopoly which is so damaging to free competition is not allowed to continue. On the passenger side that will be achieved by the franchising of certain lines to the private sector —a move which I welcome. That is a matter which is being greatly debated and will no doubt continue to be debated during the Committee stage.
However, with the rail freight industry the Bill fails in many respects to ensure that the highest degree of competition is promoted, in particular regarding the activities of the current Trainload Freight division of BR. Although I generally welcome the Government's announcement that Trainload Freight is to be split up, I wonder whether there will be enough competition if only three successor companies are created. Railfreight Distribution will remain intact as a monopoly carrier and, although open access to the track will be granted after April 1994, it is unlikely

1027
that that monopoly will be broken by new entrants for some considerable time after that. Therefore we must ensure that, if a monopoly situation persists in the future rail freight industry, the customer is protected.
There are a number of natural monopolies in the rail freight industry either through geographical position or economies of scale. That underlines the point that the end user—the rail customer—must be protected; and, as in other privatisations, the only person able to do that is the regulator.
The aim of the amendment is to permit the regulator to take a legitimate and healthy interest in the prices charged and the quality of service provided by a rail operator in circumstances where no competitive market exists. Where there free competition between different rail freight operators, the price charged by the track authority should be self-regulating. However, there is the possibility that some freight customers may still face the unenviable prospect of a situation where rail is the only mode by which goods can be moved and the number of operators offering their services is limited in the extreme. Stimulus may therefore need to be given to the promotion of "on the rails" competition in those circumstances. The regulator appears to be the only person able to promote it.
The amendment is not detailed. It does not seek in any way to prescribe in detail the approach that the regulator should adopt. That is for him to decide.
In effect, the amendment merely seeks to reinforce an amendment achieved in another place and tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Worcester which widened the scope of the regulator's activities to include a general commitment to the promotion of competition for the carriage of goods by rail.
After all, there is support among all parties represented in the Chamber for the principle that as much freight as possible should be encouraged to move from our heavily congested roads on to the railway system. The amendment will help that process in a small way. The amendment is simple. It protects the interest of the private sector against current and future monopolies. I believe that that ought to be a principle which the Government welcome. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment, or at least welcome the principle that underlines it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I can understand that the rail freight customers, like any group of businessmen, are keen to protect their interests. I appreciate that their anxieties are genuine. However, I believe that the worries expressed by my noble friend are unfounded. I am glad to have the opportunity to explain the Government's position to the Committee.
It is the Government's intention to foster within the UK a competitive, liberalised rail freight market which gives customers a genuine choice and which allows the industry to develop away from the strait-jacket of nationalised industry controls. The experience of the US rail freight industry demonstrates how rail freight can prosper when freed from heavy-handed regulatory intervention. We believe that deregulation is vital to encourage new rail freight operators to enter the market, as well as stimulating
1028
the privatised ex-BR businesses to offer a more efficient and competitive product. That is not to say that there should be no protection for customers, however powerful they may be (and the larger rail freight customers are very powerful indeed).
First, Clause 4(1) (a) places the Secretary of State and the regulator under a duty to exercise their functions in a manner which they consider best protects the interests of users of railway services. That general duty naturally covers rail freight customers as well as other users of railway services.
Secondly, we have developed a track access regime which requires the regulator to approve the terms of all access agreements with facility owners. This means that Railtrack will not be able to exploit its market power unfairly when negotiating with rail freight operators and customers. Access agreements will be based on genuine commercial negotiation.
However, my noble friend's amendment seeks to go further by reinforcing the protections I have just outlined. I do not believe that the circumstances of rail freight justify such additional provision. Negotiations between customers and freight train operators will be conducted on a wholly commercial basis, in the same way that other businesses negotiate with road hauliers and shipping lines. There are two key points to bear in mind. First, as I mentioned earlier, the whole thrust of our policy is to stimulate the development of a competitive rail freight market. That is why we are splitting BR's trainload freight and contract services business into three entirely separate companies for privatisation. That is why we are introducing unfettered open access to the railway network for rail freight operators. If a rail freight customer does not like the price he is offered, or the quality of service he is getting, he will be entirely free to approach an alternative supplier and get a competitive quote.
Secondly, in the unlikely case that there is no competitive market for the transport of goods by rail in a particular locality, and the customer feels tied to rail, then existing competition law will come into play. I remind the Committee that we have extensive anti-monopoly legislation in the United Kingdom. If the Director General of Fair Trading has grounds for believing that a firm (including a private rail freight firm) has more than 25 per cent. of the market—which might mean the market in a particular locality—and is operating against the public interest, he can make a reference to the MMC. If the MMC report confirms monopoly abuse, the firm can be required to stop the offending practices.
I am sure the Committee will agree that this combination of a liberalised rail freight market, the general duties of the regulator and Secretary of State to protect the interests of railway users, and the existing framework of UK competition law will provide adequate protection for rail freight customers without the need for specific additional duties on the Secretary of State and the rail regulator.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply to the amendment which I moved. I believe that we all genuinely wish to see an increasing

1029
amount of freight moved by rail and, therefore, it is essential that potential customers for moving freight should have the best terms made available to them. I liked the words my noble friend used about competition liberalisation in the rail freight market. I take the point about existing competition law and the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading which exist now and will continue to exist under the new regime.
The difficulty that I raised of the alternative supplier was answered by my noble friend. I wish to withdraw the amendment. I shall study carefully what my noble friend said and if I have further comments to make on the issue, I shall come back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 13 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 13 and insert ("in exercising the functions assigned or transferred to him under this Part—

(a) until 31st December 1996, to take into account any guidance given to him from time to time by the Secretary of State;

(b) to act in a manner which he considers will not render it unduly difficult for persons who are holders of network licences to finance any activities or proposed activities of theirs in relation to which the Regulator has functions under or by virtue of this Part (whether or not the activities in question are, or are to be, carried on by those persons in their capacity as holders of such licences); and

(c) to have regard to the financial position of the Franchising Director in discharging his functions under this Part. (4A)").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, and, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 15.
The purpose of these amendments is to strengthen the financial duty of the regulator in relation to holders of network licences, of which Railtrack will be by far the most important. The financial position of Railtrack will inevitably be significantly affected by the actions of the regulator, both through his licensing functions and through his approval of access agreements. The Government have therefore always accepted that there should be a duty on the regulator relating to the financial position of Railtrack. In the current text of the Bill this duty is expressed as a requirement to have regard to the financial position of holders of relevant licences.
The first amendment seeks to strengthen this duty by requiring the regulator to do more than have regard to Railtrack's financial position: he is to act in a manner which he considers will not render it unduly difficult for Railtrack, and other network licence holders, to finance their activities. There are thus two key differences from the existing duty: the requirement to act in a particular way, not just to have regard to the financial position, and the specific reference to financing of activities. We believe that the changes will significantly strengthen the duty.
The remainder of the amendment relates to the coverage of the duty in relation to Railtrack's activities. The intention is that the duty on the regulator should apply to persons holding a network licence, but that it should apply to any of the activities of those persons affected by the regulator's functions, which may be wider than the licensed activities. Thus, in the case of Railtrack, the duty is to apply in relation to all its activities which might be affected by the regulator's decisions, including for example its role as owner of stations.
The rest of Amendment No. 13, and Amendment No. 15, are concerned only with the arrangement of the subsections of what is currently Clause 4(4). Since Amendment No. 13 requires some re-organisation of Clause 4, it is more convenient to make what was Clause 4(4) (c), the duty in relation to the interests of disabled persons, a new subsection of Clause 4. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for explaining the rationale behind the amendment. I shall have to consider very carefully what he has said in this regard. I should like to raise with him a few points that are germane to this specific amendment. First, the amendment refers to the cut-off date, 31st December 1996, beyond which it will not be necessary to take into account the guidance from the Secretary of State. I believe I am right in saying that. If the cut-off date is to be 31st December 1996, I believe that it is far too soon after the franchising process has begun to work for guidance—which will cover matters of great importance such as the regulation of open access services to compete with franchises—to be rescinded. This is a matter which we would have alluded to. It depends on whether this amendment is negatived. In the unlikely event that it is, I understand that we cannot deal with Amendment No. 14, when my noble friend Lord Carmichael would have gone on to speak about the cut-off date in rather more detail. But we may return to that on another occasion.
Periods of four years are commonly mentioned in relation to the completion of the franchising process. That means that only those franchises which are completed before the cut-off date receive protection. I believe I am right in making that assumption.
The revised subsection (b) would appear to have the effect of tilting the balance between the need for operators to finance their operations—which are designed to maximise their profits, or certainly to make profits—and the need for the franchising director to maximise the benefits that he gets from his resources in favour of the operator. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to comment on those points.
Will the Minister indicate why subsection (c) does not also extend to the financial position of the PTAs and the PTEs, which under Clause 29 will be joint parties with the franchising director in letting a number of franchises. Why is their financial position not to be taken into account?
There is also a geographical dimension to which I would make reference. ScotRail, or the south-western lines of Network SouthEast, are early franchises to be protected; but services in cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool will not receive

