Sitting of 29 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    HARRIS TWEED BILL [Lords]
    Amendment agreed to; Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
    GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL
    Considered; read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics
    1. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for 12 months or longer in Yorkshire and Humberside.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): 91,235.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Minister is well aware that that figure, which I believe is the April 1993 figure, represents a considerable increase over the two years to that date. The long-term unemployed have increased from 26 to 36 per cent. of the total. He is also aware that the Government's plans for very little coal mean that the numbers are likely to increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] What specific measures is the Minister proposing to deal with the long-term unemployed in Yorkshire and Humberside?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that unemployment fell in his constituency last month by some 4 per cent., or 141 people. However, he is right to draw attention to the fact that, because we have had a long and difficult recession, our concern should be focused on the long-term unemployed, which is why the Government have announced this year an extra 600,000 differing opportunities to help those people who find themselves out of work—the long-term unemployed—back into employment as recovery continues.
    Sir Donald Thompson: To be unemployed for a year is a terrible thing. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he liaises carefully with the Department of Trade and Industry so that the regional aid package is not so distorted that even more people are left unemployed in Yorkshire and
    808
    Humberside? I am fully aware that the numbers of unemployed have been decreasing in the past few months, and we all hope that that continues.
    Mr. Forsyth: I assure my hon. Friend that we do liaise closely with the Department of Trade and Industry. I know the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in securing jobs for his constituency and for Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole, and I know that he will welcome developments such as the 700 jobs that have been created at Kimberly Clark and the 500 jobs at First Direct in Leeds. Those are a result of the success of the Government's policies, to which my hon. Friend has contributed such a great deal.

    Defence-related Industries
    Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to assist defence-related industries to retrain staff in non-defence-related fields.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Through the training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service, a broad range of programmes are available to help people affected by changes in defence-related industries.
    Mr. Jones: What help are the Government giving to those companies attempting to diversify into non defence-related markets? For instance, T. I. Dowty in my constituency is currently negotiating a merger with Messier-Bugatti of France. Will the Secretary of State press the Government to reflect the special needs of areas most affected by defence rundown in next year's local government grant settlement?
    Mr. Hunt: I understand that Gloucestershire training and enterprise council is involved in Dowty and has set up a job shop to advise people who are affected in any way. There is also a wide range of training opportunities.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point, let us recall that at the last election, the Liberal Democrat party proposed that there should be a 50 per cent. reduction in expenditure on defence by the turn of the century. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman explained what the consequence of that would be in job losses to his constituents.
    As regards the future, we are always looking at ways in which we can increase the competitiveness of the economy. Output in the aerospace industry has increased by more than 35 per cent. in the past 10 years, which is good news.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Marconi companies in Chelmsford have paid a heavy price as a result of the peace dividend and the world recession in defence contracts? Will he join me in congratulating those companies and English Electric Valve on the efforts that they are making to diversify into non-military contract winning, to help to sustain the employment market and we hope, at a future date, to bring new people into work? Will he also ensure that the Essex training and enterprise council does all it can to help retrain those defence workers who have been made redundant, who desperately need work and must be given work as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I have already met the chairman of Essex TEC, Mr. Lawrence. I was able to have some words with him, and I look forward to further discussions. My

    809
    hon. Friend is right to say that it is vital for the training and enterprise council to be involved in the way he describes. As for the second part of his question, I am happy to announce that the United Kingdom will participate fully in the Konver programme to assist regions affected by the decline in the defence industry. That will involve a total amount of about £15 million, through the European social and regional development funds.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, during the past three years, no fewer than 82,000 jobs have been lost in defence-related industries? Will he confirm that, during those three years, Tory Ministers have successively denounced Labour's proposals to shift people from defence to civilian work as ill-thought-out nonsense? Will he also confirm that if the Government had taken the Labour party's advice, many of the 82,000 people who have lost their jobs would not be on the dole but would be doing other useful work instead?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I am happy to be in my new post, and look forward to many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman across these Dispatch Boxes. Secondly—sad to relate—he has again come to the Dispatch Box with some ill-thought-out nonsense. There is a wide range of training and retraining opportunities for people who have worked in the defence-related industries, and we will continue to ensure that resources are directed down that avenue.
    Thirdly, I wish that the hon. Gentleman had welcomed my announcement about our acceptance of the new European programme. Finally, he criticises the Government, but what would have happened under Labour, with its 27 per cent. reduction in defence expenditure? What would that have meant in job losses throughout the United Kingdom?

    Working Week Directive
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the effect on British productivity of the 48-hour working week directive.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The working time directive will be damaging; not as damaging as in its worst form, but sufficiently damaging and unjustified for us to seek to challenge it in the European Court.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate Ministers on their success in the negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Government have guaranteed that there will be no compulsory time limit for working hours, and that that has been welcomed by employers throughout the European Community? [ Laughter.]
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. If Opposition Members, who are chuckling, had had their way, while Taiwan and Japan were loading up ships with consumer goods, in Britain we would have been switching off the lights.
    Mr. Stevenson: Coming back to switching off the lights, does the Minister accept that an industry in the United Kingdom that has had a productivity record second to none—the coal industry—has had that record thrown in
    810
    its face by the closure of half the industry? Is not the threat to productivity in the country not the 48-hour week directive but Government policy?
    Mr. Forsyth: Manufacturing productivity in Britain has led the way in Europe. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the coal industry and other industries have to be competitive. Labour costs in Europe grew at a rate of 4 per cent. a year throughout the 1980s. That compares with a growth in Japan of zero per cent. throughout the 1980s. Competitiveness is the name of the game, and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have not always supported the policy changes needed in the coal industry to achieve competitiveness.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent figures from the German motor industry association show that manufacturing costs for cars in Britain are some two thirds of those in Germany? That is why many German companies are now sourcing from Great Britain for their components. Does he agree that to adopt any directives, particularly the social chapter, would undermine Britain's competitive position, as it is presently undermining the position of many countries in Europe?
    Mr. Forsyth: I could not agree more. The flexible labour policies that we pioneered in the 1980s helped to make our car industry such a success. We are exporting British cars to Japan. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Japan. When the departing chairman of Mercedes Benz warns that the products will no longer say "Made in West Germany", or "Made in Germany", but "Made by Daimler-Benz" because the costs of manufacturing have risen so high in Germany, alarm bells should be ringing throughout Europe among those socialists who still wish to go ahead with the social chapter, which is making industry uncompetitive.
    Ms Quin: Given what the Minister said about competitiveness, how can he explain the fact that, in the 1993 world competitiveness report, the United Kingdom had slipped from 13th place to 19th place? That would seem to be the opposite of what the Minister is saying. Is it not grotesque that, when we have officially 3 million unemployed in Britain today, all the Government can do is go to Europe and suggest that those in work should work even longer hours?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is extraordinary to be lectured by the hon. Lady about improving Britain's competitiveness, when on every occasion she has supported those who have argued for measures that would add to our labour costs and reduce our competitiveness.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that unemployment is the major economic issue facing the European Community, and that we should be giving business men greater flexibility to export and to create more jobs and not to destroy jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to persuade our colleagues in Europe in Copenhagen of the importance of putting the emphasis on competitiveness. Europe is not an island; unless it embraces the arguments that we won in three successive general elections in Britain, jobs will he lost and the numbers of unemployed will increase. That is the lesson of the past few years. Our arguments are now being

    811
    taken on board by our partners in Europe. Only the Labour party 3 s still stuck in the time-warp of the early 1980s.

    Invalidity Benefit
    Mr. Mulllin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people claiming unemployment benefit in the past five years have switched to receipt of invalidity benefit.
    Mr. David Hunt: Relatively few.
    Mr. Mullin: Has not leaning on people to take sickness or invalidity benefit been one of a number of devices by which the Government have managed to massage downward the unemployment figures? Is there any truth in the suggestion that staff in jobcentres receive some incentive or bonus for reducing the figures? Can the Secretary of State tell us about that please?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know why Labour keeps trying to peddle such untrue accusations, particularly when they have been categorically denied in press releases issued by the key individuals involved—Mr. Fogden of the Employment Service and Mr. Stibbard, chief statistician at the Department of Employment. Mr. Fogden said:
    "There is absolutely no truth in the accusation that computer failures or pressure to move people on to sickness benefit are responsible for the fall in unemployment."
    It would be a good idea if the hon. Gentleman turned from the nonsense over statistics to examine the fact that unemployment has fallen four months in succession, and unfilled vacancies are at a two-year high. The trouble is that what is good news for Britain is bad news for the Labour party.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not so much a question of the benefits that people receive as of the help that they need to get back to work? Do not the Government have a good record of helping people with disabilities to get back into jobs?
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more, because that is a key area. I just wish that, instead of messing around with statistics and accusing the Government of allegedly fiddling them, Labour Members concentrated on the fact that it is not an argument about statistics. Every one of the statistics is a case of human difficulty faced by the individual and his or her family. The sooner that the Opposition focus on that the better. The only fiddling with the figures is coming from the Opposition. They are fiddling with figures while the economy turns. It is about time that they started to recognise the truth of the present situation.

    School Leavers
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of training and enterprise councils and further education colleges on the training of school leavers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The precise arrangements for co-ordination are decided locally. However, TECs and further education colleges operate within a framework of contractual relationships in respect
    812
    of the training of school leavers. This is reinforced by partnership arrangements among the colleges, local schools, the careers service and TECs.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is it not time that the Government took some initiative? School leavers denied discretionary grants because of restrictions on local government expenditure find that they have to report to TECs for training and are then sent on the same courses. Is it not time that the Government stopped that administrative nightmare and allowed school leavers to continue training under local government auspices, supported by TECs? When will the Minister do something about tidying up that area?
    Miss Widdecombe: The facts speak for themselves. The current system works extremely well—particularly at the hon. Gentleman's own TEC in Wakefield. In the latest month, only four young people in the 16-to-18-year-old category are still waiting for an offer after eight weeks. Therefore, it appears that the training arrangements are working extremely well.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend use to the full the powers that the Government have in relation to training and enterprise council corporate plans, to ensure that they do not relegate to a low priority the training of disabled school leavers, whose potential ought to be valued for humanitarian and economic reasons?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable number of Government initiatives to promote training and employment opportunities for the disabled in general and for young people. The most recent notable initiative was access to work. I share my hon. Friend's concern.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the training schemes are working comparatively well, as the Minister claims, why is it that only one third of youth trainees obtain a vocational qualification, between 30 and 40 per cent. of young people fail to complete further education courses, and 16 to 19-year-olds in Britain do worse than most comparable advanced industrial countries? The Government, who have been in power for 14 years, have failed our young people. Is it not time that they stopped using youth unemployment as a political football, and did something practical for the generation that they are losing?
    Miss Widdecombe: I find that a trifle rich, coming from a party which has consistently opposed all the training initiatives that this Government have implemented. The majority of youth trainees get into a job, transfer to another course or have another positive outcome. That is a reasonable measure. What chance would they have under Opposition policies, which basically give no guarantee and the dole?

    Training Programmes (Isle of Wight)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives from the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council to discuss delivery of training programmes.
    Mr. David Hunt: I met the acting chairman of the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council two weeks ago, with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is one of the smallest training and enterprise councils in the country, the Isle of Wight TEC holds its own among the giants in the country? Does he understand that, as the Isle of Wight does not have assisted area status, unlike most of Scotland and Wales, the island has to depend heavily on its TEC—rather more so than similar areas?
    Mr. Hunt: I recognise that my hon. Friend has argued vigorously for assisted area status for the Isle of Wight, but he will recognise that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the proposals made by him are now with the European Commission.
    The Isle of Wight TEC does an excellent job and provides a good example of what can be achieved when the local Member works closely with the local TEC. Some Opposition Members could learn from that. I was interested to hear some of the imaginative and innovative ideas that were suggested and which I hope will be followed up.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in the west midlands.
    Miss Widdecombe: In May 1993, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 282,300 unemployed claimants in the west midlands region.
    Mr. Burden: Does the Minister accept that those figures are disgraceful, and that they show that the west midlands has a worse unemployment record than the national average on most indicators, including youth, female and long-term unemployment? Is she aware that 50 per cent. of those unemployed in the Bartley Green ward in my constituency have been out of work for more than a year? Is she further aware that there are 35½ people chasing every job?
    Will not the Minister's words ring hollow to those people? When will the Government do something about long-term unemployment, following 10 consecutive rises in the numbers of long-term unemployed?
    Miss Widdecombe: Does not the hon. Member think that it would be better if he told his constituents the good news about both his constituency and the west midlands? Does he not believe that he should draw his constituents' attention to the flourishing motor industry—so important to the west midlands—and to the fact that unemployment in his constituency, and not just the local area, has fallen by 2 per cent. since last month? Does not he feel that that would be a positive, kinder and more humane message than preaching gloom and doom?
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the west midlands can benefit from the rise in motor car production in Britain when it is falling dramatically in Germany? Does she agree that unemployment in the west midlands will suffer if we adopt a national minimum wage, or if we ever adopted the job-destroying principles of the social chapter, as advocated by the Opposition?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming that just about every Opposition policy would make it harder,
    814
    not easier, for employers to employ. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the motor industry and to the rise in vehicle registrations by 8·9 per cent. and in car production by 23·8 per cent. Why does not the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) take that message to his constituents and try to give the unemployed some hope?
    Mr. Grocott: If the Minister has finished ranting for a moment, may I ask her to reflect on a simple truth? Even in the great depression of the 1930s, the west midlands sustained employment in manufacturing industry, and even took unemployed people from other more depressed parts of the country, but under the Government in the 1980s, there was a collapse of engineering employment in the west midlands. Does she blame the workers or the trade unions for this, or does she know—as I and most people in the west midlands know—that the real cause is a Government of unique economic and industrial incompetence?
    Miss Widdecombe: I was under the impression that in the 1980s we were still suffering from the problems that we inherited from the Labour Government in the 1970s—[Interruption.] However, I am happy to talk about peaks —[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not want to hear about this, but they are going to hear it whether they like it or not. If we are to talk about peaks in the 1980s, perhaps we should point out that in the west midlands there has been a substantial fall in unemployment since that peak, due to the policies of the Government and the revitalisation of the motor industry, none of which would have happened under Labour policies not only of a national minumum wage but of hedging and prescribing for employment instead of getting on and creating it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: In welcoming my hon. Friend to her position at the Department of Employment, may I ask whether she has compared the figures for Japanese-owned motor car companies in Japan, America and mainland Europe with the figures for the United Kingdom? Has she noticed that such companies are cutting production everywhere but in the United Kingdom? What does that tell my hon. Friend about the conditions for manufacturing industry in Britain compared with the rest of the world?
    Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks of welcome, which were noticeably lacking from the Opposition Front Bench. Of course my hon. Friend is right. The inward investment that Britain is experiencing, compared with the difficulties being experienced elsewhere, stands as factual proof of the worth of the Government's policies. I should like to hear the Opposition welcome that inward investment instead of brushing it aside.

    Union Membership
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage membership of trade unions.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: It is for trade unions themselves to encourage union membership by demonstrating that they can provide effective services and that they have the ability to adapt to the needs and aspirations of individual employees in the modern working environment.
    Mrs. Fyfe: We all expected a reply of that nature from the Minister. Will he turn his attention to the Economic League, which has ceased its activities after 73 years of lying and sneering about trade unionists to discourage activity in the workplace'? Will he find out what happened to the records of the Economic League and will he put an end to discrimination against people in the work force on the grounds of their real or supposed political opinions?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have no responsibility for the Economic League, but I gather that the hon. Lady's first attempt at a question was to invite the Government to say what their plans were to discourage trade union membership. I am sure that she will join me in recognising that the reforms that we carried out in the 1980s made trade unions far more willing to consider the interests of their membership and gave the membership far more control over the trade unions. That was a welcome step forward.
    The position on discrimination against people on grounds of trade union membership remains the same as it has always been. It is against the law for employers to discriminate against people on the grounds of trade union membership.
    Mr. Dunn: The worst example of trade union coercion was in the 1970s when people were forced to join trade unions against their will. Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest disincentive to joining a trade union is the link between the trade union movement and the Labour party?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The trade union movement would be much better if it disengaged from the Labour party and the Labour party would be much better if it had the guts, the power and the ability to disengage itself from the trade union movement.
    On the point about the closed shop, I also have a long memory. It comes ill from Opposition Members to pose as the champions of individual rights when they consistently opposed our plans to give individuals the right to join a trade union of choice.
    Mr. Galbraith: Do not the Government actively discourage trade unionism? Did not the Government ban trade unions at Government communications headquarters and change the trade union Bill now before the House to allow employers to bribe their employees to give up trade union membership? Do not those actions speak louder than any mealy-mouthed words from the Minister?
    Mr. Forsyth: No, it is not true that the Government made an amendment to the trade union Bill to allow employers to bribe people not to be members of a trade union. That is against the law and will continue to be against the law. It is true that some people choose not to have their terms and conditions negotiated by collective bargaining arrangements, and the Government believe that they should be free to make that choice while remaining members of a trade union. There are a million trade union members whose terms and conditions are not negotiated by collective bargaining and they must be rather puzzled by the Labour party's position, which is to tell them that their trade union membership is worthless.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister commend to the rest of the United Kingdom the practice which applies in Northern Ireland whereby trade unionists who pay their political contribution are denied the right to join the British Labour party?
    Mr. Forsyth: My responsibilities do not extend to Northern Ireland, but I will happily draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many months, since May 1979, the northern region has had the highest regional unemployment rate in mainland Britain.
    Miss Widdecombe: I regret, in each month.
    Mr. Milburn: For those who miseed the Minister's reply, she said that in each month since May 1979 the northern region has had the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. Is the Minister not ashamed of her Government's record? What message does she believe that it conveys to the 168,000 people currently unemployed in the northern region, who lack nothing in the way of skill or enterprise but apparently everything in the way of active Government support? Does she not realise that without new investment, the weekly haemorrhage of job losses and training cuts will continue unabated and her Government will stand guilty of simply writing off the north?
    Miss Widdecombe: The way to write off the north would be to deny all that is happening there. It would be to deny the inward investment and the fact that it has 17 per cent. of Japanese manufactures in this country. It would be to deny that unemployment in the north now and last month fell much faster than unemployment nationally. It would be to fail to point to the vacancies that are being filled and to the substantial training programmes. I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his hon: Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden): why will he not bring hope instead of misery to the unemployed?
    Mr. Jopling: Will my hon. Friend understand that the overall unemployment figures in the north cover wide differences? Will she take a particular interest in the situation in west Cumbria, which will be affected by yesterday's announcement of a delay in the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? In itself, that is welcome in that it will ensure that when the plant eventually opens it will be safe, but in the short run it will inevitably give rise to serious unemployment. Will the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment take a great interest in the problems of west Cumbria?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I will take that interest. I agree with what he says about the long-term prospects. THORP is a major example of inward investment, with some £1·6 billion advanced by overseas customers, and it will support 3,000 permanent jobs. That is the sort of message of hope that I was endeavouring to bring to Opposition Members and I have pleasure in telling my right hon. Friend that I will keep in touch with him on this issue.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of Blyth Valley over the past few years there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in the number of young people between the ages of 18 and 25 on the unemployment register? When will she and other Ministers

    817
    get on their bikes and go up there and create some jobs in the north east instead of giving us waffle from the Dispatch Box?
    Miss Widdecombe: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if inward investment, increasing vacancies and falling trends in unemployment are waffle, then his constituents want waffle.

    Works Councils
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the EC's plans to introduce statutory works councils.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Government believe that statutory works councils would greatly damage the United Kingdom's competitiveness, and if such proposals are made we will veto them.
    Mr. Riddick: At a time when European countries are in danger of pricing themselves out of world markets, is it not the height of folly for the European Commission to be proposing statutory works councils, which would be costly to industry, bureaucratic and wholly unnecessary? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative Government will resist those proposals to the bitter end? Does not industry support the Tories because the Tories support policies which benefit and help industry?
    Mr. Hunt: I give my hon. Friend the unqualified assurance that he seeks. At the last Social Affairs Council in Luxembourg, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I made it clear to our fellow Ministers that the most important item on the agenda of the European Community is the reduction of unemployment, which is rising in almost every European Community country except the United Kingdom. That will be achieved by introducing measures which improve competitiveness and not by the Commission's proposals.
    Ms Eagle: Why is any idea of co-operation in the workplace anathema to the Conservative party? Surely productivity and morale will improve if the work force is not subject to authoritarian rules and macho management. Why do the Government always oppose, for spurious cost reasons, proposals designed to secure co-operation between the work force and management and to ensure that workers have positive rights in the workplace?
    Mr. Hunt: The Government have pioneered many innovative and imaginative forms of co-operation in the workplace, but we shall not allow co-operation to be introduced in legislative form. That would be highly restrictive, but it is what statutory works councils would introduce. We would then be back to the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s. I know that Opposition Members enjoyed those days because they gave power to a few trade union leaders, but the vast majority of people in this country do not want to return to that form of legislated co-operation. We want the voluntary partnership that has become so evident under this Government.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Is my hon. Friend aware that some multinationals have estimated the cost of the proposal at between £500,000 and £1 million per year? Would that not be bad for business, bad for Britain and bad for Europe as a whole in the world market?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like each European Community proposal to be tested first for its effect on the competitiveness of the European Community. We need such a test to prevent the introduction of proposals which will merely further undermine competitiveness and result in further job losses.
    Mr. Dobson: If the Tory party's policies in the past 14 years have been the acme of competitiveness, why does Britain have the second biggest trade deficit in Europe and the biggest trade deficit of any European Community country with the rest of the world?
    Mr. Hunt: All right. If the hon. Gentleman wants facts, let him listen to these: inflation is at its lowest for 30 years, interest rates are lower in this country than anywhere else in the whole of the European Community, manufacturing output is up by more than 2 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 7·8 per cent., retail sales up by 3 per cent., consumer spending up by 2·3 per cent., car registrations up by 7·5 per cent., housing starts up by 17 per cent., and—the most chilling factor for the Labour party—strikes at their lowest level for 70 years. That is the record on which we fight.

    Aerospace Industry (Redundancies)
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of redundancies which have occurred in the aerospace industry since 1 January 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The information is not available.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister not concerned at the fact that tens of thousands of the most skilled workers in our biggest industry—British Aerospace—are losing their jobs? This must be a tragic waste. Does the hon. Gentleman know that at the British Aerospace works in Broughton in my constituency more than 1,000 people have lost their jobs in the past year? Will he investigate the proposal by Raytheon to buy Corporate Jets from British Aerospace, bearing in mind the fact that Corporate Jets has lost 269 jobs in my constituency? Will he attempt to secure from the new company a guarantee that my constituents will have more than three years' work if it buys from British Aerospace?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is true that the aerospace industry has been hit by the downturn in the world market. The 1980s saw growth of about 36 per cent. in sales. With the skills that the British aerospace industry has, I am sure that we can achieve that again in the 1990s. The question that the hon. Gentleman has put to me is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman has worked long and hard in the interests of his constituents who are involved in executive jet production. I understand that British Aerospace, in considering the sale of the company at Broughton, intends to secure a guaranteed work period of about three years as part of the arrangement. The sale has been referred to the Director General of Fair Trading, and I cannot say any more at this stage. I can, however, promise the hon. Gentleman that both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right

    819
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are very conscious of the importance of retaining jobs in this successful industry, which is vital to Britain.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Malnutrition and Infant Mortality (Iraq)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is his most recent information from UNICEF about the alleged infringements of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child involving malnutrition and infant mortality in Iraq.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): No such information has been received from the United Nations Children's Fund, but we remain in close touch with United Nations agencies about the humanitarian situation in Iraq.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has the Prime Minister been briefed by the Foreign Secretary and by Sir Michael Burton about the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and Tim Llewellyn to the paediatric hospital in Baghdad, where we saw lines of infants with swollen tummies and swollen private parts expiring as a result of malnutrition-related diseases such as marasmus? Does the west have any obligation to do something for injured infants who are without pharmaceuticals or medicines as a result of the missile attack on Baghdad? Would it not be wise, for reasons that I gave to Sir Michael Burton and the Foreign Secretary, at least to hear what the Iraqi people have to say?
    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the hon. Gentleman's humanitarian concerns and of his discussions and his report to the Foreign Secretary. However, I think that he is misguided in the way in which he attributes responsibility. To be frank with the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that it is not the responsibility of external countries that the difficulties in Iraq, which led to the devastating situation, have been brought about. We very much wish that this were not the situation. However, it is, and over recent months we have done what we could to put it right. With regard to the attack, I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman as the matter was widely discussed in the House yesterday.

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of injustice about the fact that, on the only occasion this Session when I have the good fortune to be able to ask him a question on television, the BBC is showing Wimbledon on both channels? Would riot the watching public be immensely encouraged to learn that we are today considering the Criminal Justice Bill and that the police are going to make lighting crime and protecting the public their top priority, unencumbered by unnecessary paperwork?
    The Prime Minister: With no disrespect to my hon. Friend's question, I think that that is the best decision by the BBC that I have heard for some time—game, set and match to the BBC, I think. I agree with the substance of my hon. Friend's question. What most people in this country wish to ensure is that our police service is doing the job we most wish to see it do, that is to say, not pushing paper but catching criminals.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is three months to the day since the House debated the Government's White Paper on the coal industry? Does he recollect that the public, the press and some of his own Back Benchers were led to believe that 12 pits would be saved by that White Paper? Why is it that, only three months later, three of the 12 pits face closure?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there have been severe geological problems at some of those pits, resulting in an excessive level of cost. British Coal has talked to the men about the problems. I understand that at Rufford the men voted to close the pit when the existing face is exhausted and at Markham they agreed to immediate closure. British Coal is still committed to the market-testing exercise.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand what is happening to the miners—that if they do not vote for closure they lose redundancy payments? Does he not understand what is happening in the market? British Coal is now offering coal at a knock-down price which would give the consumer much cheaper electricity than he or she could get from any other source. If the two privatised generators still will not buy at that price, does that not prove that the market is rigged against coal and that, if it goes on, pit after pit will close and will shall lose a vital industry?
    The Prime Minister: The reason for taking the decisions on coal some months ago was to make sure that there is a viable industry that can continue in the future. It will be a smaller industry than once it was, for it has been shrinking in size year on year over the past 30 years. That is a fact of life which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I and every hon. Member well understand. It is the market for coal which will determine the size of the industry. The Government have made it clear that they are willing to provide a subsidy to help the deep mining industry secure supplementary coal to generators at world prices. That was and is the position.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister not remember clearly that the House was led to believe that 12 pits would be saved as a result of the White Paper? Why does he not come clean and admit that the White Paper was a fraud and is now exposed as a fraud? Is it not a perfect example of the style of the Prime Minister and his Government that they produced a White Paper for 36 hours' publicity, which has not survived for three months in the real world?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps have observed what Mr. Scargill had to say at lunchtime when he said:
    "The Labour leadership is more interested in opinion polls and images rather than principles and real policies."
    Miss Emma Nicholson: During his busy day, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read the letter from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in The

    821
    London Literary Review, in which he gives inaccurate medical information on the state of child health in Iraq? Will the Prime Minister remind the hon. Gentleman that United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 of August and September 1991 authorised Iraq to export $16 billion worth of oil to buy medicines over a six-month period but that those arrangements have never been implemented?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen that particular letter, but my hon. Friend is quite right about the proposition that has been available to Iraq for well over a year whereby it could export oil and, in return, have medical and other equipment. The Government of Iraq—Saddam Hussein—chose not to take up that option. For that reason, he is primarily to blame for the present difficulties in treating people who are sick and ill in Iraq.
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House and to the many pensioners lobbying Parliament today that the Conservatives have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on tax relief to the wealthiest members of Lloyd's, while continuing to persist with their policy of putting VAT on gas and electricity? Does he appreciate that that is typical of the present Government?
    The Prime Minister: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the position. The fact is that the success of Conservative policies over the years has enabled pensioners' incomes to increase by 30 per cent.—37 per cent. net of housing costs—since 1979. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps remind himself, and tell others, which party tried to cut the Christmas bonus, cut spending on the national health service, failed to uprate pensions and let inflation get out of control and wreck the savings of millions of pensioners.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I share my right hon. Friend's approval that Wimbledon is monopolising all channels, but, in the context of the necessary review of public spending, may I ask for an assurance that there will be a rigorous clamp-down on all those who are claiming benefit on fraudulent grounds at the expense of those most worthy of help in society, to whom benefits should be targeted?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. I assure him that the Government will honour their pledges to uprate state retirement and child benefits and so protect the most vulnerable in society. I also assure him that those who try to defraud the benefits system will find it increasingly difficult to do so. They will come up against a Government anti-fraud policy which expects to net savings of nearly £1 billion this year. We want those resources so as to make sure that they are available for those who need them most. I make no apology for protecting taxpayers from those who seek to abuse the system.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Jones: In view of the revelations at the trial of Christopher Clunis, who stabbed and killed Jonathan Zito, will the Prime Minister accept that although most people suffering from schizophrenia are not dangerous, the failure of the Government's care in the community policy means that dangerous mentally ill people are walking the streets? What does he intend to do about that, and will he now order a public inquiry into the case and its implications for community care, as requested by Mr. Zito's widow?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not know it, but the care in the community policy has been a cross-party policy in the House for many years. Everyone is deeply sorry to hear about that tragic case, and I have deep sympathy for Mrs. Zito and the other relatives concerned. Nevertheless, I am sure that our community care policy is right for the patients concerned. It is right to encourage them generally to lead as independent a life as possible away from large-scale institutions. To that end, we now devote spending of more than £2 billion per year, and we have increased it substantially to ensure that the resources devoted to it are able to meet the problems which exist.
    I have to say to the hon. Lady that picking out a tragic case such as that in the way that she did does no credit to her.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is the only leading country in Europe experiencing economic recovery? Will he further confirm that while other countries in the European Community languish in recession, our economy has low inflation, falling unemployment, low wage settlements and the highest growth rate in Europe? Does he agree that that is good news for British business men and exporters and will help the nation to get roaring forward again economically?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it is good news for everybody, with the possible exception of some Opposition Members for whom good news is extremely bad news. Britain was the first country in Europe to go into the recession; it is now among the first to emerge. Although conditions abroad throughout the Community may be difficult for some time, the Community itself and others are now forecasting that we shall have the highest growth rate in the Community this year and the highest growth rate again next year.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Have Her Majesty's Government given any commitment to the Labour party's proposals for joint authority over Northern Ireland, as set out in the documents published this morning?
    The Prime Minister: The first I heard of the apparent proposals by the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland was when I read that astonishing story in The Guardian this morning. I have no means of knowing

    823
    whether The Guardian story is right or wrong. I hope that it is wrong, but, as Opposition Members seem to have questions planted upon them by The Guardian, it does not seem unreasonable to me that they may plant their policies upon The Guardian themselves. I can only say that that policy, if it is the policy of the Labour party, is a recipe for disaster. If it is true, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will request the resignation of his spokesman this day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the obligation to tell the people of Northern Ireland whether or not that is the policy of the Labour party.
    Mr. Brandreth: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on literally flying the flag in support of Manchester's Olympic bid? Does he agree that the bid is bringing more money, more jobs and more prestige to an area of this country which is already world class?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that hosting the Olympic games in Manchester would be good for the north-west, good for Britain and good for the Olympics. That is why the Government are determined to do all that they can to back Manchester's bid to bring the Olympics here for the millennium. We have provided full support for that bid. I was delighted to welcome the International Olympic Committee to Downing street yesterday. I shall be meeting the president of the IOC next month, and I look forward to going to Monte Carlo to help to promote the bid in September. The Olympic games which mark the year 2000 will have a special significance and I want to see those games here in Britain—in Manchester.

Personal Statement
3.32 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: This is the third and, I trust, the last personal statement upon resignation that this House will hear during this Session. I did not want to make it, I did not want to resign, but now I can at last explain what I have been doing and why. I think that I owe it to the House, I owe it to my colleagues, I owe it to my family and friends, and I owe it, above all, to my constituents to whom I am ultimately accountable.
First, I think that most people here will know how desperately sad I am to have relinquished a job which I loved and which has been the greatest challenge of my political life. I am more grateful than words can say to the Prime Minister for giving me the chance; to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has led our team in one of the most difficult jobs in the Government with wisdom, courage, honour and utter integrity, and who has gained huge respect throughout Northern Ireland and here for his performance; to the ministerial team—good friends all—with whom I have been so happy to serve, not forgetting my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), whose recent promotion so delighted us all in the Office and all his friends in the Province; to the officials, both in the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland civil service, under the outstanding leadership of two dedicated permanent secretaries; to all the staff throughout the departments for which I had responsibility; and, above all, to my own team, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), my Parliamentary Private Secretary; to Nigel and Alison, to Nannette and Neil, Joanne and Lisa, Susan and Liz, and my escorts in Northern Ireland. I have never known such a dedicated and happy team whose loyalty and devotion has been overwhelming.
My right hon. Friend the new Minister of State, who has my heartfelt good wishes as he takes up my reins, starts with the advantage of the best team that a man could want.
During these past weeks, I have kept silent. I have kept faith with the system, and I have said nothing without the express permission of No. 10. I have no criticism in this matter of the Prime Minister—far from it—or of the Government, or of the two Attorneys-General with whom I have corresponded. But I do have something to say about the law enforcement agencies, which, when the House has heard me, will, I hope, cause the Government to set up an urgent independent inquiry into what has happened.
I do not know whether Mr. Asil Nadir is innocent or guilty. No part of any of my representations has sought either to plead his innocence or to try to establish it. That is for the courts. Those who have alleged that I was trying to help him to escape from the consequences of any of his actions have totally misunderstood what I have been trying to do.
The House may have heard how my involvement began, in the autumn of 1991, through a constituent who brought me details of alleged wrongdoing by the authorities in the case of Mr. Nadir. I asked to meet Mr. Nadir. That was the first time that I had met him or anyone associated with his businesses. He gave me his account of what happened and was able to corroborate most of what he said.
826
Some of his complaints concerned his advisers in the City; others concerned official institutions: the Inland Revenue, the Serious Fraud Office and the police. There have been many more allegations over the past weeks of involvement by others: other national agencies, international agencies and other arms of various Governments. Many of those allegations have been wrongly attributed to me. I shall not pursue this line this afternoon, but of course I would be happy to tell anything I know about these matters to an independent inquiry.
With Mr. Nadir's permission, I spoke to Mr. Anthony Scrivener QC, until recently chairman of the Bar. It was clear that the defence team were concerned at some of the matters that had arisen during the course of the prosecution. He confirmed that he thought that the Attorney-General should be made aware of what was going on.
I met the then Attorney-General to express my concern. At his request, I then wrote to him the first of the letters that have brought me to the position in which I find myself today. The only persons who had copies of those letters were the Attorney-General, Mr. Nadir and the Serious Fraud Office. It is a matter perhaps of speculation who leaked the letter to the press last week.
It was claimed that I was embarrassed by this leak. Far from it: three days previously I had asked the Attorney-General's permission to publish all the correspondence between us, because I felt that it was the only way to bring out into the open the reasons for my involvement. The Attorney-General indicated that this might give him some difficulty. I respected that view and will continue to do so, although I would readily make this correspondence available to any inquiry.
Of course, I understand why the press would publish a letter or any other material leaked to them. I make no criticism of them for that. I just ask that, with me gone, inquiring journalists now ask the following questions. Why was material being selectively leaked to them? Whose agenda was being served by its publication? Why was the Serious Fraud Office talking to the press? The other law departments remained commendably tight-lipped and leak-proof, but the Serious Fraud Office spoke to the press and was even prepared to be quoted—for example,
"We kept asking why he is doing all of this",
a senior Serious Fraud Office source said to a newspaper.
"There was growing irritation at the repeated need to provide information enabling the Attorney General to respond to the points raised by Mates."
Many have asked why I became involved in this case and why I continued my involvement after I joined the Government. I must say at once that, on the latter point, I took careful advice that it was proper for me to pursue this matter as a Minister. Let me simply lay out the facts as they were presented to me at the beginning and as they developed in the months that followed. I leave it to the House to judge, and I hope ultimately to an independent inquiry to decide, whether what I did was right or wrong.
I start with a raid on South Audley Management, a property management company controlled by Mr. Nadir's family, on 19 September 1991. The raid was highly publicised. The press and television had been warned in advance and were in attendance when the raid took place. Inevitably, the publicity surrounding the raid had a serious effect on the share price of Polly Peck International, or PPI as I shall now call it. The following day, 20 September 1991, Mr. Nadir was asked to go to the Serious Fraud