1031
similar treatment simply because their franchises are not completed until after the rather magic date of 31st December 1996. I think I can leave it at that for the time being, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Caithness: I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, and in particular to his concern regarding 1996 which has perhaps led to one or two misunderstandings that he might have had.
The Government wish to establish the regulator as an independent person carrying out his functions in the way that he thinks fit, and not subject to a continuing requirement to look over his shoulder to see what the government of the day want. That is the way that other regulators have been established. I believe that a considerable degree of independence is essential if they are to carry out their functions properly.
The only reason for the requirement concerning guidance from the Secretary of State for the first three years is to give the Secretary of State a way to provide guidance about the launch of the new regime, which the regulator is then required to take into account. Such a power was not needed in other major privatisations, partly because the transition to the new regime was shorter and partly because the other privatisations in general did not involve the establishment of a new financial regime in which the Government have a continuing involvement.
For those reasons we thought it right that the regulator should be required to take into account formal guidance from the Secretary of State during the establishment of the new regime. But we believe that it is both unnecessary and undesirable for the Secretary of State to have a continuing power to issue formal guidance. That would inevitably compromise the independence of the regulator. That is why we have a cut off date of 31st December 1996.
In the special circumstances of the new dimension for railways, it is a good idea that the Secretary of State has a modus operandi for getting information to the regulator. But it is also important that the regulator remains an independent person. We believe that a timescale to 31st December 1996 is the right way.
The noble Lord asked me about franchises and whether they would or would not be protected. They would all be under the same protection of the regulator and the franchising director. The difference will he that, after that period to 31st December 1996, the Secretary of State will not be able to issue directions to the regulator. The system will be up and running. It will be going forward on a proper and good basis. Therefore the oncoming franchises will be treated by an independent regulator. But the system and the way in which these things happen will have been established.
With regard to PTAs and PTEs, we felt that as they are funded in a different way, it would not be right to have the same amendment as we have for the regulator with regard to Railtrack. I hope that that answers some of the noble Lord's points.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall read with great care what the noble Lord said. These are important matters. However, I am by no means convinced about the rationale behind the cut-off date. I am not at all sure that sufficient experience will have been accumulated by that date. Indeed, earlier we debated matters which were highly germane to the cut-off date relating to the concessionary fares, discount fares and so on, where the guidance to be given by the Secretary of State to the franchise director is rather critical.
The time that is envisaged is just about three and a half years away—from the time that the operation begins it will be much less than that and perhaps only a couple of years. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has any reason for optimism to believe that within that time there will have been a sufficient accumulation of experience and knowledge to enable the system to continue on its own revs. That is perhaps a matter to which we can return later. The Minister stated what he believes, and I have stated what 1 believe. 1 am perfectly content to leave the matter there for tonight.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall just draw attention to the difference between the duties on the regulator and the duties on the franchising director. I am not sure whether the noble Lord slightly confused them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, no. It is not the same thing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 15, leave out second ("to") and insert ("tho Regulator shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) No statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) above shall be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: We hoped that Amendment No. 16 would be taken with Amendment No. 14, but as the earlier amendment moved by the Minister caused Amendment No. 14 to be omitted, we have to move Amendment No. 16. The amendment states:
"No statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) above shall be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
We consider the question of guidance by the Minister to be too important merely to be left to the Minister without coming before the House. Our debates have shown how important it is that the views of those in the rural areas should be heard. Perhaps in bigger conurbations there are other ways of making the Minister aware of what should happen in terms of a statutory instrument. But we believe that any guidance that the Minister gives to the franchisee or to the regulator should have the authority of Parliament behind it in a positive and not in a negative way. I ask the Minister to give an indication that he will consider

1033
an approved resolution of each House, or give a reason why he thinks that that is unnecessary. I emphasise the great importance of hearing a voice, particularly from the rural areas, on this matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall have to study with care what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said. I did not understand why he was moving the amendment. It relates to an order and was consequential upon Amendment No. 14, which specifies that there be an order relating to the date of 31st December 1996.
The noble Lord said that he wanted the advice that the Secretary of State is going to give to the regulators to come before Parliament. That is a different question. Given its nature, the advice will need to be flexible and will be for guidance rather than a specific instruction. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to attempt to give him a better reply at a later stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the noble Earl. In a perfect world the advice of the Minister may be enough. But there may not always be a perfect situation. Therefore, the Secretary of State may feel that he needs something a little more firm. He may need to go as far as to obtain a regulation. I do not believe that everything works only on nods and winks. Some matters are too important for that. At the same time the Secretary of State may need more power. If he obtains that power it is vitally important that it should be by positive rather than by negative resolution.
That may have clarified the point that I was trying to make. It is complicated by the acceptance that Amendment No. 14 could not be moved. However, I hope that the Minister will consider the point and I look forward to his explanation. We can then see whether there is any way of achieving the desired effect from my side and from the point of view of the people who asked me to table the amendment in terms of control of the franchisee by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 18A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have not given my noble friend notice of this but I do not think that he will suffer as a result of my not giving notice. Of course I would not challenge Clause 4 because I am in favour of stating the principles on which those charged with responsibility under the Bill shall be given duties under it. But I would ask my noble friend to look at the bottom of page 3 where he will find in subsection (1):
"The Secretary of State"—
who, by the way, can be challenged in Parliament—
"and the Regulator"—
who cannot be challenged in Parliament—
"shall each have a duty to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to him"—
that means, in this case, each of them respectively, I hope and believe; the word "him" cannot refer to one of them only—
1034
"under or by virtue of this Part in the manner which he"—
that means each of them respectively—
"considers best calculated",
to do the various things set out. But the use of the expression "which he considers best" means that neither of them can be challenged. The Secretary of State might be challenged a little in Parliament but he has only to say, "This is what I think is best", and no one can undo that. I should have thought that it is in the public interest that, instead of the expression, "which he considers best", the subsection should read, "which is considered best in the public interest". Then it would be open to people who feel that the admirable aims which are then set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) had not been fulfilled to take the matter to the court.
I do not ask my noble friend for an answer at this moment on these points. That would not be fair. But I ask him to consider between now and Report stage whether this is the best way of expressing the heavy responsibilities which are required.
The Earl of Caithness: I take careful note of what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. I should like to consider, when I see the Official Report, what he has said and discuss it.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [General duties of the Franchising Director]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) to promote the interests of users of passenger rail services and improve the quality of services available to them;
( ) to promote good working practices, training and conditions of service for railway staff in the interests of providing safe, high quality services;").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ewing. The amendment is rather more broadly based than those we have had before in that it seeks to ensure that the franchising director shall have as his first priority the interests of passengers and the quality of the services they receive. Therefore the two new subsections are placed ahead of those dealing with the guidance to be given by the Secretary of State and financial matters.
Some Members of the Committee will remember the experience of bus deregulation which has shown that there are great dangers of subsidised service contracts being determined almost exclusively on the basis of price. Few tendering authorities have been able, within the framework of the Transport Act 1985, to put quality control above price. The result is that many contracts are operated by old vehicles and by staff who seem to receive little or no training. In some of the areas that I know where there has been privatisation the buses are extremely old and are frequently very dirty. They are quite unlike the special franchise buses that one sees in London. They have been variously named. One or two of them are of a very high standard in a different way.
This amendment is designed to focus attention on the need to pursue the objective that franchises are let on the basis of quality as well as price. Part of that is to ensure that conditions such as training and the