827
Office headquarters in Elm street for an interview, during which time his presence was announced by the SFO to the press. That resulted in an inevitable blaze of publicity as he left the building.
On 30 October, the SFO mounted a highly publicised raid on the headquarters of PPI in Berkeley square. fin fact, 10 minutes before the police arrived, journalists had knocked on the door and told PPI staff that they were there in answer to an invitation from the SFO.
There is a further point. By that time, PPI was already in administration. By arrangement with the administrators, the SFO had already had full access to PPI headquarters and to all the documents there. Its people were already working inside the building. The SFO was effectively launching a raid in the full glare of publicity against the administrators. This clearly had a cumulative effect on the public's perception of both PPI and Mr. Nadir. When Mr. Nadir returned from a trip abroad to assist the administrators, the media were given advance warning of the intention to arrest him at the airport, so they were there in force to watch the event. A process of what some might call trial by media had begun, aided and encouraged by the Serious Fraud Office.
For its part, the SFO has consistently maintained that its investigations and thus its ability to bring the case to trial have been hampered and delayed by its inability to operate in Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus. The defence therefore offered an opportunity to short-circuit the problem. In June 1991, it commissioned Binder Hamlyn, one of Britain's leading accountancy firms, to carry out its own investigation into the relationship between Polly Peck in London and its subsidiaries in Northern Cyprus, which formed the basis of the charges.
The SFO's first response was that Binder Hamlyn must have been shown forged documents. When the defence then presented the SFO with a report from an independent forensic expert, on the SFO's approved list, saying that that was not so, it changed its ground and, despite requests from the defence to go to Northern Cyprus to check the accounts, it ha. s maintained that that would be impossible because Northern Cyprus is not a recognised country.
It is well known that the police have on occasions visited Northern Cyprus to make inquiries in connection with criminal proceedings in this country. I simply do not understand why they could not follow the usual practice. Two police officers visited Northern Cyprus just after this. Now, it is claimed, they were returning illegal immigrants, which shows that police officers do visit Northern Cyprus. However, there is evidence that the officers asked detailed questions about the assets of Polly Peck subsidiaries in Northern Cyprus and, at the very least, there is a severe inconsistency here.
There seems too to be some inconsistency over who made the complaints that the SFO was investigating. The present charges do not arise as a result of a complaint by the stock exchange and there is evidence of improper collusion between a senior officer of the Inland Revenue and the Serious Fraud Office. While the Serious Fraud Office denies any such collusion, the officer involved has admitted it to a journalist, whose name I know and who would be happy to give the details of this illegal collusion to an independent inquiry. Mr. Nadir and his advisers believe that he has been denied the opportunity properly to prepare his defence. They also believe that he has in the process been denied his rights under the law.
Madam Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should bear in mind that Mr. Nadir still stands charged with serious offences in this country on which at some future date he may stand trial. In accordance with the House's strict rules on matters of sub judice, I hope that he will not follow in detail the line on which he now appears to be embarking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take to heart my cautionary words.
Mr. Mates: Indeed, I will, Madam Speaker—I am happy to do so. Perhaps I can assist you and the House if I tell you that I have had this script looked at very carefully by a senior lawyer with exactly that in mind. I have no—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House has its own sub judice rules which it imposes on itself and which I am imposing on the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I caution him seriously about the area on which he now seems to be embarking.
Mr. Mates: During the raid on Polly Peck's headquarters in October 1990, many documents were seized. Professional privilege was claimed by Mr. Nadir's lawyers and it was agreed that the documents would be placed in sealed bags until the issue was resolved by independent counsel.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am extremely reluctant to continue to caution the hon. Gentleman. It is a personal statement and it is normally heard uninterrupted, and I am reluctant to interrupt. However, I caution the hon. Gentleman that we have our sub judice rules in the House and I will see that they are carried out.
Mr. Mates: Madam Speaker, I am embarrassed. Does it help you if I say that what I am saying now is what I received in writing from the Attorney-General? He has written to me about these matters and I am simply reporting to the House some aspects of the handling of the case. It has nothing to do with what is going on in court; it is the handling of the case by the authorities. If you tell me that the House cannot hear this——
Madam Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying may well be used during a pending case, and that is my concern. I ask the hon. Gentleman to re-examine his notes and to see that the House is given the information that he wishes it to have which is not sub judice and which cannot be used in a future trial. That is the point that I am trying to get across.
Mr. Mates: Madam Speaker, I hear what you are saying. Please trust me. I am not talking about matters that will be the subject of the charges and the proceedings in court. I am talking about the handling of the case, which I was looking into—quite properly, I have been told—with the Attorney and over which I have now lost my job. I think that the House is entitled to know about it. In fact, these matters are already in the public domain.
It was agreed that the privilege that was claimed about the documents would be assessed by independent counsel. He found that the vast majority of the documents in the sealed bags were privileged documents. But before counsel saw the documents——
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this statement to continue with the use of information which, whether or not it is in the public domain, may well be used in a court

829
of law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises the seriousness of the action that he is now taking. I have a responsibility in this House to carry out its rules and regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at his notes.
Ms Clare Short: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order. Two weeks ago, I cautioned the House that there can be no interruption of a personal statement. I am extremely embarrassed to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I will take no points of order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has taken seriously the words that I have been trying to put across to him.
Mr. Mates: Indeed I have. This passage in my speech has been confirmed in writing to me and has been passed on to Mr. Nadir's advisers and others by the Attorney-General. I could have published the letter. It is written to me. If I had it with me, I could read it to the House. No one could stop me from reading out a letter from a Minister to a Member of Parliament. That is not covered by any sort of privilege at all.
Madam Speaker: Order. I inform the hon. Gentleman that I certainly do have the authority to stop him reading it out if I thought it to be sub judice. [Interruption.] The House is very restless, and understandably so. It must now come to order. We must hear the hon. Gentleman a little more.
Mr. Mates: It was agreed that this dispute—and confirmed to me by the Attorney-General that it was agreed—would be solved by an independent counsel looking at the papers to see whether they were privileged. The point that I wish to make—which has been acknowledged—is that, before the counsel saw those papers, the SFO had opened the bags. It has admitted that two bags were opened but claimed that that was due to a misunderstanding. In fact, more than two bags were opened, because other papers from other bags have found their way into the hands of the administrators. That is another unsatisfactory part of this story which needs to be investigated.
But that was not the only occasion on which privileged papers, vital to Mr. Nadir's defence, had been mishandled. In March of this year, Mr. Nadir's house was raided by the solicitors for the trustees in bankruptcy. As well as taking various personal effects—one of which I later replaced in inscribed form—they took away all of his privileged defence papers. He protested and was informed in writing that, if he wished to see the papers, he should make an appointment to see them. He was told to specify in advance which papers he wanted to see, and to call at the trustees' offices during working hours when he could examine them, but not take them away. I remind the House that they were his own papers.
I turn finally to what the House may view as the most serious aspect of this whole affair, namely, that quite improper pressure has apparently been exercised by the SFO upon the trial judge, Mr. Justice Tucker.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now requiring the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He must resume his seat.
Mr. Mates rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Mates: This has been reported in the newspapers, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. It has nothing whatsoever to do with publicity or newspapers. I am listening to a personal statement from the hon. Gentleman, not what appears in the newspapers. It is the hon. Gentleman's personal statement that I want to hear.
Mr. Mates: It is this sequence of events, Madam Speaker, above all, that demands an independent inquiry. If one cannot come to the House and tell it what is wrong with the system—if one cannot speak in this place, not about innocence or guilt, not about trial, not about sub judice, but about what has gone wrong with the system—what is the point, Madam Speaker, of being here?
Madam Speaker: It is after the trial that the hon. Gentleman must give his information. That is the point.
Mr. Mates: On 6 November, during the hearing in court of an application to vary Mr. Nadir's bail, counsel for the SFO said that the police were investigating a complaint that there was a conspiracy to bribe Mr. Justice Tucker, the trial judge, and that he should consider standing down because it might be necessary to interview him. The allegation was that a sum of money would be paid to the judge following the success of the application to vary bail.
At a subsequent hearing in court in December, the chief superintendent responsible for investigating the allegation of attempted bribery told the court, when cross-examined, that he had never had evidence that would justify interviewing the judge, nor had the police ever declared their intention to do so. The only conclusion is that the SFO misled the judge about the intentions of the police. The House will also realise that the mere making of such an allegation in court could compromise any chance of the judge being seen to be impartial. Quite rightly, he refused to give up the case.
Then, at a hearing in March 1993, another bizarre suggestion was made by counsel, namely, that the police were investigating a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The suspected conspirators were, said counsel, Mr. Nadir, Mr. Wyn Jones, Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Mr. Anthony Scrivener, QC, and the judge himself, Mr. Justice Tucker. Needless to say, the police have never questioned the police, Mr. Wyn Jones or Mr. Scrivener. This appears to have been a deliberate attempt to destabilise the defence.
The day before, as on the day before so many preparatory hearings, Mr. Nadir was arrested. He was cautioned and interviewed on suspicion of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and the co-conspirators that I have mentioned were named. At the end of the interview his solicitor inquired whether any other of the suspected conspirators had been arrested or interviewed. The House will not be surprised to know that the answer to that was no.
I have the verbatim transcripts of the court proceedings, which substantiate everything that I have

831
said. Of course, I shall make them available to an inquiry. [Interruption.] Relax, Madam Speaker; I am on safer ground now.
I reported this to the Attorney-General in a meeting. I have undertaken to retain the confidence of those meetings, but I think that I can say that I had to give him a moment to get over his surprise. He felt sure that I had got it wrong and that the alleged conspiracy was against the judge rather than involving him. He now knows that I was right.
At that meeting I told my right hon. and learned Friend that I was increasingly uncomfortable with my position as interlocutor in the matter while a member of the Government and I urged him most strongly to speak directly to Mr. Scrivener and the legal advisers about it, lawyer to lawyer. Mr. Scrivener tells me that, so far, no such meeting has taken place.
That concludes the factual account of the highlights of my involvement. I hope that all the House—this is not a party political matter—will now realise that only an independent inquiry can resolve this whole business and bring about the conditions in which it can be seen that there will be a fair trial for Mr. Nadir.
The cumulative effect of what happened in March and April—the alleged bribery of the judge, the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the seizing of the defence papers—left Mr. Nadir in a state of severe depression and despair. It was in that context that a decision was taken to raise his spirits, and in that context I made the fateful decision to give him the watch.
I must emphasise that none of us had any idea that he might leave the United Kingdom. It came as a complete shock and was an action of which I strongly disapproved. It has clearly damaged his standing in the matter; and right hon. and hon. Members can see what it has done to me.
I have asked myself two questions. First, do I regret doing what I did? Well, given the effect that my actions have had on me and all around me, I bitterly regret what has happened. Secondly, in the same circumstances, would I get involved again? I hope that I would have the courage to do so. From the beginning, I have been persuaded that something was amiss within the system, and I have grown ever more convinced as events have unfolded. Surely we are here, either as Front or Back Benchers, to take up questions of apparent injustice, and if we should ever flinch from such a duty the reason for our existence as Members of Parliament would be much diminished.
As for me, I was guilty of one foolish indiscretion, but I have done nothing else improper and I hope that, when this whole story is told, this House will consider that throughout this affair I have acted as an honourable Member.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the presence of the Attorney-General, is it not absolutely a requirement that he should now make a statement about this highly unsatisfactory matter?
Madam Speaker: I have not been told that any Minister is seeking to make a statement.

Personal Statement
  BILLS PRESENTED

    HUMAN RIGHTS (No. 2)
    Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide protection to individuals and in the courts of the United
    832
    Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; to entrench those rights and freedoms; to further provide for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

    SALE OF GOODS
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale and supply of goods: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]
    TRADE DESCRIPTIONS
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]
    UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the extent to which under the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland civil liability for breach of contract, or for negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by means of contract terms or otherwise, and under the law of Scotland civil liability can be avoided by means of contract terms: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]
    PRODUCT RECALLS
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to establish for the protection of consumers a new system of recalling unsafe goods; to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1987; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]
    CONSUMER GUARANTEES
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for consumer guarantees; to amend the law relating to the sale and supply of goods; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]
    CONSUMER CREDIT (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to amend sections 138 to 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 relating to extortionate credit; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]
    FAIR TRADING
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for a general duty to trade fairly; to amend the law relating to fair trading; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]
  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) ( Matter relating exclusively to Wales).
  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WALES)
    That the Matter of Local Government in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    SCHOOL INFORMATION
    That the Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1502) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Education (School Performance Information) (England) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1503) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    MEAT (HYGIENE)
    That the Fresh Meat and Poultry Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examinations for Residues) (Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1360) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Farmed Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1359) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    POST OFFICE
    That the Post Office (Abolition of Import Restrictions) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1324) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

Workplace Childcare
4.1 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose upon employers meeting certain specified criteria the duty to make provision for child care and related facilities for their employees; and to provide for exemptions in certain cases.
The Bill would make it mandatory for employers of more than a certain size to provide workplace creches or nurseries, or some other appropriate child care.
In the 1980s, there was a steep rise in the number of women with children under five who went out to work. In 1981, they were 25 per cent. of the work force, but by 1991 the number had nearly doubled to 43 per cent. Yet it seems to me that the Government have entirely failed to meet that challenge. This country has almost the worst child care provision record in Europe. Only Portugal has worse facilities.
I am not arguing that all women should go out to work or that workplace creches are a suitable form of child care provision for every woman. I would argue that women want a range of provision that includes community nurseries and a tax regime that enables them to meet some of their child care costs——
Mr. Paul Flynn: And some men.
Ms Abbott: Yes, one that enables some men to meet some of their child care costs.
A genuinely enlightened Government, anticipating the needs of the labour force in the year 2000 and beyond, would take a positive policy position on workplace nurseries. Some Conservative Members may argue that, if some individuals make a private decision to go out to work, it is up to them to make private provision for their child care, and that there is no role for Government. On the contrary, I would argue that the nation's children are the nation's responsibility and—what is more—good child care, accessible to all, makes good practical sense. It makes good sense for children because we in Britain have a patchwork of child care provision and children's access to child care depends on where they live and how much money their parents have.
Hon. Members may have read recent surveys from the United States that show that inner-city children with access to good pre-school child care provision are likely to do better in school and are less likely to engage in crime and juvenile delinquency. If we take issues of law and order seriously, we should consider the role of pre-school child care in making children grow up to be law-abiding and fulfilled citizens.
Good child care makes sense for mothers because it enables women to go back to work and use their skills and training. Perhaps even more important, if proper child care, including workplace nurseries, were available in Britain, millions of women currently dependent on social security could go back to work and stand on their own two feet.
Good child care makes good sense for companies, which would not be wasting money on training people and it would reduce their staff turnover. A recent survey revealed that the cost of replacing even a bank clerk can be as high as £5,000 when one adds up the cost of advertising the post and training.

835
Above all, good child care makes sense for the nation. If we are to compete in the single European market in the 1990s and beyond, we need to maximise our use of human resources, and access to child care is a way of maximising the use of female human resources. Many trained and skilled women who go back to work after maternity leave have to take jobs for which they are over-qualified or part-time jobs simply because they cannot get good child care.
If we are engaged in a debate about what to do about the millions of single mothers dependent on social security, we have to take the issue of child care seriously. Living on social security is a degrading experience and few people do it willingly. If only the Government were willing to facilitate a range of child care, millions of women would be able to go out to work and support themselves.
Irrespective of legislation, the Government have a greater role to play in child care. Whitehall has more than 8,000 employees and 27 buildings, but only two workplace creches. The House of Commons has 116,000 sq m of space, 1,207 offices, 14 restaurants and nine bars with another bar being built, yet no creche. It seems to me that the House has ample facilities for drinkers but nothing for children. The House of Commons Commission said recently that there is no space for a creche. That is patently absurd. If we have thousands of square metres of space and hundreds of offices, I do not see why room cannot be found for a creche. It is a question not of room but of understanding the issue and having the will to do something about it.
The Government claim that child care can be left to the market. The market will never be able to provide child care on the level or scale that the current demographic pattern requires. If child care provision is left to the market, inner-city working-class children who could most benefit from high-quality child care will be denied access to it.
To give the lie to the Government's position, the
836
market, in the shape of employers, is now saying that the Government definitely have a role to play. In the past few weeks, major employers, including ICI, Rover and Shell, have set up a group called Employers for Child Care, which is committed to providing child care and calling on the Government to take a lead, play a role and plan provision.
The arguments against child care provision often come from people who have no responsibility for children and who believe that the issue can be brushed to one side. However, I put it to the House that, when we consider the changing labour force, the increasing numbers of working people who have children under five and the need to compete in Europe, the number of workplace nurseries we currently have—only 300—is derisory.
We all agree on the need to invest for growth. What more crucial and important investment could we make than in the nation's children and in their care? The Bill would play a role in providing a range of child care. Women throughout the country would welcome practical initiatives by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mrs. Barbara Roche.

Workplace Childcare
  WORKPLACE CHILDCARE
  Ms Diane Abbott accordingly presented a Bill to impose upon employers meeting certain specified criteria the duty to make provision for child care and related facilities for their employees; and to provide for exemptions in certain cases: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]

Points of Order
4.10 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is one of Scotland's most important industries. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland is holding a press conference in Edinburgh to announce Government policies for the structure of the tourist industry. I understand that the Secretary of State will also outline Government policies in that respect in a written answer to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, agree that that is totally unacceptable and an insult to the House. The House was entitled to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland, to question him and to give its views on the important issue of Scottish tourism. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. On previous occasions, you have condemned that practice as being completely unacceptable. I invite you to do the same again and to ask the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain the Government's proposals for that vital industry.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is for a Minister to decide whether he announces a change of policy by means of a written answer or at the Dispatch Box. it is not for the Speaker to determine the way in which a Minister makes a statement to the House.
Mr. John McFall: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is Scotland's biggest industry in terms of employment that it offers, and many communities in the highlands and islands and elsewhere depend for their life on tourism. The Secretary of State's proposals will have a major impact on many parts of Scotland. His action, apart from being grossly disrespectful to the House, says nothing for the attitude of the Scottish Office towards the Scottish people, in announcing a decision in that way. We have previously brought our worries about the Scottish Office's growing disrespect to the Floor of the House. To articulate those worries again, we put it to you today, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State has an obligation to respect and to make a statement to the House, so that it may deliberate on the issue, for the good of the people of Scotland.
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ruling that I just gave. The Minister concerned has already made a statement, by means of a written answer. It is not for the Speaker to instruct Ministers whether they should make a statement at the Dispatch Box or give a written answer. If any change to that convention is to be made, the Select Committee on Procedure should be requested to review the matter so that the changes that the hon. Gentleman is seeking may well take place.
Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a matter with regard to the personal statement made a few minutes ago. It has always been my understanding that personal statements were vetted by the Speaker before they were made, and——
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, and I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. He is
838
long-standing Member of the House and I have great regard for his knowledge of procedure. However, the House has just heard a personal statement, and according to "Erskine May", no reference to a personal statement should be made afterwards. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consider the matter later and to refer it to me again. As he knows, I try to apply the rules and regulations of the House without exception. It would be better if the matter were left there at this stage.
Mr. Jopling: If you wish, Madam Speaker, I shall not refer to today's events; instead, if I may, I shall refer to the practice of personal statements in general. I imagine that I can do so at any time.
I have always understood that personal statements were subject to clearance by the Speaker and that, in return, they were heard uninterrupted. It is clearly a delicate matter for anyone, even the Speaker, to interrupt a personal statement, and it should be done only when absolutely necessary.
I do not want an answer now, but I wonder whether you would consider overnight and possibly give an answer next week on whether the practice for all personal statements ought to be extended to include resignation statements. I understand that resignation statements are not now subject to vetting by the Speaker. Should all such statements in future become subject to the approval of the Speaker of the day?
I can understand how difficult it is for a Speaker to make a decision on the hoof, as it were, about a personal statement involving sub judice matters. Will you consider the matter overnight and perhaps make a statement either tomorrow or next week, as you wish, on whether you think it wise to refer the matter of personal statements to the Procedure Committee?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that he has the authority to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee. If he leaves the matter with me, I will consider it, without necessarily giving any commitment about reporting to the House.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you study the operation of the sub judice rule in the House? Certain Members, including myself, are unhappy about the way in which the law operates at the moment. I have in mind, for example the case of Mr. Alan Clark, a former Member of Parliament. When hon. Members first sought to question him about his involvement in the Matrix Churchill affair, Mr. Clark claimed that he intended to sue a newspaper, and that therefore the matter was sub judice. He did not subsequently sue the newspaper or take any further action. Hon. Members were denied the opportunity of questioning Mr. Clark on that issue because of the sub judice rule. That is clearly an inadequate operation of the rule, and I ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the matter for the longer term.
Madam Speaker: The operation of the sub judice rule is undoubtedly a matter for the Procedure Committee. The Committee recommended the rule to the House which, in turn, accepted it. I invite the hon. Gentleman to write to the Procedure Committee about the point that he has made.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  [MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair.]

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 14
      APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FORFEITING DRUG TRAFFICKING CASH
      '.—(1) The following sections shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, after section 26—
      APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FORFEITING DRUG TRAFFICKING CASH

        Appeal against section 26 order.
        26A.—(1) This section applies where an order for the forfeiture of cash ("the forfeiture order") is made under section 26 above by a magistrates' court.
        (2) Any party to the proceedings in which the forfeiture order is made (other than the applicant for the order) may, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which it is made, appeal to the Crown Court or, in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
        (3) An appeal under this section shall be by way of a rehearing.
        (4) On an application made by the appellant to a magistrates' court at any time, that court may order the release of so much of the cash to which the forfeiture order relates as it considers appropriate to enable him to meet his legal expenses in connection with the appeal.
        (5) The court hearing an appeal under this section may make such order as it considers appropriate.
        (6) If it upholds the appeal, the court may order the release of the cash, or (as the case may be) the remaining cash, together with any accrued interest.
        (7) Section 26(3) applies in relation to a rehearing on an appeal under this section as it applies to proceedings under section 26.

        Appeal against section 26 order: Scotland.
        26B. Any party to proceedings in which an order for the forfeiture of cash is made by the sheriff under section 26 above may appeal against the order to the Court of Session.".
        (2) The Act of 1990 shall be further amended as follows.
        (3) In section 26 (forfeiture of drug trafficking cash), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(4) Proceedings on an application under this section to the sheriff shall be civil proceedings.".
        (4) In section 28 (procedure), the words "or appeals" shall be inserted after the word "applications" in each place where it occurs in subsection (2).
        (5) In section 30 (forfeited cash to be paid into the Consolidated Fund), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
        "(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply—

        (a) where an appeal is made under section 26A or 26B above, before the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed of; and

        (b) in any other case—

        (i) where the forfeiture was ordered by a magistrates' court, before the end of the period of 30 days mentioned in section 26A(2); or

        (ii) where the forfeiture was ordered by the sheriff, before the end of any period within which, in accordance with rules of court, an appeal under section 26B must be made.".

        (6) The amendments made by this section apply only in relation to orders under section 26 of the Act of 1990 made on or after the date on which this section comes into force.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        4.18 pm
        The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss Government amendment No. 19.
        Mr. Maclean: The new clause inserts two new sections—26A and 26B—in the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990. The new section 26A provides a right of appeal against an order made under section 26 of the 1990 Act for the forfeiture of cash which a magistrates court was satisfied represented the proceeds of drug trafficking. There are currently only limited rights of appeal in England and Wales against such orders, and application for "case stated" can be made on the grounds that the order was wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction, but the merits of decision cannot be re-evaluated.
        The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) last year. We have since decided that it would be right to correct the situation. New section 26A will allow any party to the proceedings to appeal to the Crown court—or, in Northern Ireland, a county court—within 30 days of the order being made.
        In effect, this right will not apply to prosecutors, as it is an appeal against the forfeiture of the cash. The appeal will take the form of a re-hearing, and the magistrates court will, on the application of the appellant, be able to release some of the cash to enable the appellant to meet his legal expenses for the appeal. The court hearing the appeal may make such order as it considers appropriate, and, if it upholds the appeal, may order the cash, together with accrued interest, to be released. The standard of proof for the re-hearing is the civil standard—the same standard as is applicable in the original hearing.
        New section 26B expressly provides a right of appeal in Scotland, to the Court of Session. The rest of the new clause makes the necessary consequential changes to the 1990 Act. Subsection (5) disapplies section 30 of the Act, which provides that forfeited cash is paid into the Consolidated Fund where an appeal is made under section 26A, until the appeal is determined and until the time for making an appeal has expired.
        Similar arrangements may apply in Scotland, where the period will be determined by the rules of court. That will mean that the forfeited cash can be retained in an interest-bearing account, pending the lodging and determination on an appeal, when it may have to be returned. That would not be possible if the money went straight into the Consolidated Fund, as is currently required by section 30.
        The clause also makes it clear that the proceedings in Scotland under section 26 will be civil. That is necessary in order to ensure that the appropriate Scottish appeal provisions apply.
        I think that the House will agree that this is a reasonable and sensible clause, and I commend it to the House.
        Mr. Alun Michael: The Minister always sounds sweetly reasonable when he brings yet more changes to this Bill. What he has said today sounds sweetly reasonable. The remarks that I shall address to this group of amendments will apply also to the next group, and I do not intend to repeat myself.
        These are yet further changes which appear to be technical and helpful, but I must warn the House of the dangers of the process that the Bill is going through. This is yet more amendment, accepting points that have been made in criticism, to a Bill that started in the House of Lords, went through all its processes there, has been extensively amended in Committee, for which there is no effective revising period, and how now arrived at this stage.
        I am not sure that there is a great deal to worry about in the amendments that the Minister has tabled. He has made it clear that they address issues that have been raised in earlier debates, and that they are designed to be constructive. However, there is a danger in the process of making law on the hoof. Will the Minister assure us that he has burned the midnight oil on this group of amendments to ensure that they are absolutely right? The Criminal Justice Act 1991 is an awful warning to legislators who come to the Dispatch Box with that sort of confidence. I hope that the Minister will think carefully and tell us whether he is that confident.
        It is important to make these remarks at the outset of the debate, because we should remind ourselves that the Bill began by dealing only with drug trafficking, insider dealing and money laundering. It has been extended considerably. For instance, it has been extended, with the Opposition's support, to include terrorism, and it has been extended in response to Labour demands on matters such as previous convictions and the unit fines system, which led to a need for amendments to the 1991 Act. However, as will be clear from further debates, the Bill is still a missed opportunity.
        This is a very late stage in the Bill's consideration. It started in the House of Lords many months ago and went into a sort of frozen state for several months after it was introduced in the House, when presumably all sorts of midnight oil was burnt in the Treasury, if not in the Home Office. In accepting amendments at this stage, the House should be assured by the Minister that they have been introduced with full and adequate care and consideration.
        Mr. Maclean: The warnings of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) are particularly apposite, not just for this Bill but for any legislation where new clauses are introduced for the first time on Report. I accept that it is not the ideal way to create any legislation. The legislation will be important and will be subject to interpretation by the courts no matter how watertight and unambiguous we think we have made it. The hon. Gentleman quotes the Criminal Justice Act 1991 as a warning. Hon. Members from both sides of the House burned a considerable amount of midnight oil scrutinising that Bill, and they all believed that the system would work well, with its provisions for unit fines and previous convictions. No one, as I recall, popped up to warn that it would be wrong.
        Mr. Michael: That is a calumny that the Minister continually repeats. The Opposition gave warnings, and I can state that with confidence. Further warnings were
        842
        given on that issue, which is not before us now, in October, when it seemed that Ministers then in office were rushing to implement it in a way that would bring out faults rather than strengths. I wish that he Minister would not repeat what is not correct but would accept that a foul-up was made—I accept that he has an alibi—by the previous Home Secretary and Minister of State, Home Office.
        Mr. Maclean: I am not sure how many hon. Members could claim to have an alibi that would stand up in court. I say merely, let us look at the record of voting on the Bill, for which many Members on both sides of the House have many previous convictions to be taken into account. But let us not jump to a discussion that we shall probably have on later amendments.
        I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have checked the clause carefully. I have burnt a little midnight oil considering the clause and many others. I am more reassured to know that my officials and parliamentary counsel have burnt considerably more than I have. We might have liked to make some other technical and difficult amendments, especially on shipping, but we decided that, because they would be so technical and because we could not guarantee that they would be as perfect as we would like, we would not table them. We shall debate that matter in a new Bill in another Session.
        I take the general warning on board. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman likes what we are proposing. The amendment is sensible, and I am glad to have his support for it.
        Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I wish to declare that interest, in case any comments that I may make relate to matters in which it is interested.
        New. clause 14 deals with an appeal against an order forfeiting drug trafficking cash. Will my hon. Friend the Minister be kind enough to explain for my benefit the precise way in which that will operate?
        I am concerned about the extent to which the new clause could invite an almost automatic appeal. The court may order the release of cash to which the forfeiture order relates as it considers appropriate to enable an appellant to meet his legal expenses. If, consequently, the court allows the appeal, the remaining cash, with any accrued interest, must be released. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the new clause will not encourage automatic appeals against that offence?
        Mr. Paul Boateng: In answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), will the Minister say whether the Home Office had discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the implications of the new clause for legal aid applications? For instance, will somebody who appeals against an order made in the magistrates court be able to apply, as one applies in an ordinary appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court, for legal aid at the magistrates court and the Crown court, or will the legal aid already granted for the magistrates court hearing be extended to cover an appeal, within the relevant period, to the Crown court?
        Where will an appellant's application to the magistrates court for legal aid be made, and will any sum forfeited by order of the court be taken into account in determining the applicant's eligibility for legal aid? Is it intended that. in

        843
        due course, we shall consider amendments to the regulations governing legal aid to enable these issues to be aired?
        4.30 pm
        Mr. Maclean: First, I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that I do not think that automatic or frivolous appeals will be made, as there will always be a risk of an order for costs being made against the appellant if the appeal fails.
        The court hearing the appeal can make such order as it considers appropriate, and if it upholds the appeal, it can order the cash, with accrued interest, to be released. Generally, we must trust the court to make the right determination of the amount of cash that it should release. Obviously, we shall keep this matter under constant review. It is not as if there will be very many appeals or very many cases; these are unique cases.
        The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked about legal aid. I confirm that discussions have taken place with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Again, we are content that few such appeals and applications will be made. No legal aid will be available in the Crown court, but the proposal allows for the release of cash to meet the costs of such an appeal.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 15

      POWER TO EXTEND CERTAIN OFFENCES TO CROWN SERVANTS AND TO EXEMPT REGULATORS ETC.
      '. Schedule (Extensions and exemptions), which confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations extending certain provisions to Crown servants and to make regulations exempting persons from certain offences, shall have effect.'. —[ Mr. Maclean].
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 20 to 24, No. 38, No. 26 and No. 27.
      Mr. Maclean: The new clause and schedule give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to extend money laundering offences to Crown servants, and to exempt certain persons who are employed by supervising bodies from the failure to report offences under clauses, 18, 19, 47 and 50.
      The power to extend the offences to cover Crown servants is necessary, because some Crown servants—I am thinking in particular of employees of the Department of National Savings—carry out duties and tasks that, in many respects, do not differ from those carried out by employees of banking and financial institutions in the private sector. The latter are, of course, covered by defences. The former, however, might not be, by virtue of Crown immunity.
      We do not think that that difference in treatment can be justified. In any case, we are required by the EC directive to apply the offences and, in particular, the failure to report offences to all credit and financial institutions. The Department of National Savings undoubtedly falls into
      844
      that category, despite its Crown status, and it is right that the offences should in due course be extended by regulations to cover such employees.
      The power does not put the general concept of Crown immunity into jeopardy. It is limited to specified money laundering offences—the acquisition offence, the offence of assisting another, the failure to report an offence, the tipping-off offence and the offence of prejudicing an investigation.
      The exemption for supervisors from the suspicious reporting offence is necessary to enable us to combat money laundering through the regulatory system rather than at the expense of that system. We do not want to place on the supervisors a burden so onerous that it interferes with the performancce of their regulatory duties. We are obliged, under the directive, to impose on supervisors an express obligation to report suspicions of money laundering. This we shall do by regulations under the European Communities Act 1972.
      With such an obligation in place, there is no need for the criminal offences to apply in addition. Indeed, if they were to do so, it might seriously harm the ability to exercise supervisory functions properly, as detecting suspicious transactions is a task for which regulators could easily be held responsible because of their special access to company accounts. We have therefore sought the right level at which to require supervisors to report their suspicions, without making them so anxious about the consequences of not doing so that they neglect their regulatory functions.
      It is much better that the prime responsibility for reporting signs of money laundering or suspicious transactions should be given to the institution handling the money, and that the supervisors should be left with responsibility for ensuring that proper systems and practices are in place.
      We have found a solution that fulfils all the requirements of the directive without undermining the integrity of the regulatory system.
      Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 make consequential changes to clause 77. The provisions in subsection (2) of that clause relating to schedules 4 and 5 is being removed and replaced by the provisions of amendments No. 23 and 24. The other two amendments to schedule 4 will ensure that it takes full account of the new sections being put into the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 by the new schedule.
      I recommend the new clause and the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: When and how did the need for this provision come to light? Who recommended the change?
      Mr. Maclean: The need for the new provision came to my attention within the last two weeks. I am not sure when it came to official attention. The advice of officials was that this was the best and most appropriate way of making the changes. If I had more information, I should happily give it to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is appropriate that a matter of such complexity should be brought before the House in this manner, I disagree. This is not a suitable way to legislate. We have had too many experiences of bad legislation in this field being passed without proper consultation or publication of the