1035
pensions of the railway staff employed by the franchisees are conducive to the provision of safe and high quality services.
I said before that bus deregulation has shown us a great deal. It has put great pressures on staff, particularly those who were used to the old service ways rather than the purely commercial methods. There are frequent complaints from passengers in areas which I know personally outside London about staff attitudes and the ways in which the services are operated.
I hope that the Minister will take on board that this is a genuine attempt to look at the problems that can arise with the franchise director if he does not take this part of his duty of passenger satisfaction very seriously indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support this amendment. I believe that in one respect it goes to the heart of the privatisation problem in that it is not a vertical system. Sixty per cent. of the costs will be spent on the track. If that money is tied up in that way and more money is tied up in the leasing of the railway stock—most of which will be the cheapest which the franchisees can lay their hands on and the oldest stock—it means that with any franchisee who is then going to try to save money (which many management buy-out companies will have to do) the largest unit cost on which he can save will be labour.
The difficulty is that, if one cuts back on the number of people working on the railways, it will lead to problems of safety. In addition, it will probably lead to a service which is not of benefit to the customer. We hope that the Minister will deal with these points when he replies.
The Earl of Caithness: Our proposals for franchising are based on our desire to see better services on offer to passengers. This will come, we believe, from the involvement of the private sector and a closer focus on the passengers' interests. It will clearly be necessary to structure franchise agreements in a way that ensures that franchisees are focused on their customers' requirements, and that provides them with the flexibility to respond to those requirements but includes such safeguards as are necessary to protect the passengers' interests. We are, for example, proposing amendments which will place a duty on the franchising director in respect of fares control.
I am not convinced that it would be right to impose the sort of duties Amendment No. 19 envisages in Clause 5. The duties in that clause have deliberately been set at a high level and relate to two areas: the fulfilment of objectives set for the franchising director by the Secretary of State and the need to ensure that payments made by the franchising director are such as he reasonably considers will achieve those objectives economically and efficiently.
The objectives the Secretary of State will set will go into considerably more detail than would be appropriate on the face of the Bill. We have already made available a first draft of how these objectives might be framed in a paper provided to the Standing Committee which considered this Bill in another place. I have made sure that copies are available in the
1036
Library here. That draft made reference to the need for the franchising director to protect passengers' interests and to promote the use and development of the railway network.
When the franchising director is appointed, subject. to this Bill becoming law, the objectives set by the Secretary of State will be a public document. The objectives will be published and a copy will be laid before Parliament for noble Lords to scrutinise.
The franchising director will clearly need to have regard to the interests of rail passengers and the quality of service on offer when granting franchises and monitoring franchisees' performance. He will be looking for service improvements to come from improved efficiency, innovation and better responsiveness to customer demand. He will also need to have regard to the value for money offered by franchisees, and would need to consider carefully proposals for improved quality which would result in higher fares or increased subsidy.
The franchising director might also wish to take an interest in the working practices of franchisees, in so far as these impact on the franchisees' ability to deliver the specified service. But I am not convinced of the need for him to have a duty on the face of the Bill in respect of this area.
The noble Lord's amendment also mentions training. Training will of course be critical for staff carrying out safety-related functions. But this is not a matter for the franchising director: he has no safety functions. Training was covered in some detail in the Health and Safety Commission's report and is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. An operator's arrangements for ensuring his staff have adequate training will be dealt with in the railway safety case. I believe that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. It is not a question of the licence. This comes into the safety case because, as I said at the beginning of our discussions today, safety is of prime importance. That is why the 37 recommendations have been agreed by the chairman of British Rail and the Government. These arrangements will be dealt with in the safety case, with the Health and Safety Executive overseeing the whole operation.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful for the full explanation that the Minister has given. I believe that most of his examples were accurate. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and f have been trying to get over is that everything is not perhaps as the Minister had thought. I referred earlier to the example of bus franchises in London. which is the one example that I know is different. The quality of the service provided, of the staff and the vehicles has been extremely high. I have visited a number of other areas of the country—not only in Scotland—where, sadly, staff morale looks very poor. The quality of the vehicles used is also very poor. The whole feeling is of neglect. That is what we are trying to prevent by our amendment.
I shall read the Minister's reply with great care. But I hope that he will realise that what we have been