      845
      Government's intentions. On the face of it, what the Minister has said seems reasonable, but it is quite clear that he has no idea of the background to this proposal. Perhaps the Members of another place will want to look at the matter more closely.
      Mr. Maclean: The amendment does not make any great or fundamental change. We already have complex law dealing with the reporting obligations of all those employed in the field of financial services. Here, we are applying the law to Crown servants, and making the necessary changes with regard to supervisory organisations.
      I spoke in greater detail than usual because I wanted the House to be fully informed of the provision's effects. The fact that I spoke in such detail does not necessarily mean that this is a whole new area of law, or that we are introducing a new concept that was not considered by the Standing Committee in the context of other aspects of the Bill or, previously, by the House.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister ought not to be too defensive about these issues. He will recall that the Standing Committee dealt with a number of similar points. These are not matters in respect of which the parties divide, so we had a sensible discussion. I agree that it is necessary to get the law right and to ensure that it works. In that sense, if the Minister is responding to comments that have been made, we are reassured to some extent.
      However, we need to ensure that we do not create another complication and other problems. For instance, later amendments take up points that I made in Committee. I refer to the need to ensure that legal advisers working in other capacities are not exempt when they act in their non-legal capacity. I am glad that the Minister has responded by introducing amendments with which we shall deal later. I hope that he does not feel that he must defend every line of late amendments. He ought to ensure that the short time available to both Houses is used to secure practicality and to make things absolutely right.
      Mr. Maclean: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. During my time in Parliament, I have never before been accused of being too defensive, but I am grateful to him for defending me for the second time, the first being in Committee. Clearly, he cannot drop his past profession; he has defended me without my even requesting a legal aid solicitor.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES AND NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES: CODE OF PRACTICE
      '. The Secretary of State shall produce a Code of Practice regarding appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities regarding the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 11, in the Title, line 21, after 'drugs', insert
      'to make further provision with regard to disposals.'.
      Mr. Michael: Before I speak to new clause 1, may I offer a personal word of explanation? I am sure that the Minister did not intend to insult me by suggesting that my past was so murky as to have been in the legal profession. I should make it clear that my professional background is that of journalist, youth and community worker and representative of the people, not as a—
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman was a magistrate.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister was referring to my period as a magistrate; I take that as a compliment.
      New clause 1 would fill a major gap in Britain's system for tackling crime. It would put right something which is wrong. I remind the House that this is the second Criminal Justice Bill in recent years which has failed to deal with the real problem facing communities and individuals across the country—and, indeed, the police on our streets. That real and urgent problem is the enormous rise in crime, which the Government have failed to tackle.
      Crime and its prevention are matters of enormous concern to everyone today. In 1992, a staggering 5,594,416 offences were recorded by the police. That figure represents an increase of 121 per cent. on the figures for 1979 when the Conservative party came to power. It includes an increase of 324 per cent. in robbery, an increase of 149 per cent. in burglary and an increase of 162 per cent. in car crime compared with the 1979 figures.
      That is an appalling record, by any definition. The actuality of crime on the ground is far worse than the figures suggest, because we know that only about one third or one quarter of offences that are committed arc reported to and recorded by the police. In other words, about 20 million crimes are being committed each year.
      4.45 pm
      The reality behind the statistics is grim: women and the elderly are afraid to go out at night, and the fear of crime affects the quality of life of many people. Surveys of local concerns put crime at or near the top nearly every time. In such circumstances, the Government should be launching a comprehensive policy to fight crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the shadow Home Secretary, said pointedly yesterday. They should be spearheading a strategy to reduce the level of crime in society.
      The elements of that strategy are quite clear if one listens to the advice of those with experience of crime and crime prevention. There is a remarkable degree of consensus on how to tackle crime locally. It involves a partnership between the police, the local authority, local residents, local business and local statutory agencies, as well as voluntary organisations to analyse crime patterns in any given locality and then to develop a package of measures to tackle the problem.
      The Government frequently pay lip service to that concept. Indeed, the press release machine at the Home Office works overtime, using some of the words that I shall use in my speech. However, the Government have consistently failed to develop a mechanism to ensure that such a partnership materialises on the ground.
      The Government have a project mentality on crime prevention, which is perfectly exemplified by the safer

      847
      cities project. Twenty projects were set up and proved successful, but they will now have their funding withdrawn as the Government move on to another 20 cities, which will receive vastly reduced funding for the same work. The projects have proved successful, but they are shorttermism of the worst type. We do not need endless projects; we need a national approach and a national plan for tackling crime.
      The new clause would provide a mechanism for liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to reduce crime and reduce reoffending. It deals not only with discussions on effective non-custodial sentences but with early informal intervention when young people start to go off the rails—and, my goodness, that certainly needs to be done with a greater sense of urgency and with greater Government support. I refer to, for example, the informal advice and help which can follow a caution, and bail support and enforcement, which we shall discuss. It is vital that steps are taken at that stage to stop reoffending.
      I must point out to the Minister and to the House the degree of attrition in the criminal justice system. If one takes the figure of 100 to represent the number of crimes committed and then considers the number recorded before reaching the number of crimes that are before the courts and in which sentences are passed, one gets as low as 2 per cent.
      Only 2 per cent. of offenders end up being sentenced in court. That figure is deteriorating—it is down from 3 per cent. last year, according to the Home Office's own figures and reports. The figures underline the need to consider not only what happens in court—sentences and punishment—but what happens in the community where most crime occurs.
      It maddens me to hear the Home Secretary and junior Ministers talk about partnership, because they clearly do not believe in a partnership approach. If they do, the litmus test will be the vote on the new clause. The litmus test of the Government's sincerity will be their acceptance and support of new clause 1. I hope that they will support it, but I shall be surprised if they do.
      The Morgan report was published in August 1991. It was followed by delay and procrastination. Labour Members, understanding the importance of preventing and reducing crime, continually demanded that the Government give their response to the report.
      In December 1922, the then Home Secretary smuggled out his response, which was to reject "Safer Communities". I remind the House that that report is subtitled "The Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach". Ministers pay lip service to that approach, which is what the new clause is all about.
      The Morgan report's recommendations are directly relevant to the new clause. The report stated:
      "The lack of a clear statutory responsibility for local government to play its part fully in crime prevention has inhibited progress"
      in reducing crime. It continues:
      "There is confusion at local level about the various centrally funded schemes with a crime prevention element, and concern about potential overlap and duplication of effort".
      I confirm that that is the case, and it is, if anything, getting worse as time goes on.
      The Morgan report then lists the advantages of local authority involvement. The local authority is responsible for so many services which impinge on crime prevention.
      848
      It provides permanency and continuity, and it provides for the legitimate and productive involvement of local people. The report therefore concludes:
      "Local authorities working with the police should have clear statutory responsibility for the development and stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at local level a multi-agency approach to crime prevention."
      Sadly, that approach was rejected.
      Although Ministers pay lip service to the concept of local partnership whenever they visit a project or local area and see success on the ground through the voluntary co-operation of agencies or a little seed money, they do not seek, and have not sought, to put in place the necessary nationwide framework to support and encourage the effectiveness of local initiatives. That is what the new clause seeks to provoke them into doing.
      The new clause does not go all the way, but it would provide a starting point for effective crime prevention work. In the longer term, I hope that the modest proposal will in due course be followed by a statutory duty on local authorities. The then Home Secretary failed the litmus test in December 1992, when he rejected the Morgan report. Will the Minister fail today? Is the present Home Secretary serious about dealing with crime? The code of practice which we propose would enable him to implement a clear Labour policy. That might upset him, but it would not upset victims throughout the country who suffer because of lack of that type of policy. Nor would it upset the police, who see the value of it. It would certainly not upset local authorities, who have been crying out for it.
      That clear Labour policy says, in effect, that the Government should take responsibility for supporting a new dynamic partnership between the police, the local authorities and the community to tackle at a local level, where most crime takes place. The Minister must heed the warnings that have been flooding in from experts on every side in recent years. I refer to statements by experts that have led to headlines speaking of a
      "nightmare scenario warning over inner cities."
      The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said recently that, unless the Government took action to stem developments today, the police would be armed as a matter of course within 10 or 20 years. Such statements have led to headlines about a
      "choice of gun law or regeneration."
      The partnership approach that we seek has support locally in many communities. Local Labour councillors have increasingly sought to work with the police. The police have increasingly recognised the value of working closer with local authorities. We must make it clear that the police, local authorities and local communities are on the same side in the fight against crime. By dragging their feet, the Government are failing to provide the framework and structure to allow that to develop.
      The new clause also calls on the Government to enable those local partnerships to make proper and effective use of non-custodial sentences. There are offenders for whom prison or secure accommodation at a younger age is the only option. But there are two problems. The first is that the right ones often do not seem to reach that point quickly enough, and serious concern is again being voiced about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and its failure to prosecute effectively and successfully. Some hon. Members heard that very complaint today from representatives of the Police Federation.

      849
      The second is that the lack of early intervention and a failure to achieve the full potential and effectiveness of community-based sentences leads to people returning after committing ever more serious offences.
      If simple common sense does not dictate the need for a new initiative to make community-based sentences effective, we must consider the costs of imprisonment. Recent estimates—they have no doubt increased since they were prepared—put the cost at £386 per week per man in prison and £563 per week per woman. The figures are far higher for young offenders.
      Save for those for whom there is no alternative, there should be a way of using the money more effectively. Making community-based sentences more effective, more challenging and more stringent must be good sense, and the Government should give that their full support.
      Many other aspects should be tied in with the initiative proposed in the new clause, one being to make cautioning more effective. There is concern that, after the first caution, it becomes of less meaning to some youngsters. The Government could do something about that, by accepting some of the practical suggestions that my hon. Friends and I made in Committee.
      In relation to drugs—a major aspect of the Bill—cautioning-plus is needed for those who are cautioned for the possession of a small quantity of drugs. Immediate counselling is vital, as has been shown in experiments in south Wales. It is clear from those experiments that, in the normal course of events, many people starting to take drugs are not brought to the attention of voluntary organisations until a late stage.
      Let us adopt a common-sense approach to the problem. We must make the system effective, by cutting crime and giving new confidence to the police, to the community in general and to every individual. That is the agenda of the Opposition, which we address in the new clause.
      My hon. Friends and I support the Government strongly in dealing with drug trafficking, just as we support them in the other issues that appeared in the Bill when it was first presented to us and in some of the provisions that have been added since, such as those relating to terrorism. But we have made it clear that what the Government propose is not enough. Crime must be tackled now, in the community, where most of it is committed.
      The new clause would enable the Government to enhance that initiative and to do a little to change the Conservative party's well-deserved image of being soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. In that connection, Conservative Members may now be embarrassed about the fact that, on 1 June 1993, the Home Secretary stated in a departmental press release:
      "It is time we changed the 'its-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into our communities. Crime is everyone's concern. We must involve the whole community in working with the police and the courts to face up to this challenge."
      I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to put his money where his mouth is. We are beginning to believe that every incoming Conservative Minister receives an injection which enables him to grind out identikit phrases, criticisms of others and appeals for partnership.
      We need to rewrite what the Home Secretary said on 1 June. He should have said, "It is time we changed the 'it's-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into the present Government. Crime must be the concern of
      850
      every Minister. The Government will back the whole community in working with the police and local authorities to face up to the challenge."
      Had he said that, he would have been saying something sensible about the need to tackle and reduce crime. But having made such a statement, he would then have had to act on it. The way for the Government to show that they are serious in wanting to do that is for them to accept our new clause, which represents the litmus test of the Government's seriousness in wanting to tackle crime.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I support the new clause. The Morgan report showed that we must have a partnership in the community with the police and local authorities if we are to achieve what we desperately need, which is to fight back against crime. Unfortunately, the Government have not been prepared to respond as positively to that need as we would have liked.
      The Government seem not to appreciate that every individual in the land who pays taxes or buys goods in the shops, who is insured against anything or who pays charges to enter any public building, is likely to be paying towards the massive cost of the increasing crime rate in Britain.
      We need more policing and more effective sentencing, and we must ensure that the criminal justice system operates more effectively, but we must also ensure that the whole community is involved in the fight against crime. Only by that means shall we succeed.
      Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, when they claimed that they would be tough on law and order and would reduce the crime rate, crime in my county of Warwickshire has increased enormously. The rate of car thefts and household burglaries has not trebled but quadrupled, and it is clear——
      Mr. Shersby: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been paying close attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I understood that the new clause was concerned with the establishment of a code of practice. We seem to be debating the whole question of criminal justice. Is that in order?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I had presumed that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was giving some background in order to put forward his views in favour of the new clause, but it is always important that the background does not become the foreground.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new clause refers to local authorities. I am seeking to demonstrate the need for the whole community to work together, as the new clause suggests, with the police to ensure that crime is reduced and that crime prevention is enhanced. That is really what the new clause is all about.
      5 pm
      Since 1979, in my county of Warwickshire, car theft and burglary have quadrupled. Crime in Warwickshire has risen from 13,000 offences in 1979 to 45,000 in 1992. No doubt the 1993 figures will also show an increase. Rural areas in particular would benefit from such a new clause and a code of practice. In rural areas there is fear about the increasing crime rate. That fear is not readily recognised by the media. In the village of Arley in my constituency, we recently had severe problems with increasing crime. Various meetings have had to be held, bringing together

      851
      not only the police, myself and the local authorities but the whole community in the effort that the new clause envisages. Various elements of the community understand the need to work together to ensure that a fight back against crime is conducted by a united community.
      The public will not be deceived by calls for longer sentences or for more prisons to be built if the resources to implement what we are calling for in the new clause and in our policy are not forthcoming from the Treasury. The real fight back against crime requires that we put more funding into police forces in particular. If the police and the local community are to have a code of practice, that code of practice must include a police force which is able to play its full part in the fight back against crime and resources must be made available for it.
      We know that the Government are not prepared to put resources into increasing the number of full-time police officers. We know that the Government propose that there should be a freeeze on spending on future police recruitment over the next few years. That will not enable the police to fulfil the role that we envisage in the new clause.
      It is essential that the police are provided with resources to do what the local community wants, and the local community wants more police officers on the beat, dealing with crime in the community. Therefore, the community needs a Government who are prepared to back the police and provide the necessary resources for more police officers, for more equipment to be provided, and for local communities to be able to understand that they have the protection that they so desperately need and demand.
      Unfortunately, the Government have decided that they will put their restrictions on spending before the fight back against crime. They do not seem to accept that we lose one way or the other. We lose if we do not put money into the fight back against crime. The community will end up having to spend more money on charges, insurance, prisons, and on providing resources to deal with the end result of crime rather than trying to deal with the crime problem at the start, as the new clause envisages, by encouraging the community and the police to work together and by providing the necessary resources to enable that to be done.
      The Government are deluding themselves or providing themselves with a false economy by trying to restrict spending, whereas spending is very much needed——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the new clause, which incidentally makes no reference to communities.
      Mr. O'Brien: It certainly refers to local authorities. I am trying to suggest that local authorities and communities are synonymous, but perhaps I am wrong to do so. I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Local authorities provide many of the facilities which support local communities, such as youth services and council housing, but much of the provision has been reduced by the Government's policies. We seek to ensure that we establish the necessary liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. That liaison must be backed up by resources and provision for decent housing, job creation and, most important, youth services.
      Over the past six years, the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, has been investigating increasing juvenile crime. In my county we
      852
      have seen severe cuts in the youth service. If the police, local authorities and the courts are to have the liaison that will ensure effective crime reduction and crime prevention policies, we need to put resources into youth services, effective housing and job creation. If we undermine that community provision and the community values upon which that provision is based, crime will fester and many of our young people will be alienated.
      The writer Alan Massie once said:
      "A civilisation in decline digs its grave with relentless consistency. The hallmark of such a decline is the selfish ego and a lack of concern and caring about community values."
      The new clause is aimed at promoting those values and that co-ordination. The undermining of community values, community provision and community support has led to many of our young people living in an alienated sub-culture. Thankfully, few of them are turning to crime. They are told by the Government that they are supposed to stand on their own two feet without being given any opportunity to do so through the provision of accommodation, jobs, or any of the—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant of the hon. Gentleman. He must not use this new clause, which, after all, advocates a code of practice, to make a general statement about the ills of the country.
      Mr. O'Brien: The code of practice is part of the policy which is needed to provide back-up—community support—for what the Labour party calls its policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That phrase can be repeated time and again because it sums up what is needed in this country. A code of practice would embody what we want in terms of provisions to be tough on the causes of crime. It would emphasise that we cannot allow the individualism and lack of community spirit that the Government have allowed to develop to undermine the fight back against crime.
      We on this side of the House are prepared to put our words and our support behind the need for a tougher policy of that kind, but we would also be prepared to put the resources behind it. The code of practice suggested in this new clause is the start of the basis of a policy of bringing together the police, the community and local authorities, and ensuring that the Morgan report is implemented, as it should have been implemented, by the Government, and ensuring also that there is recognition of the appalling problems which exist in my constituency and my county and are not being addressed by the Government. I call upon the House to support the new clause.
      Mr. Shersby: This is an interesting new clause. The proposal has been discussed by the Police Federation from time to time. It has also come up in the Home Affairs Select Committee, and there has been a good deal of debate about the need for some sort of code of practice over the past couple of years.
      This new clause, which calls upon my right hon. and learned Friend to produce a code of practice, is designed, it appears, to provide liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities concerning the use of non-custodial sentences, and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending. I wish to talk about some of those other measures, as well as the code of practice referred to specifically in the new clause.