1037
concerned about is true of many franchises. I do not know how railway carriages could become "rundown", but I believe that, especially in rural areas, they may deteriorate and the services provided may be much poorer than is the case now under British Rail, even with all the criticism that it now receives. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert:
("(c) to promote the use by persons not resident in the United Kingdom of the rail network, by ensuring there are available for purchase by them documents entitling them to free access to all railway services provided through a franchise agreement").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We touched on this issue earlier when the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to something that I had said previously about BritRail. She commented on the importance of BritRail in promoting, in particular, the inward tourist industry in the United Kingdom. Railcards for inward tourists can only be purchased abroad, as I understand it; they cannot be purchased in this country. They provide for a wide area of travel on our rail network and have proved extremely successful. Consequently, I should like to know how, in practice, that type of facility is to be made available in future.
The Minister said earlier that this matter would not be within the remit of the franchising director. Consequently therefore there will be a problem for tourist organisations. With whom will they negotiate? Who will be responsible for promoting abroad the United Kingdom's rail services? Is it to be left to that large number of franchisees merely to get together in an umbrella organisation to do that? It is a great pity that the services which can be advertised successfully abroad by British Rail will not be able to be continued in the same way.
What assessment have the Government made through discussions with the tourist industry to see what impact their proposals will have upon that industry, and, in particular, in relation to the survival of something like the BritRail card? The Government cannot say, "Well, it will all take care of itself". Things do not happen like that. There is an existing facility. It will not be easy to replace it, particularly with the proliferation of different interests involved. The one thing about franchisees is that they do not have a common interest, although I accept that it may be said that they have a common interest in attracting tourism to this country. There, the situation disintegrates a little, because they will not have identical interests in promoting the services of other franchisees.
I shall refer to the impact of rail services in terms of the definition of social need. Does the impact of rail services on the tourist industry fall into that category? I suspect not. Will such services be included in the ScotRail franchise? I do not know whether the Minister can reply to that question. The situation in the west of Scotland, for example, as I understand it, is that a number of seasonal summer services are operated by BR. They are important to the economies
1038
of the areas in which they operate. They also have the happy advantage of being able to provide tourists with rail rather than road facilities. That is an important factor, not merely from the point of view of the rail system itself, but in terms of the environment and so forth, a matter to which noble Lords alluded in earlier debates.
I have raised a number of questions in relation to the amendment. I do not propose to test the feeling of the Committee on this matter, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Mountevans: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for raising this topic which is one upon which I touched on Second Reading. Tourism is an undoubted success. I know that my erstwhile colleagues in the British Tourist Authority greatly appreciate the support from British Rail which they have enjoyed for many years. One of the easiest products to sell abroad is the BritRail pass. I know, because I have done the selling, if not the physical booking.
The ability to travel unrestricted all over the BR network is an attractive one. The card is a product we must retain, not least because we compete with many other countries or even groups of countries which offer similar products. It is a lucrative product for BR, or for the railways, as we shall shortly call them, I suppose. In general, tourists make use of off-peak capacity. It is not easy to think in terms of BR services specifically and uniquely provided for foreign visitors. The fact that such visitors travel the length and breadth of the land is to be welcomed, because, on the one hand, that relieves the pressure on London and, on the other, it spreads economic benefits to those areas which need all the economic help that they can get. Here one is reminded of the amendment moved earlier this evening by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton.
It could be argued that there is a revenue distribution problem, but the mechanics for dealing with it are already in place, as my noble friend the Minister conceded on Second Reading. All the advantages of the BritRail pass apply just as strongly to InterRail cards which are bought by much younger people. The added tourism benefit of the InterRail card is that the young tourist of today is the repeat visitor of tomorrow. I share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about how the product will be assembled and sold. I, too, look forward to hearing my noble friend's answer.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to speak to this amendment as some years ago I travelled the length and breadth of Europe on an InterRail card. That was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. That is a system that has been agreed among state run railways. How will the franchise operators in this country reach an agreement that will allow this service to continue? Will citizens of this country be able to continue to make use of the InterRail service if it is no longer a reciprocal service? Will the Channel Tunnel be open to InterRail cardholders to enable them to sample the delights of cities such as Edinburgh, York or even Newcastle?
The Earl of Caithness: The Government are certainly keen to promote the use of the railway whether by UK residents or incoming visitors. This is already reflected in the regulator's duties in Clause 4. Similar objectives are likely to be placed on the franchising director through guidance given to him by the Secretary of State under this clause. The Government also recognise the value of the railways to travel, trade and tourism. In response to the report of the Transport Committee in the other place, the Government pointed out that marketing rail services to incoming tourists is a substantial business. Sales of the BritRail pass alone represent some £15 million a year. The Government are confident that such an arrangement, which makes sound commercial sense for BR now, will be equally attractive to future operators. I imagine the private sector would be only too keen to increase its revenue. If the BritRail card can produce that amount of money now, it is obvious that the private sector would wish to take advantage of it. The Government therefore propose that it should be for the rail operators to develop appropriate arrangements for the future.
I shall now reply specifically to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The rail operators will be able to co-ordinate their arrangements through the joint industry arrangements, as necessary, in conjunction with the travel and tourism industry. Detailed arrangements to facilitate this are under discussion. Until those have reached a conclusion I am unable to go further. I take the noble Lord's point about the summer services of ScotRail. I believe that once ScotRail is franchised, it will want to provide summer services for residents of the United Kingdom and for tourists that are as good if not better than the present services.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have listened to what the Minister said. I am not entirely satisfied with his reply but we shall have the opportunity to return to this matter at a later stage if necessary. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Prohibition on unauthorised operators of railway assets]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to refer to London Regional Transport or railway undertakings owned and operated by any Passenger Transport Executive.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill before us is exclusively concerned with the break-up and disposal of the assets and services of the British Railways Board. However, it appears that the Government were faced with a problem while drafting the Bill in that an exclusively "British Railways" piece of legislation would be deemed hybrid and require a more cumbersome parliamentary procedure. To avoid this problem the Bill's scope was widened theoretically to embrace all railway undertakings even though the Government have (as far as we know) no intention at
1040
present to interfere with London Underground, the PTE-owned services like Glasgow Underground and Tyne and Wear Metro or, indeed, any other railway undertaking in Great Britain.
The legislation as drafted will therefore require the Government either to go through a laborious process of licensing every railway company in the land—including preserved steam services in private ownership—or, more likely, use the powers in Clause 7(2) (a) to exempt everyone except British Railways and prospective franchisees from the obligation to be licensed. If such an exemption were to be made, the Government would have effectively brought to Parliament, under the Public Bill procedure, a measure which in reality is a piece of hybrid legislation. This is quite a serious parliamentary point. I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter. We should prefer to have a British Railways Bill rather than a Railways Bill. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Our policy towards London Underground and other public sector urban arid suburban railways was set out in a paper on exemptions which the Department of Transport published on 24th May of this year. Although the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made a persuasive case for his amendment, I believe that the situation is rather more complex than he realises.
We intend to exempt most of the activities of these railways from the licensing requirements in the Bill, as well as from the access and franchising requirements. But there are a number of places where London Underground, in particular, shares track or stations with British Rail; and it may be necessary to issue a limited licence to London Underground in respect of these particular facilities. This will be possible using the licensing and exemption powers in the Bill; but if the licensing powers did not apply then this could create difficulties.
The overlap between London Underground and British Rail means that the matter is not so simple as the noble Lord portrayed it when moving the amendment. The overlap means that it is not possible to exempt everything other than British Rail. When we considered this difficult problem, we thought it best to deal with the matter by way of the exemption procedure.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. If I followed his explanation properly, he seemed to suggest that his advisers and he had been aware of the hybridity problem when the Bill was drafted. I thought that I had mastered what was meant by hybridity when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill passed through another place many years ago. That was a piece of parliamentary history. One speaker said that the Bill was not hybrid and another speaker said that it was. In fact, it was necessary to change part of that Bill. Is the Minister aware that there is a sneaking possibility of hybridity in this legislation?
I know that the learned Clerks of both Houses love to get their teeth into the question of hybridity.

1041
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that he is at least aware of the question of hybridity and that is why the method which was chosen was chosen in order to avoid that. In the meantime, I shall be happy to read the Minister's explanation and consider whether we should return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exemptions from section 6]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert ("and the Regulator shall in every case send a copy of the notice to the Central Committee and to every consultative committee likely to be affected by the grant of the licence exemption.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 35 and 37 to 39. This group of amendments deals, in Clauses 7 to 23 of the Bill, with licensing, access agreements and franchising, all of which are vital components of the operation of the proposed arrangements.
As the Bill stands at present, there is no reference in those clauses to the central consultative committee or the new consultative committees. I believe that there should be a requirement that those committees are consulted at appropriate stages to ensure that the needs and wishes of consumers are taken into account.
I am sure that it would be extremely helpful to the Committee if the Minister found himself able to give a commitment that he expects these committees to be consulted on the issues.
The first of the amendments, Amendment No. 24, places an obligation on the regulator in Clause 7 to give notice before granting a licence exemption and requires him to consider the representations and objections to any such proposal. In so doing, he is obliged to publish a notice in such a manner as he considers appropriate for bringing the proposal to grant a licence exemption to the attention of the
"persons likely to be affected by the grant of the licence exemption".
The clause does not specify anywhere who are the
"persons likely to be affected by the grant of the licence exemption".
This amendment seeks to ensure that the regulator includes the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee and the other relevant consultative committees among the people who are to receive a copy of his notice, so that the statutory bodies that are set up under the Bill to represent the rail users have the opportunity to consider and comment on any appraisal by the regulator to grant the licence exemption.
The same applies to Amendment No. 26 which amends Clause 8 specifying the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the Secretary of State and the regulator can grant the licences authorising a person to be the operator of the railway assets specified in the licence.
Before granting a licence, the Secretary of State or the regulator must give notice and is required to consider objections to any such proposal. In so doing,
1042
they are again obliged to publish a notice in such a manner as they consider appropriate for bringing the proposal to the attention of the persons likely to be affected by the grant of the licence. Again, it is not specified who are the
"persons likely to be affected by the grant of the licence".
The amendment seeks to ensure not only that the Secretary of State or the regulator includes the CRUCC and the relevant consultative councils among the people who receive a copy of his notice, but that they also receive a copy of the licence which it is proposed to grant. That would ensure that the statutory bodies set up under the Bill to represent the rail users have the opportunity to consider and comment on any proposals to grant a licence as well as the proposed terms of the licence.
In the same way with Amendment No. 35 amending Clause 10, there are obligations that the regulator should give notice before making modifications to a licence and be required to consider representations and objections and, in so doing, is again obliged to publish a notice and bring it to the attention of the persons most likely to be affected.
It seems to me that the persons most likely to be affected are again the central consultative council and the other councils. That would ensure that those who are the watchdogs and guardians, as it were, of the consumers' interests are the likely bodies to be included and should be mentioned on the face of the Bill.
Again, with Amendment No. 37 regarding Clause 11, we have the same vague phrase to the effect that the attention of the persons likely to be affected should be drawn to the obligation on the regulator to publish the particular
"reference or variation in such manner as he considers appropriate".
It is important that the statutory bodies that are set up under the Bill to represent rail users are aware of any reference in this instance to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on matters relating to the modification of licences. They have in the past made submissions to the MMC when the commission has undertaken investigations into various aspects of British Rail services. It would be wrong for the regulator to be able to make a reference to the MMC without being obliged to notify the new statutory bodies which represent the passengers.
Amendment No. 38 to Clause 12 again refers vaguely to those persons who are likely to be affected. I am sure that, if the provision referred to the statutory bodies, it would be much plainer to everyone. The amendment seeks to tighten up the procedure to ensure that the regulator is obliged to send to the central consultative council and the other consultative councils a copy of the MMC's report when he receives it. That would mean that the statutory bodies set up to represent the rail users would have the opportunity to consider such a report prior to publication. By nature of the reference, any such report is likely to have a direct bearing on the exercise of the committees' statutory duties.
Amendment No. 39 is the last amendment in the group and deals with Clause 13. Again, we have the same vague phrase that the people to be consulted are those, "likely to be affected by it".
We believe that it would be much better if the statutory body representing rail users should be named in the Bill and, therefore, have the opportunity to consider all such points as they arise. I beg to move.
Viscount Gosehen: I can entirely understand why the noble Baroness wishes the consumer committees to be provided with copies of important documents such as reports by the MMC. It is, of course, vital that they have the information that they need to represent passengers properly. However, we are quite clear that it is not necessary to legislate to achieve that aim. There is also no point in burdening committees with piles of papers, many of which are standard or, indeed, not relevant to their activities. For example, many licences will be awarded to bodies outside the scope of the committees such as freight train operators, "open access" passenger train operators and light maintenance depot operators. Similarly, the amendments would require papers connected with an MMC reference to be sent to the committees, even if the subject of the reference was about the freight railway.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State and the regulator may be relied upon to provide information which is relevant to the work of the committees. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, stated, most of the information is in any event published; for example, in Clause 12 there is a requirement that the MMC's report be published in a mariner appropriate for bringing the report to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it. That would cover the relevant committee. It is open to the committees to inspect and obtain copies.
We are very conscious that the committees are not full-time professionals but people who volunteer to represent their fellow rail users. Their time is limited; they also have very limited staff resources. We are most reluctant to waste their valuable time by burdening them with piles of papers, many of which are essentially identical or simply not relevant to their activities. That would serve only to reduce the time that they can spend helping passengers with difficulties or commenting on important issues relating to service quality. I would, therefore, ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his reply. However, I am also disappointed. I had a feeling that the Government might for once say that they would accept such a set of amendments and would write the statutory bodies into the Bill. As the night went on, I felt my halo becoming tighter and tighter; I had hoped that I would be going home wearing one because I was able to say that we had at least persuaded the Government to say yes to something.
I am sorry that the Government have resisted the amendments. I shall read the noble Viscount's response and perhaps return to the matter at the next
1044
stage with a slightly different approach. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (9) and insert,
("(9) A licence exemption may be granted under subsection (1) above only if—

(a) the licence exemption is to come into force on the day on which section 6(1) above comes into force; or

(b) the licence exemption is to be granted on or before that day but is not to come into force until after that day;

and a licence exemption may be granted under subsection (3) above only if the licence exemption is not to come into force until after that day.").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee. speak also to Amendment No. 34. The amendments are intended to address some problems which might occur where trains are operated partly by virtue of a licence and partly with the benefit of an exemption. It is inevitable that some trains will operate partly on licensed and partly on unlicensed lines. We need to clarify the effect of licensing conditions in those cases. not least in relation to the possibility of fares conditions being set by the regulator. One particular case where such issues may arise is in relation to the proposed Heathrow Express service, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara on Second Reading.
Amendment No. 25 allows exemptions to be granted by the Secretary of' State at the outset, before the licensing regime comes into force, even though the exemption may not come into force immediately. That may be helpful to remove uncertainty as to whether a rail project in the planning or construction phase is to be licensed or exempted from the licensing regime when it starts operation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already been approached by the promoters of the Heathrow Express scheme seeking that sort of clarification.
Amendment No. 34 inserts a new clause after Clause 9 to clarify the conditions of licences in relation to exemptions. Although the details of the drafting are rather complex, the basic approach we have adopted in the amendments is quite simple. Where a person is operating a railway passenger service partly by virtue of a licence and partly with the benefit of an exemption, we want the conditions of the licence to apply only to the extent that the train is operated by virtue of the licence. We wish to avoid imposing licence conditions in relation to the exempted operation. If we thought it appropriate to impose such conditions the right course would be not to grant an exemption. Subsection (1) of the new clause sets all this out.
The difficulty with that approach is how to handle conditions which by their nature must affect both the licensed and unlicensed operation. An example might be a condition relating to the type of train to be used on the licensed track. Where it is proposed to run a through service using both licensed and unlicensed track such a condition would inevitably affect operations on the unlicensed track also. Subsection (2) provides that such conditions may be imposed.
Subsection (3) of the new clause covers fares conditions. An operator of railway passenger services which are, to use shorthand, partly licensed and partly exempt, will want to know whether he is potentially subject to fares control through a condition of a licence. The approach we have adopted is again straightforward. Exempt services should not be potentially subject to fares control, whereas that should be a possibility for licensed services. Where a service is partially exempt and partially licensed it should not be subject to fares control unless the journey in question involves at least two consecutive stops during any part of that journey throughout which the operator of the train operates by virtue of a licence.
Subsections (4) and (6) of the new clause provide the formidable list of definitions needed to turn those general principles into legal reality. Finally, subsection (5) provides that the fares provision in subsection (3) has effect notwithstanding anything in subsections (I) and (2), and also provides that Clause 9 is to be subject to the provisions of the new clause.
I hope that the Committee will agree that this new clause properly provides for the position where services are partly exempt and partly licensed.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This is the situation to which I alluded at the very beginning of our discussions today. How on earth can we give proper consideration to these very complicated amendments, notwithstanding what the Minister has said? It is unsatisfactory that at this stage we should be expected to deal with these matters. I do not believe that they necessarily fell within the scope of the undertakings given in another place. The Government have had enough time to put their house in order. It is regrettable, to say the least, that we should now have to deal with these matters, which were starred amendments yesterday.
I do not propose even to try to do so. I take note of what the noble Earl said, but it places restrictions on us at Report stage when we are faced with a position like this. However, there it is. It is water under the bridge now. I merely say that, in relation to this and the next group of amendments which the Minister will move, I am not in a position to offer any response to what he read out.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am most grateful to my noble friend for having moved the amendments. They address an issue which I raised at Second Reading. I am very grateful to my noble friend for having brought them to the Committee. Admittedly he did so only yesterday or the day before, but at least he has produced an amendment in response to a point that I raised at Second Reading. That is exactly the purpose of Committee stage in this House.
They are complicated amendments. If one looks merely at subsection (3) (b) of Amendment No. 34 one sees the words:
"at least two consecutive scheduled calls at stations during any one continuous spell of licensed operation".
1046
The amendments need careful study. I am most grateful for what my noble friend said in response to the points that I made at Second Reading. I shall wish to study the amendments in detail, but I am grateful that my noble friend has gone as far as to move the amendments at this stage.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon for his welcome of the amendments. Of course, I look forward to discussing them at a later stage. I thought that it would be helpful to the Committee to put them down as soon as possible so that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, had at least some time to look at them. I know that he was busy with the Bill on the Maastricht Treaty yesterday. However, it seemed to me best to get the amendments on to the Marshalled List and into the Bill so that we could come back to them at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Licences]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Conditions of licences]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("the activities authorised by") and insert ("the licence holder's being the operator of railway assets under the authorisation of").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 27, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 33 inclusive.
These are clarificatory amendments. They do four things. Some are designed to clarify the scope of conditions which may be imposed in licences. Some are to permit specific matters covered in licences to be made subject to approval of persons other than the regulator. One amendment concerns the persons to whom payments may be made as a requirement of licence conditions. One amendment is consequential on earlier changes.
Amendment No. 27 is purely consequential on changes to Clause 6 made in another place. It brings the terminology into line with that now used in Clause 6.
Amendment No. 28 concerns payments required under a licence. Clause 9 currently provides for payments only to the grantor of the licence, that is, the Secretary of State or the regulator. There are two difficulties with this. One is that we wish payments required under licences to be made normally to the regulator. Replacing "the grantor" by separate references to the Secretary of State and the regulator permits this. The second difficulty is that we may wish to require payments to be made to other persons in some circumstances. For example, we may wish to use a licence condition to require payments to be made to the employer of the British Transport Police. The amendment would permit this.
Amendment No. 29 provides for conditions in licences to require the licence holder to enter into any agreement with any person for such purposes as may be specified in the conditions, and for the conditions to include provision for determining the terms on which