      853
      First, there is a need for more secure accommodation for juvenile offenders—a matter of great concern to local authorities. Unhappily, we do not have enough such accommodation in this country. That is a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruchcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind when he made his announcement a month or two ago about the new secure accommodation order that he was contemplating.
      However, every hon. Member knows that there are great difficulties in finding suitable secure accommodation for juvenile offenders. It therefore behoves all local authorities to take very careful account of this, because it is one of the other measures that need to be addressed.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind to these matters. I do not think that he did. It was his predecessor, well over two years ago, who addressed his mind to the need for secure accommodation. Since that date, not one extra place has been provided—partly, I think, owing to the conflict between the Home Office and other Government Departments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that, after that length of time, the problem to which he has pointed, and on which I agree with him, has not been addressed?
      Mr. Shersby: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Two or three previous Home Secretaries have had representations from me on behalf of the police, as has the Secretary of State for Health. This is an area which is divided between the Secretary of State for Health, who is responsible for juveniles and for providing additional secure accommodation for youngsters who cannot be sent to prison, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the generality of secure accommodation.
      My point—I do not make it in a party political spirit—is that there are some local authorities in this country who are not very keen on providing secure accommodation, whereas it is in the national interest that every local authority should address itself to the problem.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made some comments about the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute. This is a matter of considerable interest at the present time to magistrates courts in this country, and not least to the Uxbridge magistrates court, which has lobbied me recently about the lack of work and is puzzled by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service is apparently not prosecuting as vigorously as it might. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will say a word or two about that.
      We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this new clause, and I do not intend to go down the same road, but I want to pick up some of the points that have been made.
      5.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth quoted the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the carrying of firearms by police officers in 10 years' time. I want to place it on record that the Police Federation of England and Wales is strongly opposed to the carrying of firearms. That is why it welcomes very much indeed the prompt action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in authorising trials of the side-handled baton and other
      854
      equipment which will enable police officers to defend themselves and to provide local communities and local authorities with the kind of policing that they require to deal with crime in 1993.
      The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the problem of crime in rural areas. Local authorities, and indeed the local police, have a very considerable problem, because there are often only two police officers on duty in a rural area. If they suddenly receive a large visitation of individuals from an urban area, they may find themselves considerably extended in dealing with it.
      The new clause asks the Government to produce a code of practice that would involve the courts, the police and the local authorities in a combined effort. I have some sympathy with that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to tell the House what steps the Government intend to take to involve local people more widely.
      My own feeling is that the police and community consultative councils have a valuable role to play in this process. I attend my local police and community consultative council whenever I am able to get away from the House—which has not been very often during the past year—and I believe that these councils play the kind of role that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North and his hon. Friends have in mind. They are groups of individuals drawn from the local authority, chaired by a local man or woman, and attended by senior officers, to discuss local policing matters and the way to tackle crime in the area concerned.
      Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for the new police authorities. They have one very considerable benefit: they will give local police commanders very much more say in the way resources are deployed in future, working together with the police authorities. They will give them the power to decide how the money allocated by the Home Office will be spent—whether on more manpower, or on a combination of manpower and equipment, and all the other things that the police need in order to do their job.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something constructive to say on this new clause. It is an idea that has been mooted in the House by hon. Members on both sides, as well as in the Select Committee, over the past year, and I believe that it deserves serious consideration.
      Mr. Maclean: I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) with growing interest, and then amazement, as he introduced the new clause. I thought for a moment that I had perhaps been transported to Thursday's wide-ranging debate on all aspects of law and order, because we heard recounted—to borrow a phrase from you, Madam Deputy Speaker—all the ills of society. A strong impression was given that this new and wonderful Labour party clause would cure those ills.
      Mr. Michael: I hope that, in responding, the Minister will take seriously what we said at the beginning, which was that the new clause would be merely a start. It is the best that we can get into the geography of the Bill, which, as the Minister knows, limits the possibility of putting amendments forward. It is therefore a starting point—not

      855
      the solution to all the problems. I hope that the Minister will address it with that in mind and in the positive and helpful spirit in which the motion was moved.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall address myself to the exact contents of the new clause but, in coming to that, I shall also attempt to deal with some of the wide-ranging issues on which Opposition Members touched and on which, in some cases, Madam Deputy Speaker, they were pulled up by you for wandering far and wide.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was trying to wear a cloak of the party that has suddenly discovered in the opinion polls that the public are worried about crime. In trying to wear the cloak of being tough on crime, the hon. Gentleman urged tougher community sentences. The Government have delivered those. He urged that we look at cautioning-plus. I said last week in Committee that I was attracted to that concept and that I wanted to see wider use of it.
      The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. M. O'Brien) made pleas about housing and jobs. I thought that I must be missing something and I turned to see what this powerful new clause, which was going to lead the fight back against crime, was going to do. The new clause would introduce a code of practice. The agencies concerned, the courts, the police and the local authorities, would be obliged to comply with a prescribed Labour party code of practice, lifted from its manifesto, in pursuing their joint considerations in the use of non-custodial sentences.
      I accept that that is perhaps just the start of that fight back against crime. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has assured me that the code of practice is just the start, and that the Labour party wants there to be a statutory duty. If the Labour party wants to begin the fight back against crime, I suggest that the starting point should have been some time ago.
      Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—that is a funny fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Public Order Act 1986—that is an odd way to fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991. The fight back that the Labour party now wants to conduct against crime has been not a fight back against crime but a fight against every single measure that the Government have introduced to crack down harder on crime and criminals.
      The Labour party also said that it wanted to involve the whole community. That makes sense, but I do not see how the whole community can be involved, participating in a partnership, by ordering them to comply with a code of practice. The Government recognise the need for good liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. We have been active in promoting good practice and encouraging the setting up of many liaison structures.
      Following the Woolf report, 24 area committees were set up, which bring together under the chairmanship of a resident judge senior representatives of the various agencies involved in the criminal justice system. Those committees firmly placed the emphasis on the promotion of better understanding, better co-operation and co-ordination within the system. They held their first meeting in the autumn and need time to develop further. The Government would not wish to see those arrangements disturbed at such an early stage in their development.
      856
      The Government also recognise the need to spread best practice on crime prevention to local practitioners. As part of the new phase in the Government's crime prevention strategy announced in January, we have commissioned Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation, to produce a good practice guide. The guide will provide clear, practical advice on what works in crime prevention and how to make it work, as well as guidance on working in partnership. It will be distributed widely to local practitioners when it becomes available later this year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will accept that that might satisfy the Police Federation's requests.
      Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend's announcement that he is to commission Crime Concern will be welcomed by the Police Federation, and I hope that it will be most welcome to many hon. Members who have sympathy with some of the concepts that we have debated. I congratulate him on making that important statement.
      Mr. Maclean: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I hope that the House will accept that a practical, best practice guide produced by Crime Concern may be better than lifting something from the Labour party manifesto, as I was urged to do.
      The Government regard it as important to ensure that there are more local discussions so that local mechanisms are designed and developed to meet local needs. Discussions on the implementation of community penalties continue to take place in local liaison groups, such as court user groups and probation liaison committees, as appropriate to meet their local needs.
      A code of practice produced by the Secretary of State which would impose a single solution throughout the country would not, in my view, be desirable. The Government accept the need for good liaison between the police, local authorities and other local agencies on crime prevention so that co-ordinated efforts are made to make towns and cities safer for the people who live and work in them. The Government applaud the police and community consultative councils, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
      Following guidance issued by the Home Office in 1990, taking forward the partnership approach to crime prevention, an increasing number of local authorities are developing their own crime prevention and community safety strategies in consultation with the police and others. Local strategies provide a framework for concerted action and for carrying forward the multi-agency approach to tackling local crime problems. The Government wholeheartedly welcome those developments at local level.
      Mr. Shersby: Has the London borough of Lambeth agreed to participate in those measures?
      Mr. Maclean: The honest answer is that I do not know. However, I should be very surprised if it had. I am willing to let the Opposition inform me if Lambeth council is participating in those measures. I assume that that council has so many internal problems with law and order that such measures are not high up on its agenda.
      The Opposition commented on resources. If people believed the Opposition, they would be led to believe that resources for all aspects of the criminal justice system were in decline. Between 1979 and 1992—the period of office of this Government—resources for the criminal justice

      857
      system increased by 105 per cent. in real terms, above the level of inflation. That is a considerable amount of resources for all aspects of law and order.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge raised a query about the Crown Prosecution Service. There has been some public concern recently, expressed by some bodies, about the number of cases that were not followed through to prosecution. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be considering the matter, with my colleagues, and we will want to discuss it with the Crown Prosecution Service in due course.
      The Government are not convinced that the code of practice suggested by the Opposition for local government, the police and others in the area of crime prevention is necessary, desirable or would do any good. Local crime problems essentially require local solutions. A code of practice written by the Secretary of State would be prescriptive and would not allow for flexible, local responses. I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw the motion and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
      Mr. Boateng: The Opposition have no intention of withdrawing the motion; on the contrary, we intend to push it to its very limit. For the Minister to have the nerve to point to a Labour local authority as having internal problems on law and order, when his Government are rotten with problems on law and order, is a diabolical liberty. He ought to address the Government's problem of the way in which the general public perceive their competence on law and order. The Government's competence on law and order, as on so much else, stands at an all-time low. It is to the Labour party that the country looks for a lead on law and order.
      Mr. Maclean: Try to keep a straight face.
      Mr. Boateng: The Minister asked me to keep a straight face. It is disturbing that we have no problem in keeping a straight face on the issue of law and order because we recognise that outside, in the big wide world, there is a problem about safety and security in communities.
      Out there, in the big wide world, the general public thirst for and desire Ministers to give a lead. The general public want the Home Secretary to be prepared to put his authority behind a code of practice and to give that code of practice the force of statute. The general public look to the Government to give a lead. The Conservative Government and the Conservative party have failed time and time again to give such a lead.
      5.30 pm
      This small new clause would be a modest start for this notoriously reluctant Government. The Government should embark on the proposals in it as a response to the public's perception of their incompetence and to the public's demand that they be seen to take a lead. That is all that we seek through the new clause. We ask that the Home Secretary take on board the need for a code of practice and recognise the appropriateness of liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to make the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and offending.
      The new clause emphasises effectiveness because there is a widely felt and increasingly loudly expressed concern
      858
      out there. I hope that the Minister will listen to the word that is coming back to the House from the communities most affected by crime. There is a widely held belief that the non-custodial option is not always utilised as effectively as possible.
      The public want the reassurance that there are no soft options for those convicted of criminal offences. They want the reassurance that, when we talk about a non-custodial sentence, we mean something that tackles the issue of recidivism. Non-custodial sentences should also address the legitimate public demand for punishment and retribution. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be possible to deal with all those elements of the public's concern by way of a non-custodial sentence.
      The only way to achieve that aim is to begin to address the content of a non-custodial sentence. Our concern, which is shared by others, is that, if local resources are not co-ordinated, if local authorities, social services, the probation service and the courts do not work in tandem, the quality of the content of non-custodial sentences will be inferior, will not provide a rigorous and disciplined framework for sentences and will not bear down on the dangers of recidivism—of slipping back into the criminal culture that led to the offending in the first place.
      Through the new clause, we ask for the force of statute to be given to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary, which requires appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and the local authorities. The code of practice should say, "You must talk to each other. You must talk to the Government about how the will and the resources will be applied to give the non-custodial option teeth and relevance." We are determined that noncustodial sentences should not be regarded as a soft option. They should have teeth and relevance, and they should have an impact on offenders to ensure that the opportunities for and likelihood of recidivism are reduced.
      The element of returning to society something that one has taken away from it by one's criminal action must be incorporated in the non-custodial option. I have nothing against Home Office projects. However, the important thing about projects is that they should be a pilot, a start and a model for something that is then to be extended. What we find so depressing is that, although good projects come out of Home Office initiatives and flower briefly, like a desert bloom, they are gone until the next thunderstorm.
      That should not be the way in which we proceed. Thought should be given to the most effective manner in which to ensure that the non-custodial option has bite. The product of that thought, of experimentation and of the models tried in the course of projects should inform and direct the impact of a code of practice. That is a legitimate call for us to make through the new clause. It should not be sneered at or discounted, as the Minister has done this evening.
      I welcome the good practice guide. If the new clause has led to the announcement of the good practice guide, that is all to the good. However, that is no substitute for a code of practice. Good practice needs to begin at home. I make no apology for giving hon. Members a little homily about where they can begin in terms of good practice. I notice the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) in an unaccustomed seat at an unusual time of the afternoon.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): An unaccustomed suit?
      Mr. Boateng: Not "suit"; I said "seat". The suit, I fear, is of a quality and nature to which we are only too well accustomed. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his seat. He will know that the problems of Crawley arc not very different from the problems of similar towns throughout the land in terms of law and order and the safety and security of the inhabitants.
      Will the Government begin to take on board some good practice? Would it not be good practice to implement locally based crime prevention policies? Would it not be good practice for there to be a statutory requirement for local authorities, backed up by proper resourcing, to have such policies implemented?
      Would it not be good practice for the youth service to be put on a statutory footing? Would it not be good news if the Minister and his colleagues were prepared to announce their backing for the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) in that regard? I declare an interest as a vice-president of the London Association of Youth Clubs. Would that not respond to the call from those concerned with youth provision throughout the country for just such a measure, which would provide a structure for local youth work? That in turn would provide security for the valuable work being done by youth clubs and organisations. We could do with some good practice from the Governmnent in that regard.
      Would it not be a good idea if the Government buried their obsessive dislike of local authorities and recognised, in a code of practice of this sort, the valuable role that local authorities play in real partnership with others? Would it not be good practice if the Government sponsored important and valuable initiatives, instead of laying down strictures for local businesses? Would not it be good practice if the Government said to local businesses, "We value and appreciate the sponsorship that we are asking you to give, and that you are giving as best you can in these recession-ridden times, to local initiatives, but we will play our part, too. We will enter a partnership with you and local authorities in undertaking crime prevention on the ground"?
      In terms of my local authority, I cannot be alone in having a chamber of commerce that takes crime prevention seriously, especially in the major shopping centres at Wembley and Harlesden. That can be replicated in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is only a limited amount of money that local businesses are capable of generating in that regard. They are happy to take a leadership role, but they need to know that there is some hope that the Home Office will join them and the police in supplementing the resources that are available.
      The work of voluntary organisations is valuable and much needed. The voluntary ethic has a vital role to play in the battle against crime and creating safe and secure communities. However, it also requires a framework, and new clause 1 provides just that. The
      "other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending"
      in new clause 1 relate to the partnership that can be built between local authorities, the police, the courts and voluntary organisations when there is the will to ensure that there is a way to do so. A code of practice would bring that about.
      Obviously, the role of the courts is important. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to that role and the limitation that is inevitably placed on the courts in the implementation of the aims and objectives of
      860
      the Bill and the proposed working of new clause 1. At present, they make disposals only with regard to offenders who are brought before them. That matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who expressed a concern that is widely held by the police, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
      Such lamentable circumstances exist up and down the country. Time and time again, the lists for the Crown court and the magistrates court have vacant spaces; at the same time, the perception of those who serve as magistrates and those who serve on juries up and down the country is that the level of crime in their communities is increasing. The court lists have never had more vacant spaces or been shorter than they are at present.
      5.45 pm
      We are entitled to ask why. We will continue to ask that question at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere until we get a satisfactory answer. Why does such a level of crime exist? Given the public perception and fear of crime that exist at present, vacant spaces in the lists of the magistrates court and the Crown court and disposals that are meeting the needs and concerns of society, why are so few cases being brought before the courts and so few criminals emerging at the end of the criminal justice system? Why do Ministers fail time and time again to provide any answer on that?
      We hear vague mutterings about paperwork. Paperwork is a problem. However, it is important that the police are not burdened with unnecessary paperwork. That matter must be addressed. From time to time, cautioning is mentioned. Rightly and properly, the police are increasingly using the cautioning mechanism. However, that does not account for the lack of work that is currently in the magistrates court and the Crown court.
      Ministers should be asking themselves and the Crown prosecutor why that is happening. What is the explanation for the lack of work currently before the courts? In Committee and on the Floor of the House, the answer that we received from Conservative Members was, "None." It may be that we will receive some response from the Government today. If and when we receive such a response, that may help the House to adopt policies that ensure that current levels of crime are borne down and the morale of the police is boosted. At present, morale is adversely affected because the police apprehend offenders and bring their force to bear on offending, only to find that the Crown Prosecution Service, for whatever reason, does not carry cases through.
      The code of practice provided for in new clause 1 would bring all the elements of the criminal justice system—the courts, the police and the local authorities—together in an appropriate liaison, so that problems on the ground could be more readily identified and the necessary action taken to alleviate them.
      This has been a useful debate. We have addressed in some detail the proposals of, admittedly, a modest new clause. The way in which the Government have approached the new clause—dismissing it out of hand and failing to recognise its wisdom or to move in any way towards it—is a cause of considerable disappointment. However, it is par for the course for a Government who have witnessed, since coming into office, a 120 per cent. increase in offences involving violence against the person; a 149 per cent. increase in burglaries; a 162 per cent.