1047
such agreements are to be entered into. This amendment is intended to make it clear that licence conditions can require the licensee to enter agreements concerning, for example, through ticketing or common operating procedures. Agreement of this sort will be essential to the proper functioning of the railway system. Given what the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said earlier, I would think that the provision will be extremely welcome to them.
Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 are all intended to widen the provisions in Clause 9(2) to permit persons in addition to the regulator to be given a role in imposing requirements, consenting to things being done or not done, or determining questions arising under the licence. In many cases such questions would probably be reserved for the regulator, but it may be appropriate in some circumstances for the licence to specify other persons for such tasks. Perhaps I may give the Committee examples. I refer to the Health and Safety Executive, or the British Transport Police Committee on matters concerning policing.
Amendment No. 33 makes it clear that two further areas may he covered in licence conditions: referral for approval of such things falling to be done under the licence as are specified in the licence, and the provision of documents or other information to a qualified person in connection with any functions of that person under the licence. In both cases the person by whom the approval must be given, or to whom the documents must be supplied, may be any person specified for that purpose in the licence, though in the case of the provision of documents there is a separate requirement to provide them to the Secretary of State or the regulator for the purpose of exercising their functions under Part I of the Bill.
Subsection (2A) of the same amendment provides for conditions in a licence to be modified or to cease to have effect in circumstances specified in or determined by or under the licence conditions. This provision and all the previous provisions of this and the related amendments are without prejudice to the generality of Clause 9(1) (a). I should also add that all of those clarifications of the coverage of licence conditions are precedented in previous privatisations.
Finally the provision in subsection (2C) of the amendment contains the definition of a "qualified person" as used earlier in this and related amendments. A qualified person is a person specified in a licence for the purpose in question, a person of a description so specified or a person nominated for that purpose by such a person. That is a fairly wide description, but it may be that in some cases the appropriate person will not be established until after initial licences have been issued, so a wide description is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I merely say that we reserve our position on the matter. At this time of night I am certainly not in a fit condition to absorb much of what the Minister had to say, and I am not sure he absorbed it himself. It was difficult stuff, I think he will agree. We reserve our position.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord disappoints me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 33:
Page 10, line 12, leave out ("the grantor") and insert:

("(i) the Secretary of State,

(ii) the Regulator, or

(iii) any other person, or any other person of a class or description, specified in the licence, except a Minister of the Crown or Government department,").

Page 10, line 15, at end insert:
("(1A) Conditions included in a licence by virtue of subsection (1) (a) above—

(a) may require the licence holder to enter into any agreement with any person for such purposes as may be specified in the conditions; and

(b) may include provision for determining the terms on which such agreements are to be entered into.").

Page 10, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) to comply with any requirements from time to time imposed by a qualified person with respect to such matters as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;").
Page 10, line 21, leave out ("the Regulator") and insert (''a qualified person").
Page 10, line 24, leave out ("the Regulator") and insert (''a qualified person").
Page 10, line 26, at end insert:
("(d) to refer for approval by a qualified person such things falling to be done under the licence as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;
(e) to furnish to a qualified person such documents or other information as he may require for the purpose of exercising any functions conferred or imposed on him under or by virtue of the licence;
(f) to furnish to the Secretary of State or the Regulator such documents or other information as he may require for the purpose of exercising the functions assigned or transferred to him under or by virtue of this Part.
(2A) Conditions included in a licence may contain provision for the conditions to cease to have effect or be modified at such times, in such manner and in such circumstances as may be specified in or determined by or under the conditions; and any provision included by virtue of this subsection in a licence shall have effect in addition to the provision made by this Part with respect to the modification of the conditions of a licence.
(2B) Subsections (1A), (2) and (2A) above are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) (a) above.
(2C) Any reference in subsection (2) above to a "qualified person" is a reference to—

(a) a person specified in the licence in question for the purpose in question, or

(b) a person of a description

so specified, and includes a reference to a person nominated for that purpose by such a person pursuant to the licence.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Conditions of licences: activities carried on by virtue of a licence exemption
(" .—(I) If and so long as a person is a licence exempt operator—

(a) there shall not be included in any licence granted to him any condition which relates to his licence exempt activities, except to the extent permitted by virtue of subsection (2) below; and

1049

(b) any such condition which is included in a licence which has been granted to him shall, except to that extent, be of no effect so far as so relating.

(2) A condition which relates to both a licensed activity carried on by a person and a licence exempt activity carried on by him may be included in a licence, but only if and to the extent that, in consequence of his carrying on a mixed activity, the condition must necessarily have effect in relation to the whole, or some part, of so much of the mixed activity as consists of the licence exempt activity if the condition is to have full effect in relation to so much of the mixed activity as consists of the licensed activity.
(3) There shall not be included in a licence any condition relating to the fares that may be charged in respect of train journeys involving licence exempt travel, other than train journeys which also involve—

(a) licensed travel; and

(b) at least two consecutive scheduled calls at stations during any one continuous spell of licensed operation.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above and this subsection—

"call" means any stop at a station for the purpose of allowing passengers to board or leave the train (including the stops at the stations at the beginning and end of the train journey in question);

"licence exempt travel" means travel by means of a train whose operator is, by virtue of a licence exemption, exempt from the requirement to be authorised by licence to be the operator of that train for the whole, or for some part, of the train journey in question;

"licensed travel" means travel by means of a train whose operator is authorised by licence to be the operator of that train for some part of the train journey in question;

"spell of licensed operation", in the case of any train journey, means any part of the journey throughout which the operator of the train in question lawfully acts as such by virtue only of holding one or more licences;

"train journey" means a journey between any two stations which is scheduled to be made by means of one train (irrespective of where the train in question begins or ends its journey).

(5) Subsection (3) above has effect notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) or (2) above; and section 9 above is subject to the provisions of this section.
(6) In this section—

"licence exempt activity" means any activity which a person carries on in his capacity as a licence exempt operator;

"licence exempt operator" means an operator of railway assets, or railway assets of a class or description, who is, by virtue of a licence exemption, exempt from the requirement to be authorised by licence to be the operator of those railway assets or of railway assets of that class or description;

"licensed activity" means any activity which a person carries on in his capacity as a licence holder;

"mixed activity" means any activity which is carried on by a person who is both a licence holder and a licence exempt operator and which is carried on by him in part as a licensed activity and in part as a licence exempt activity.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans moved Amendment No. 34A:
Insert the following new clause:
("Requirements as to mutual ticket arrangements between operators of passenger services
.—(1) This section applies in any case where the activities authorised by the licence are or include the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway, and references in this section to services are to such services.
1050
(2) Each licence shall include such conditions as the Regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of requiring the licence holder—

(a) to issue relevant tickets to passengers;

(b) to permit passengers who hold relevant tickets issued by other licence holders to use the services provided by him without charge directly by him, on any route which is reasonable for travel between the places specified on the tickets; and

(c) to participate in such arrangements as may be specified in the licence for the purpose of enabling reimbursement to be made to licence holders who have permitted passengers to use the services provided by them without charge as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

(3) In subsection (2) above "relevant ticket" means a ticket of a kind designated by the Regulator for the purposes of this section which entitles the holder to travel from a place within the area where the licence holder issuing the ticket is authorised by the licence to provide services to a destination outside that area.
(4) This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 9 above.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to explore the future prospects for the use of alternate routes between any two points specified on a given railway ticket. To take an example, I have in mind the journey from Exeter to London. At present it can be made direct via Westbury or via Bristol or via Salisbury. I hope that such options would continue to be available post-franchising and post-open access. Initially I thought that this might be a matter for the franchising director, but my legal advice is that a twin track approach is needed to cover open access.
I mentioned the flexibility which exists at present, and I believe that it would be advantageous for it to continue. At the moment, a given fare buys a ticket valid via any reasonable route. British Rail, although broken down into profit centres, runs practically all the trains and I am not aware of any fare competition between the present sectors which may in future become franchises.
However, in the future my London-Exeter example is complicated by the following. British Rail may be involved as the residuary operator and/or there may be two franchisees and/or there may be open access operators. The franchise director could, I believe, encourage inter-availability through the franchise agreements. But open access operators are not within his remit and hence I bring the regulator into the discussion. My new clause allows him to specify licence conditions to provide that the operator would accept other parties' tickets (of types specified by the regulator) between any two points as specified on the face of a ticket. Revenue allocation would require a scheme, possibly based on sampling, but it does not seem to me to pose an insurmountable problem.
In seeking to protect the passengers' enjoyment of inter-availability, I believe that we are preserving a present good practice and one which many customers would like to see continue. And not only many customers. I am grateful for the support of a number of user and other organisations such as the statutory tourist boards, Age Concern, Help the Aged, CoSLA, the National Council for Inland Transport and the Ramblers' Association. All those bodies subscribe to the aims of Transport 2000 and continued inter-availability is one of that umbrella organisation's

1051
objectives. I shall be interested to hear how my noble friend sees inter-availability developing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for taking us through his amendment. I have to say that there were various interpretations of it, but I thank him for the clarification that he has given. As he explained, the intention of the amendment is to ensure that passengers should continue to have the flexibility to make choices about their time and route of travel and should not incur undue penalty as a result. This facility is clearly valued by passengers at the moment and the Government expect that in many cases operators will want to negotiate similar arrangements in the future. It is not, of course, universal. Certain tickets, including many discounted fares, carry restrictions as to day or time of travel, or use of particular trains.
It is open to the regulator or the franchising director, under their powers in the Bill, to impose suitable obligations on operators to provide inter-availability, where they consider this appropriate in the public interest. The Government do not intend to impose blanket obligations in this respect. We believe that to do so would be too restrictive. It would tend to blunt competition and, for example, inhibit the development of particular rail services aimed at specific market segments.
We do, however, accept that there will be circumstances—particularly in the case of high frequency commuter flows—where passengers will expect their tickets to be valid for travel on the next available train, regardless of the identity of the operator. That is a reasonable expectation, and—so far as franchised services are concerned—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to give appropriate guidance to the franchising director on such matters, under Clause 5 of the Bill.
It may be that a possible alternative to inter-availability in some cases would be to provide for the passenger to trade in his ticket for one which is valid for travel on a different operator's services. Possible arrangements of that kind are being investigated by the department and its advisers. There are attractions, in that the information obtained at the booking office can then more reliably ensure that revenue is attributed to the operator whose services the passenger has chosen to use for his particular journey.
For all these reasons I do not believe that it would be sensible to be too prescriptive on inter-availability on the face of the Bill. Suitable arrangements will be developed. They will need to vary with different circumstances. There are adequate powers to impose requirements where justified; and revenue allocation arrangements will be able to be put in place as now to ensure that revenue income is routed to appropriate operators.
11 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very detailed reply, which obviously requires some further study. With that background, and again expressing my gratitude. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Modification by agreement]: [Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause II [Modification references to the Monopolies Commission]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Reports on modification references]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Modification following report]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Facility owners to permit use of railway facilities by other persons]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 16, line 26, after ("If") insert ("after consultation with the Central Committee and every consultative committee likely to be affected by the access agreement").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 40, with the leave of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 41 and 44. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 go together as amendments to Clause 15 concerning access agreements. I am seeking to ensure that before giving his approval to an access agreement, the regulator is obliged to consult the statutory body set up by the Bill to represent the rail users. That would ensure that the various consultative committees and the relevant RUCCs would have the opportunity to consider and comment on the terms of any access agreement.
The proposed system of access agreements will be an important element in the new regulatory framework for the railways. The access agreements will contain many provisions which will have a direct impact on the passengers who use the service. Such provision will, for example, relate to the timetables or changes in service, to the equipment in use such as the rolling stock and to the establishment of performance monitoring systems. These are all matters on which the CTCC and the RUCCs currently make direct input to British Rail on behalf of rail users. The benefits of those arrangements really ought to be preserved under the new system.
Amendment No. 44 to Clause 16 is one where again I am niggling about the vague wording, where the regulator is obliged to publish a notice, again in such a manner as he "considers appropriate", to bring any proposal to grant a facility exemption to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the grant of a facility exemption. Again, there is no specification as to who are the persons likely to be affected.
It seems to me that it is the consultative committees from among all the people who ought to receive a copy of the notice. The statutory body set up under the Bill

1053
to represent all the rail users would then have the opportunity to consider and comment on any proposal which the regulator made to grant a facility exemption. It seems to me that it would be wrong for the regulator to be able to grant facility exemptions without being obliged to notify what he was going to do to the new statutory bodies representing the passengers using the railways. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: We sympathise with the noble Baroness and her wish to strengthen the role of the consumer committees. But we believe that these amendments go too far.
The committees will be looking at the performance of the railway as it affects the passenger. We do not believe that they need to be consulted on drafts of access agreements in order to fulfil that function. Access agreements are essentially contracts between train operators and the owners of facilities such as stations, track and light maintenance depots. They do not directly affect the interests of passengers. In the case of freight operators, access agreements will have no impact at all on passengers, and it would clearly be quite wrong for the committees to become involved in such matters.
Amendment No. 44 would require the regulator to send to the committees copies of notices of his intention to grant an access exemption. Again, we do not feel that that is appropriate. We have already set out our policy on initial exemptions from the access requirements of the Bill. We do not envisage access exemptions granted by the regulator being a frequent occurrence; nor will they necesssarily be limited to passenger services, in which the committees have an interest. Where the regulator thinks that it would be useful to have the views of a consultative committee on a possible access exemption, he will be able to ask it. But we do not believe that a statutory requirement to send the committees a notice of his intention to grant an access exemption is either necessary or desirable.
I therefore ask the noble Baroness whether she will withdraw this group of amendments.
Baroness Stedman: I am sorry and disappointed in the reply from the noble Viscount. I had hoped that perhaps the consultative body set up as the statutory body representing the rail users might have a little more confidence placed in it and be specifically named to do the job that it is supposed to do and not leave it to chance that the regulator may or may not consult it. It is a great pity that we have not written into the Bill that the rail users' consultative committees are those who speak for the passengers and those who use the railways.
I shall look into what has been said. For the time being I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 16. line 45, at end insert:
("( ) Where the railway facility to which the access agreement relates is a track or station the Regulator shall in
1054
determining whether or not to approve the proposed terms of the agreement have regard to any advice issued to the facility owner by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 43 and shall try to deal briefly with them. It will not be easy, but I am aware of the late hour.
The purpose of Amendment No. 42 is to try to probe the policy of the Government regarding the criteria that Railtrack and the regulator will be obliged to take into account in granting access to track and stations. In the first round of the franchising agreement, it seems that agreement would have to be reached between the franchising director and the regulator on the train paths which are needed to provide the services that are to be franchised. In addition, the Secretary of State will advise the regulator to limit the level of competition to allow the franchising to get under way. That is a far cry from the original proposal envisaged by the Government.
But what will happen in the later rounds of franchising? I feel that the situation is somewhat obscure. The access document states that Railtrack will be under no obligation to meet the access requirements of the franchising director. On the assumption that the second round of franchising will not start until after December 1996, the Secretary of State will have no power to order the regulator to follow any advice issued to him. That was conceded earlier. As I said at Second Reading, it is extraordinary that Railtrack is not referred to in any of the 185 pages of the Bill; yet it is pivotal in the process that we are discussing.
Committee Paper 5, which deals with the draft licence for Railtrack, includes a special condition setting out the way in which Railtrack should undertake its network business. It has to accord with an access regime policy statement. The concept of that statement is extremely important. For example, one can presume that Railtrack could be advised that it should give particular weight to the importance of local commuter services in allocating access to congested mainline stations. The draft licence refers to the access document simply as an example of a statement. But can the paper be said to help in determining the terms of the way in which Railtrack's responsibilities are to be carried out?
In my view it is a far too generalised way of dealing with the matter and I should like to ask the Minister specifically: to what extent will the regulator be required, or even allowed, to have regard to the statement when it falls to him to consider the contents of access agreements? There can be no doubt that the allocation of access to track and stations, and the criteria to be taken into account in making such decisions, will be of the utmost importance. The Secretary of State is obliged to give proper policy guidance since it is he who is answerable to Parliament. Surely, the access regime policy statement would be the most appropriate vehicle therefore for the provision of that advice. I should like to know what the Minster's views are on that point. If he agrees with it—I do not think for one moment that he will —what form is the statement to take? What consultation will there be as to its contents? What