      861
      increase in vehicle crime; a 182 per cent. increase in criminal damage offences; and a 324 per cent. increase in the incidence of robbery.
      Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the crime rate has been increasing, the police have spent an increasing amount of time in court waiting rooms, waiting to give evidence which is often never heard? Surely that should be the subject of liaison between the courts and the police. The chief constable of Strathclyde has estimated that, on some day shifts, up to 30 per cent. of police officers are sitting in court waiting rooms.
      Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has drawn on his experience in Glasgow to make a useful point, which identifies precisely the sort of issue that should be addressed by a code of practice.
      The issue of liaison between the police and the courts should be addressed. No doubt my hon. Friend will be able to draw on his experience of the sessional court in Paisley to tell us how the local police service is informed about the state of the court lists.
      I know of two recent cases that were listed for trial in the same court at 10.30 in the morning. When both cases were effective, the officers required to give evidence in the second case were obliged to hang around in the lobby of the court—while all sorts of mischief may have been going on in their local manor—until their case was called. That happens time and again.
      Mr. McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if everyone were given the same appointment time of 10.30 in the morning under the health service charter, that would not be acceptable to the Government? Surely practical and sensible steps could be taken to establish regular liaison between the prosecution service and the police. Would not this code of practice ensure that the best practice was always followed?
      Mr. Boateng: I wish that my hon. Friend's expertise had been available when we considered the contents of the code of practice. I hope that any code of practice promulgated under the new clause will contain a little more bite, and be a little more realistic, than the discredited citizens charter. It reached its nadir when it was——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down that path. What he is now discussing is far removed from the clause under consideration.
      Mr. Boateng: I did say "nadir" not "Nadir". I recognise only too well, as the clock approaches 6 o'clock, the dangers of being drawn down that path.
      Any code of practice arising from the acceptance of the new clause would be subject to the courts charter, and I hope that that charter will be given more substance.
      A number of Conservative Members, who represent the shires and small towns, are no doubt here because of their interest in this subject, and a desire to reassure their constituents of their concern for law and order. Such hon. Members will no doubt be interested to hear how the small towns and shire counties compare with other areas in respect of the increase in crime. The number of recorded burglaries in the shires since 1979 makes salutary reading.
      862
      In Staffordshire, for example, the number of burglaries committed has increased by 302 per cent.——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) went down that road, and that I suggested that it was wide of the clause. What is applicable to Back Benchers is applicable to those on the Front Bench.
      Mr. Boateng: Quite so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regard myself as suitably chastened.
      How will such crime be addressed under the new clause? our approach to crime prevention does not eschew the nuts and bolts of the issue. Local authorities have a role to play in ensuring that the police—and the expertise they have available through the nuts and bolts of crime prevention measures—have access to those areas most severely affected by burglaries.
      Local authority premises can be used to disseminate information relating to crime prevention; local authority dust carts can be used to display information about the basic steps that can be taken by people to secure their own homes. It is very simple stuff, but it is important to get the message home and to use all the resources that are available to local authorities for that purpose.
      6 pm
      During this debate, we have covered fully the nuts and bolts of crime prevention. We have demonstrated only too clearly the importance of ensuring that there is in place a code of practice bringing together local authorities, the police and the courts in an effective partnership against crime. That is the way forward to counteract recidivism and ensure that the importance of bearing down effectively on crime always remains at the forefront of the minds of the courts and those concerned with the criminal justice system.'
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
      The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 278.

      Division No. 310]

      [6.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Burden, Richard

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Byers, Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Callaghan, Jim

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cann, Jamie

      Ashton, Joe

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clelland, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bell, Stuart

      Coffey, Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, Bob

      Blair, Tony

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Blunkett, David

      Dafis, Cynog

      Boateng, Paul

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boyes, Roland

      Darling, Alistair

      Bradley, Keith

      Davidson, Ian

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Denham, John

      863

      Dewar, Donald

      McFall, John

      Dixon, Don

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dobson, Frank

      McLeish, Henry

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dowd, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mahon, Alice

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mandelson, Peter

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Etherington, Bill

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maxton, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Meacher, Michael

      Faulds, Andrew

      Meale, Alan

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michael, Alun

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Milburn, Alan

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foulkes, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A, (Wy'nshawe)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Abersvon)

      Galloway, George

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gapes, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Garrett, John

      Mullin, Chris

      George, Bruce

      Murphy, Paul

      Gerrard, Neil

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gordon, Mildred

      Olner, William

      Gould, Bryan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Patchett, Terry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pike, Peter L.

      Gunnell, John

      Pope, Greg

      Hain, Peter

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hall, Mike

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hanson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Prescott, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Henderson, Doug

      Radice, Giles

      Heppell, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hinchliffe, David

      Rendel, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hutton, John

      Rooney, Terry

      Illsley, Eric

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ingram, Adam

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jamieson, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Janner, Greville

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Short, Clare

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Simpson, Alan

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

      Snape, Peter

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Soley, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Leighton, Ron

      Stevenson, George

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Lewis, Terry

      Straw, Jack

      Livingstone, Ken

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Loyden, Eddie

      Turner, Dennis

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Tyler, Paul

      McAllion, John

      Vaz, Keith

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McCartney, Ian

      Wareing, Robert N

      864

      Watson, Mike

      Wray, Jimmy

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilson, Brian

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Wise, Audrey

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle

      Worthington, Tony

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Dover, Den

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Duncan, Alan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Dunn, Bob

      Amess, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Ancram, Michael

      Elletson, Harold

      Arbuthnot, James

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Ashby, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Faber, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bates, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Booth, Hartley

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      French, Douglas

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Garnier, Edward

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowis, John

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brazier, Julian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bright, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Burt, Alistair

      Hague, William

      Butcher, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Butler, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Harris, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Cash, William

      Hawkins, Nick

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hawksley, Warren

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayes, Jerry

      Churchill, Mr

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hendry, Charles

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Congdon, David

      Horam, John

      Conway, Derek

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jack, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Day, Stephen

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jessel, Toby

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      865

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Key, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knapman, Roger

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sackville, Tom

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knox, Sir David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shersby, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Sims, Roger

      Leigh, Edward

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Lidington, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Luff, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sproat, Iain

      Maclean, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Maginnis, Ken

      Stern, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Stewart, Allan

      Mans, Keith

      Streeter, Gary

      Marland, Paul

      Sumberg, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mawhinney. Dr Brian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mills, Iain

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tracey, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Needham, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trimble, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Waterson, Nigel

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Pawsey, James

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Pickles, Eric

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Willetts, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wood, Timothy

      Richards, Rod

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Riddick, Graham

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 2

      VICTIMS OF DRUG-RELATED CRIME
      '.—( 1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay such grants, to such persons, as he considers
      866
      appropriate in connection with measures intended to assist the victims of drug-trafficking, drug-related crime or the misuse of drugs.
      (2) Any such grant may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the Treasury, see fit to impose.
      (3) Payments under this section shall be made out of money provided by Parliament.'.—[ Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 7—Alleged victims of relevant offences—
      '.—In considering any application to withdraw a charge in favour of a lesser charge the court shall seek to be satisfied, where it considers appropriate, that a reasonable effort has been made to consult any alleged victim or victims of the said offence.'.
      New clause 8—Alleged victims of relevant offences ( No. 2)——
      '.—In considering any application to withdraw a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in favour of a lesser charge the court shall seek to be satisfied, where it considers appropriate, that a reasonable effort has been made to consult the relatives of the victim or victims of the said offence.'.
      Amendment No. 12, in the title, line 21, after 'drugs', insert
      'to make provision for consultations with victims of crime and the relatives of such victims where the prosecution proposes to withdraw a criminal charge in favour of a lesser charge.'.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Michael: The effect of the new clauses is summed up in our proposed amendment to the title of the Bill because it amends the title to include victims.
      Not enough has been done to consider the requirements and needs of victims of the mounting crime figures over which the Government have presided. The new clauses and the amendment seek to put that right. New clause 2 would establish a mechanism in parallel to the fund established by clause 72 to help the alleged victims of relevant offences. I shall refer to new clauses 7 and 8 and then return to new clause 2.
      New clauses 7 and 8 relate to victims being consulted when a charge is reduced to a less serious one. The point must be obvious to anybody who has heard the complaints of their constituents about finding out that a charge has been dropped or reduced dramatically when, in the view of witnesses and those directly affected, it should not have been dropped. They relate to the criticism that seems rife at the moment of the Crown Prosecution Service which has been referred to earlier by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
      The low priority given to victims in the criminal justice system and the lack of consideration with which they are treated is worrying. All too often victims learn that the offence has been dropped or reduced to a less serious one, not from the prosecution but from newspaper coverage of court proceedings or when they attend court as a witness. It can cause enormous distress, particularly when a rape charge is reduced to one of sexual assault.
      It seems extraordinary that the victim is not consulted or kept informed of developments, yet, despite the victims charter, it happens all too often. Part of the problem appears to stem from the fact that the Crown Prosecution

      867
      Service believes that it should not contact victims directly as that would somehow ruin their impartiality. It seems a bizarre state of affairs. When the prosecution is considering withdrawing or reducing charges, it should consult both the police arid the victim.
      I can confirm from conversations that we have had with police representatives that the police are unhappy with the present situation. It is symptomatic of the way in which victims are treated by the criminal justice system, and such lack of consideration pervades the system.
      Victims are all too often unaware of what is happening from the time an offence is committed. They should be regularly provided with information about whether or not a suspect has been arrested, bailed, cautioned, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced. They should also be aware when someone is paroled or released from prison. They should not have to sit in the same part of the court as the relations of the defendant. They should be provided with help in court. Yet, as we saw in Committee, the Government have failed to provide funding for the Crown court witness service to develop and it has now stalled.
      In addition, the Government have failed to provide finances for victim support and for all the schemes in the country that are ready to provide help for the ever-increasing number of witnesses.
      The new clauses provide a mechanism whereby courts must be satisfied that a reasonable effort has been made to consult a victim when a charge has been reduced. That will have a powerful effect on the prosecution, who will be obliged to ensure that they keep the victim informed. It will therefore help to ensure that the criminal justice system works fairly for all affected by it.
      New clause 2 would enable the Home Secretary to assist the victims of drug trafficking, drug-related crime or the misuse of drugs. Sometimes it is suggested that drug trafficking is a victimless crime. In some ways, it has the greatest number of victims, although they are not always named in any indictment and are more anonymous than is the case in many direct offences.
      Drug users are in one sense the victims of drug trafficking, because they and their families ultimately pay the price of the drugs trade in this country. It must be acknowledged, however, that many communities also pay a heavy price for drug-related activities within them. Drug usage, and therefore the need for new clause 2, is growing.
      The Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence estimates that, currently, 100,000 people—mainly young men—are dependent on heroin and that most of them inject. There is growing concern about the use of cocaine and crack. Seizures of that drug by Customs have risen ninefold over four years. That may reflect to some extent greater success in detecting drugs entering the country, but it also indicates a growing cocaine problem.
      Since the 1980s, there has been a major expansion in the use of drugs associated with the rave dance youth culture. The drugs involved are mostly ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD. A new youth and drugs culture seems to be emerging, and new clause 2 would give the Government an additional instrument to tackle it at source rather than too late, as all too often happens.
      Increased drug usage by young people is of particular concern. Since 1988, there has been an increase of 267 per cent. in the number of young people under the age of 17 found guilty of or cautioned for drug offences. The most recent national Gallup survey, commissioned by Wrangler and published last December, found that the number of
      868
      under-25s taking drugs doubled between 1989 and 1992, and that 30 per cent. of 15 to 24-year-olds admitted to taking drugs. Workers in a national youth agency reported an upsurge in drug usage by young people over the past two years.
      Even more worrying—and giving more point and urgency to tackling the problem positively—is research by Manchester university among 800 young people in schools on Merseyside and in Greater Manchester. In 1991, when they were aged 14 to 15, 59 per cent. of those young people said that they had been offered drugs and 36 per cent. had used them. One year later, the figures had doubled—59 per cent. of the youngsters said that they had tried cannabis, 22 per cent. nitrates, 25 per cent. LSD, 16 per cent. amphetamines, and 12 per cent. magic mushrooms. Those figures are worryingly high. We do not know how representative they are of the whole population because the north-west is traditionally an area of high drug use. That research certainly suggests a disturbing trend.
      We have consistently made the criticism, and repeated it in Committee, that there is a lack of in-depth research that can be used to effect policy and to tackle problems where they arise. Against the picture of increased drug use, the Government have been cutting provisions to combat drugs. New clause 2 would provide a partial mechanism for dealing with that problem.
      The Government are, for example, axing drugs advisory posts. Until the end of March 1993, there were 100 health education co-ordinators advising on drugs and alcohol funded by the Department for Education. They were based in local education authorities, and workers went to schools and youth clubs. The Department ceased that funding this year. According to latest estimates, only one third of authorities that previously had co-ordinators are likely to have someone in that post this year. That is a short-sighted cut, and is one way that the Government have failed to make the connection between the effects of the actions of one Department on another and of the actions of all Departments on the crime problem.
      Residential provision for drug users will be decimated by the Government's failure to ring-fence those facilities. Many projects already find it difficult to survive. By cutting pay or staff, some are hanging on—but that cannot continue indefinitely, and projects will fold. The risk to individuals in the community are huge. Individuals at risk will not receive help, and failure to make that provision—with all the implications for society as a whole of HIV among drug users who inject—could literally prove lethal.
      Those cuts are short-sighted in the extreme at a time of increased drug use. The Government must ensure that those vital services continue and that funding will be forthcoming. They cannot duck their responsibilities.
      New clause 2 also takes into consideration the victims of crime. Only last week the Labour party produced a report on the strain being imposed on Victim Support, which is the national charity that helps victims. That organisation has inadequate cash to meet rapidly rising need. Earlier I said that crime has risen 121 per cent. while a Conservative Government have been in power. Help for victims of crime, burglary and acts of violence is urgently needed, as the increases have been greatest in those categories.
      In 1992–93, 903,000 cases were referred to Victim Support, an increase of 19 per cent. over the previous year. With Government encouragement, Victim Support is expanding its work to victims of the most serious crimes

      869
      who need specialised help—such as the victims of sexual offences and violence. That work is long-term and time-consuming.
      The Government's failure to provide the money needed becomes even more incomprehensible when one considers the pitiful sums required. To cover all the outstanding applications for this year, Victim Support estimates that it needs just £500,000—a small sum compared with the Home Office budget of £5·9 million for that aspect of its work.
      If the Government fail to provide that money, they will stand accused of total hypocrisy in pretending to espouse the cause of victims while denying those victims the help that they need. The Government must give urgent consideration to the needs of direct victims of drug offences and of those whose lives are wrecked by that vile trade.
      The new clauses and the amendment concentrate on the needs of victims, who should be brought more centre stage in the criminal justice system. Local victim support schemes are being put under an unacceptable strain, with inadequate cash to meet rapidly rising need. If a lack of Home Office commitment allows those projects to fall, it would be short-sighted stupidity and could have tragic consequences for thousands of victims and witnesses. Such projects form a vital part of our criminal justice system, and against the background of a rise in recorded crime of 121 per cent. or more under a Conservative Government, it is a false economy not to provide the cash.
      If the clauses are accepted and the long title of the Bill is amended to make reference to the victims of crime, that would restore the balance in the criminal justice system. Given the geography of the Bill, we are inevitably limited. The Opposition would like to do more. However, that change would be a modest step forward in treating victims of crime as they should be treated, and deserve to be treated, within our criminal justice system.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: I want to raise one or two points on new clause 7, which deals with the consultation that the Opposition say ought to take place with victims of crime when applications are made to withdraw a charge in favour of a lesser charge.
      I want to raise that matter because I have had a particularly difficult constituency case recently. I shall not mention any names for obvious reasons, but the case may give an indication of the importance of the matter. A reform in the law may not be needed, and the Opposition proposals—although well intentioned—may be difficult to carry out in practice. Charges ought to be a matter for courts and the prosecution service, rather than for victims of crime. The matter points up an important lacuna which presently exists in the law.
      The case I shall refer to illustrates the distress that can be caused to victims if they are not consulted properly on a lesser charge being accepted, rather than the original charge that was put before the court.
      My constituent is a young lady who, sadly, has been grossly harassed by a former boyfriend. Over a period, the police have come up with a great deal of evidence that seems to lead to the conclusion that not only harassment but blackmail was occurring.
      870
      6.30 pm
      The evidence was produced, and was passed between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which then lost an important part of the evidence. The CPS has apologised subsequently through Barbara Mills to me on behalf of my constituent. Partly as a result of that loss of evidence, the court case was adjourned no fewer than five times. During that period, my constituent had to endure the same harassment that she had endured before from her former boyfriend. The harassment caused her to worry for her life.
      The police continued to produce evidence, but when the case came before the court, the CPS said that it felt that the case might be thrown out if it tried for a further adjournment, and therefore that it would proceed with the case. Because it had lost evidence, however, the CPS decided that it would proceed on a lesser charge—a charge of affray—on which the defendant was likely to be found guilty. As a result, the defendant did not face a custodial sentence. The CPS said specifically that it should be informed of any further evidence of harassment to my constituent. The clear implication was that the defendant would be brought back before the court. The harassment allegedly—I use that word advisedly—has continued. The police have given evidence to the CPS, but it has refused to bring the defendant back before the court.
      Much of what has occurred would not have done so had my constituent been adequately consulted on the day the matter was finally considered by the court about the lesser charge being brought against the defendant. She argues that she certainly was not consulted. I have communicated with the CPS in a fair amount of detail, and I am certain that she was not consulted adequately. If she had been, I do not believe that the problems that she faces would exist. The Government must bear that in mind when responding to the amendment.
      It may not be possible to change the law on the rights of victims, but a code of practice for either the CPS, the police or the courts could be laid down stating that it is generally considered good practice that victims are consulted when lesser charges are likely to be laid and agreed to, possibly on a guilty plea, rather than greater charges—possibly carrying a custodial sentence in the case to which I referred—on a non-guilty plea. The gist of the Opposition amendment is important, and the spirit behind it is right. I hope that the Minister will he able to give a constructive response.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister intends to accept the amendments, but it is good that they are acceptable to both sides of the Chamber. I cannot allow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to get away with the implication that it is time that the Government started to do something for victims, however, as the time has long since passed when we have indeed done something for victims.
      Britain now has one of the best schemes for the treatment and care of victims of any country in the western world. I do not see why we should not be proud of that, and of the achievements of the Government in ensuring that that is so. We have counselling schemes, voluntary sector support and a criminal injuries compensation scheme which paid out more than £109 million last year

      871
      —an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year. A further £7·8 million will be spent this year on the nationwide network for victim support groups.
      I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government propose to increase the allocation to victim support groups again this year by an amount considerably in excess of the 1·5 per cent. rate of inflation. I am not saying that that is an adequate increase. Hon. Members espouse many causes which we think are sensible for which we would like an increase of much more than the rate of inflation in their allocations, but we know that the Government face problems with regard to their spending levels. Victim support grants have certainly not been ignored.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern of some of my constituents about the length of time that it can take for a case to be dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Is it not the case, particularly where victims have a long wait for compensation for an injury, that the delay compounds the feeling of lack of care? The lack of resources currently available to the system and the delays which are occurring mean that the credit that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the Government for helping victims was perhaps laid on too thickly. That matter is causing concern to some of my constituents. Are those problems shared by any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not seem to have had that problem in my constituency, although I recognise that it is a problem nationally. The case is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has outlined it, and that problem may have to be speedily addressed. I know that the chairman of the compensation hoard is worried about the matter.
      The real problem is that the people who are making the assessments are busy practitioners and the length of time that they take to deal with such matters is becoming, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. a bit of a scandal. Something needs to be done and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will attend to the matter with speed.
      Many of the points that were addressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth are taken care of in the victims charter. That charter spells out clearly the Government's commitment to providing better help than ever before to victims of crime. Victims now have rights and entitlements that they never had before. The police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service have to give a great deal of consideration to the interests of victims to make it possible for them to give evidence in court in as relaxed an atmosphere as possible.
      Victims should be protected in a number of ways from the old-fashioned treatment that they received previously. The charter demands that the police should respond to the needs of victims and take account of their views in deciding whether a lesser offence should be accepted and whether the offender should be cautioned. The Government have also required that, in most criminal investigations, an officer should be given sole responsibility for dealing with the needs of victims. It is precisely because of the attention that is now given to victims, particularly those of sexual offences, that women now come forward as never before to bring complaints of sexual attacks against men.
      Previously women were humiliated by the courts and the judicial system, so they were loth to complain about
      872
      rape or sexual attacks. Now they are not. They do not feel humiliated. They come forward and are encouraged to do so by a much more consumer-friendly judicial system, court system and police system. That is paradoxically one of the reasons why we appear to have an increase in crime. I doubt whether more sexual offences are taking place. It is simply that many more are coming to light because of the approach to victims, which makes their complaints rather more welcome than they have ever been before. I certainly hope that that is so.
      In conclusion, although it is a good thing that Conservative and Opposition Members agree about the importance of victims, it would be a bad thing if we left the Chamber thinking that the Government had done nothing about them. The Government have done an immense amount and have mostly covered the points raised by the Labour party in its new clauses and amendment.
      Mr. Maclean: This is an important little debate. I am glad that we have had it and that the view has been expressed from both sides of the House that victims are terribly important. I am also glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made the point so authoritatively that the Government have a good record in supporting the victims of crime—including drug-related crime, which is the subject of new clause 2.
      The victims charter published in 1990 sets out the rights and expectations of people who have become victims of crime. Blameless victims of crimes of violence can receive compensation through the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the most generous compensation scheme for victims of crime anywhere in the world. I am sorry if I appear slightly nit-picking, but I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton that the scheme did not pay out to the victims of crime £109 million last year—it paid out £153 million.
      Mr. David Trimble: I note the Minister's reference to the criminal injuries compensation scheme as the most generous in the world. I put to him the comparison with the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is on a statutory basis and gives individuals a right of appeal to the courts. I wonder whether the Minister might not like to improve the English scheme and put it on the same basis. Will he take this opportunity to disavow the rumours floating around that the Government wish to reduce the amount of compensation that victims receive by establishing some sort of tariff system?
      Mr. Maclean: Even with the new tariff scheme, we shall still have the most generous victim compensation scheme anywhere in the world. I should not like to comment on the Northern Ireland scheme. The hon. Gentleman might accept that we should not be averse, with an accent like mine and an accent like his, to incorporating some of the best aspects of other legal systems in whichever part of the United Kingdom. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: In the light of his comments about the tariff and the criminal injuries compensation scheme, can the Minister assure the House that no victim of crime who is able to make an application will receive less in real terms under the new scheme than under the previous scheme?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Maclean: We are consulting widely on the proposed new tariff scheme. I alluded to criminal injuries compensation in the debate tonight only because other hon. Members raised it in discussing how generous our scheme is. I do not propose to get into the details of the tariff scheme now. We shall publish the details of it in due course. The hon. Gentleman will then be able to make his points. I merely make the point that we have a generous scheme because I do not want the record to stand with the impression that we discovered victims only during today's debate.
      Victim Support has been mentioned. The Home Office is providing £8·4 million to Victim Support in the current year to provide help for the victims of crime. I must confess that I do not understand why the organisation should say—if that is indeed what it says—that it has a financial crisis. Its allocation in 1990–91 was £4·7 million. We told it then what its allocation would be for the next three years. It would receive a huge increase the next year to £5·7 million, a 40 per cent. increase to £7·3 million the following year and a further 15 per cent. increase to £8·4 million this year.
      I understand that my predecessor told Victim Support well in advance, in 1990–91, the level of grants for the next three years. That gave it ample time to budget and plan its affairs with greatly increased resources.
      Mr. Boateng: It could not plan and budget for the explosion of crime that has taken place in the past three years. It could not budget and plan for the pressure on local authority spending that is the result of the grant dispensation of the Department of the Environment, which has borne directly on the capacity of local authorities to support, as they would wish to do, victim support schemes. The Minister ought to show a little more sympathy to those schemes, which are often supported without funding by volunteers who give their time free and gratis with precious little appreciation. He ought to show a little more sympathy than he has just displayed.
      Mr. Maclean: It is because the Government have not only uttered words of sympathy but backed them up with hard taxpayers' cash that I felt it appropriate to put on the record the huge increase in funding that has been given to Victim Support. I believe that, in 1986–87, the figure was about £1 million and in the year before that it was about £200,000 to £300,000. The Government have been generous.
      I do not want to argue the case for and against Victim Support in the Chamber. I intend to meet the organisation in the reasonably near future to hear what it has to say and discuss its problems, and so that it can make representations to me.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister says that the money for victim support schemes comes from the taxpayer's pocket, but does not the criminal justice system also yield a substantial amount of money, through fines, which might be better deployed in helping victims?
      Mr. Maclean: I would take that exhortation more seriously if the hon. Gentleman and his party did not have 200 or 300 other ideas as to how one could use the money raised from taxpayers.
      874
      Victim Support helps the victims of crime. It does a wonderful job in helping the victims both of violent crime and of non-violent crime such as burglary and fraud. It has helped more than 800,000 people, undoubtedly including many victims of drug-related crime, which I mention because it is the subject of the first amendment.
      Measures to assist the victims of drug misuse include treatment and rehabilitation services. The Government are already making more than £24 million available to health authorities this year for specialist drug services. That provision is in addition to the hospital and general practitioner services available for the treatment of health problems other than addiction related to drug misuse.
      Mr. Boateng: What about the victims of drug trafficking who have to inhabit the estates and tower blocks where lift wells, lifts and entrance halls are used by drug traffickers? What compensation will those victims of the offence of drug trafficking receive? One understands the work that is being done. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) say from a sedentary position that that is a silly point. She ought to know better. It is not silly to the many people whose lives are ruined by the activities of drug traffickers who make their housing estates a living hell. There is nothing silly about that. The hon. Lady would do well to keep her opinions to herself or at least have the guts to stand up and make a speech.
      Mr. Maclean: Mr. Deputy Speaker——
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I should like to answer that weak point.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That was an intervention. It is up to the Minister to decide whether he wants to give way.
      Mr. Maclean: I give way.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Thank you, Minister. My point was that it is one thing to make awards, very rightly, to specific victims, but it is extremely difficult to compensate an entire housing block or all the people who use a lift. It is essential that aid is targeted. Opposition Members had no scheme when they were in office, but ours has been moving up steadily and I am in favour of it. However, it should not be dissipated in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
      Mr. Maclean: The point is that, wherever our constituents may live, whether in housing estates or rural areas, if they know of neighbours, associates or people who inhabit the areas where they live who are indulging in drug trafficking, dealing or any other crimes, the first step must be maximum co-operation and liaison with the police. In such cases, we are all potential victims of crime, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that this is not a matter for criminal injuries compensation or a special scheme targeted to help people who may be living in an area where drug traffickers are operating.
      We have the powers in this Act, supported by the Opposition, to crack down heavily on drug traffickers and confiscate their ill-gotten gains. We must continue with that pincer movement. Also, local people must report every incident that they come across of drug trafficking or drug-related crime.

      875
      Directly or indirectly, considerable support has already been provided across a broad range of services for the victims of crime and drug misuse. We covered much of the ground on this when amendments to clause 45 and a related new clause were considered at an earlier stage. I thought that I had satisfied the Committee that the powers that the Secretary of State already has to make grants for all aspects of drug prevention and education were sufficiently wide that this amendment would not be necessary. I merely say again that the Secretary of State's powers are sufficiently wide, and I do not believe that this is necessary.
      I understand and respect the motivation behind the proposed new clauses 7 and 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) mentioned a sad and tragic case. I understand why he feels sympathy for the points that have been made in the debate. The interest of the victims is one area to which I want to pay particular attention in the coming months. I spent this morning sitting in the spectators' gallery of a London magistrates court. I then went to lunch with the magistrates and discussed their concerns about crime. Tomorrow I shall be meeting victims of crime and over the next few weeks I shall have a series of meetings with the victims of crime, the police and those at the sharp end. As I said in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in the first debate that I addressed as Minister responsible for law and order, I intend to meet the victims and those at the sharp end before I meet the professionals with the theories about how we should deal with crime.
      The victims charter has already been mentioned. A total of 31 of the 51 standards in that have already been met and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I plan to establish whether the interests of the victim can be better protected in certain circumstances by complementing a caution with some sort of reparation or compensation to the victim.
      It is important that we keep victims informed of the progress of a case. That is the Government's objective and we intend to turn our attention to that, but that is quite different from making the Crown Prosecution Service consult victims on the appropriate level of charge that should be made. It is the task of the independent Crown Prosecution Service to make an objective judgment in the light of the evidence available. The need to alter charges arises, quite properly, when the police, in bringing the prosecution, have over-charged, perhaps because of an over-optimistic view of the evidence or when the value of the evidence changes—for instance, following scientific analysis.
      The code for Crown prosecutors—that is a public document, approved by Parliament—makes it clear that, when a case is brought to court the charges brought should reflect the criminality of the behaviour being prosecuted, and in the absence of any other criteria should be the most serious charges and can be supported by the evidence. The code also directs that the interests of the victim should be taken into account. I fear that to extend this by effectively imposing on the CPS a duty to consult the victim would raise expectations for the victim that could not, in reality, be realised.
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has clearly been mainlining on caffiene. I hope that I shall not engender her wrath by pointing out to the Minister the real concern that was
      876
      expressed in Committee about the families of victims of road traffic offences—particularly death by reckless driving—who do not at the moment have any real place or status within the criminal justice system. The Minister was good enough to say that he would have a word with the Lord Chancellor's Department about that. I wonder if he will share with us the results of that word and whether he feels that those families should be informed before the CPS determines to drop or reduce any charges. Their suffering is all too often forgotten, and it is a cause of concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. I have not yet had a chance to have a word with the Lord Chancellor or his Department, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman anything more than I told him last week in Committee, but I can reassure him that I shall have discussions on this and the other points that both he and my hon. Friends made in Committee about talking to the administrators of the courts about having separate facilities, for those giving evidence on the side of the victim and those supporting the defendant.
      The Crown Prosecution Service must determine the appropriate charge to put before the court. It will be aware of the victim's loss in all cases, but the determining factor will have to be the available evidence. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Michael: I am glad that the Minister has accepted some of our arguments in this short debate. However, we want him to be more than a spectator, more than just a travelling voyeur, of the effect of crime on victims. We want action to help victims, just as in our first new clause we demanded a reduction of crime and, therefore, a reduction in the number of victims.
      There does not seem to be any understanding among some Conservative members of the way in which good people in some areas, particularly in some of our cities, are affected by drug trafficking. In their homes and communities, they are the victims of drug-related crime. We must abandon no families or communities to that sort of misery. There must be no complacency in the House about the problem in so many of our inner cities.
      My constituent, whose son was seriously damaged when a glass was pushed into his face in a pub, was horrified to find that the serious charge against the perpetrator of the action had been reduced, and that a very low penalty was imposed for the lesser crime heard by the court. I understand the anger, frustration and misery that she felt because she felt that she had not been given the opportunity to comment on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service.
      The intention is not to take away the objectivity of the Crown Prosecution Service. It must take the decision whether to prosecute and on what charge. However, the CPS should inform and consult and it should listen to those involved and understand the pain that is felt by the victim and the victim's family. How can the CPS listen and understand, as the Minister suggests, unless that opportunity is provided? That is why the consultation proposed in our amendment is so important.
      The achievement of Victim Support has been tremendous over recent years, since I was involved in the

      877
      early days in the setting up of the first of the Cardiff schemes 10 years or more ago. It has developed enormously. However, it needs to develop further.
      I welcome the agreement of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to some of our points, but he was a little complacent when he suggested that the Government have done enough for victims. The Government have encouraged Victim Support to expand further, but they have not provided the resources to match the amount required. The Government said to Victim Support, "Expand to meet needs in those areas." What are the areas? Where is the money to meet that need?
      Grant applications are outstanding for new posts in Bradford, Harrogate, north-east Leeds, Erewash, High Peak, Leicester, Loughborough, Handsworth, Telford, mid-Warwickshire, Wolverhampton, Cheltenham, Falmouth, Newquay, north Devon, Somerset, Westonsuper-Mare, Chiltern, Crawley, Greenford, Greenwich, the Medway towns, Newham, Redbridge, Swale, Waltham Forest, Manchester and Wigan.
      Schemes are waiting for outstanding hours in Durham, Loughborough, Peterborough, Shrewsbury, Ely, Fenland, Forest Heath, south Norfolk, north Devon, Somerset, Stroud, Truro, Wiltshire, Bexley, Brentford, Chiswick, Crawley, Gosport, Greenwich, Hemel Hempstead, Newbury, Richmond and Sutton and Cynon Valley.
      7 pm.
      Those applications were made because Victim Support was encouraged by the Minister's predecessor to develop schemes to help victims. However, the problem is that the money has not been provided to meet aspirations that the Home Office encouraged.
      The Minister said that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board operates the most generous scheme in the world. Many victims are now excluded because of the increase in the threshold from £550 to £1,000, which precludes from consideration one in three victims of violent crime. The Minister refused to say whether it is true that he intends to increase the threshold to £1,500. If he does, it will add to the damage that has been done already by increasing the threshold. No, we cannot accept that the Government are doing enough for victims. It is only right that we should press the new clause to a vote.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister's speech revealed what little interest he has in the views of hon. Members. It was clear that he had not troubled to use the time between Committee and Report to consult the Lord Chancellor's Department about