1055
parliamentary scrutiny will take place? How will the existence of the statement relate to the role and responsibilities of the regulator?
I turn from that to Amendment No. 43, the purpose of which is to highlight the likely effects of the principles on which the Government are proposing that charges for access to the railway network should be based.
One of my concerns is that I do not believe that it can be acceptable for the franchise director to indirectly subsidise open access services. The amendment would ensure that that did not happen. The Minister in another place, Mr. Roger Freeman, sought to argue that it was a sensible course. At col. 1121 of Hansard, he said:
"I strongly believe that it is sensible to encourage the running of additional passenger rail services. Where the absence of such services would imply certain costs for the rail network that had to he recovered from the existing services, it is right that those additional services should be offered—as long as they cover their avoidable costs as a minimum. We want Railtrack to try to negotiate the best possible commercial terms, but if the choice is between covering avoidable costs and running, or being denied the ability to offer that service because it is not making a significant contribution to common overheads I know which one I would choose".
Unfortunately, that defence ignores two essential issues. First, the Minister ignored the implications for the competitive position of open access operators and franchisees, and the latter will clearly be at a disadvantage. Secondly, the Minister overlooked the fact t hat the government proposals will mean that any element of subsidy paid to franchisees to cover their track costs will in part cross-subsidise allegedly "commercial" open access operators. That aspect is highlighted by a further statement made by the Minister at col. 1125, when he said,
"It is important that the market system works. An open access operator may want to hid to run a train service because it will be profitable: he may want to pay sum X for the right to run, for example, a service into Manchester or a commuter service into London. The franchising director may want to protect that group of trainpaths. He may have to pay more if he judges it socially necessary to preserve that network of services".
But under that scenario the franchising director is in an impossible position; he cannot win. He faces the risk of either paying higher levels of subsidy in order to retain a network of services in competition with open access bids or of cross-subsidising open access operators. There is therefore, exemplified by that fact, a clear incompatibility of franchising and open access operations.
The issue was addressed by the Commons Transport Committee. Amendment No. 42 seeks to address the anxieties addressed by the committee in its report. I am not sure that it wholly addresses those issues; but it will go some way towards that. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord asked why Railtrack is not mentioned by name on the face of the Bill. Railtrack, when established, will be a government-owned company. The names of the companies are rarely mentioned in legislation. One good reason
1056
for that is that their name may change in future. Railtrack is covered by the expression "network operator" in the Bill. This approach allows us to legislate for all network operators, not just Railtrack. For example, if the Isle of Wight Railway is operated as a vertically integrated franchise, the franchisee will be a network operator as well as a passenger service operator.
Amendment No. 42 is clearly aimed at the terms proposed by Railtrack for access to its facilities. The amendment is attempting to influence the regulator's decisions by the roundabout method of requiring advice given to Railtrack by the Secretary of State to be taken into account by the regulator.
In the short term I do not believe that such a requirement is necessary because the Secretary of State can give guidance direct to the regulator, which, under Clause 4(4), the regulator is required to take into account. This guidance will cover the approach to access charging. In the longer term I do not believe that the requirement is desirable. The provision for guidance to the regulator is intended to cover the launch of the privatisation regime, particularly franchising, but is deliberately limited to the first three years, up to 31st December 1996. Our policy is to establish the regulator as an independent person to take decisions on the appropriate charges, and after the interim period we do not want the Secretary of State to have the opportunity to intervene in these types of decisions. A requirement for the regulator to take into account any advice from the Secretary of State to Railtrack would risk interference with the regulator's independence.
Amendment No. 43 would require the regulator, when considering the proposed terms of access agreements, to ensure that a facility owner did not distinguish in his charges between operators of passenger rail services which are the subject of a franchise agreement and operators of those services which are not. The intention of this amendment is to require charges for track and other facilities not to differentiate between franchised and other passenger services.
The view of the Government, set out in our paper Gaining access to the Railway Network, which was published in February this year, is that the long-term health of the railway industry will best be secured if Railtrack pursues a policy of market pricing, subject to the avoidance of unfair discrimination between competing operators in the same market. The requirements of European law must be satisfied. However, we believe that to adopt any kind of standard tariff approach to charging would price off the network those operators who could afford to make a contribution to costs above the marginal costs they impose on Railtrack, but who could not afford to pay as much as the average cost. The result would be a downward spiral of increased costs pricing off marginal users, leading to an increase in charges for remaining users, and so on.
The regulator will have to consider whether there is any unfair discrimination when he considers the terms of access contracts, including any moderation of competition required for the successful launch of

1057
franchising. While I am happy to accept that the regulator will have an important role in ensuring that the charging system operates fairly, I believe that to impose artificial constraints on the regulator in his approach to this task would be unhelpful.
To answer a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the regulator must take account of any factors that he considers relevant in determining access agreements and must be guided by his duties in Clause 4 of the Bill, including the duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 4(4) (a) until 31st December 1996. The access policy statement will form part of that guidance.
While we are on the question of access, I should like to clarify the position for the Committee. There are a number of government amendments to go down in relation to this clause. After discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, they were not put down as they might well have been starred amendments which we are seeking to avoid. But they will be down for a later stage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for reading almost as quickly as I was. This is no time to enter into a debate. We have entered into an agreement and we must honour that agreement. We were almost on the brink of it. I shall read very carefully what the Minister had to say but I reserve the right to come back to these issues at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Exemption of railway facilities from section 15]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eleven o' clock.

  NIGERIA: DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS
  NIGERIA: DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS
  SUDAN: REPORT OF EC DEVELOPMENT MINISTERS
  SUDAN: REPORT OF EC DEVELOPMENT MINISTERS
  ST. HELENA: TOURISM PROSPECTS
  ST. HELENA: TOURISM PROSPECTS
  MEDICAL EYE CENTRES
  MEDICAL EYE CENTRES
  SIGHT TESTS
  SIGHT TESTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: STATUTORY RULES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: STATUTORY RULES
  EQUINE VIRAL ARTERITIS
  EQUINE VIRAL ARTERITIS
  M.25 and M.4 IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
  M.25 and M.4 IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
  LONG CRIMINAL TRIALS: RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PAPER
  LONG CRIMINAL TRIALS: RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PAPER
  INTESTACY: IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
  INTESTACY: IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS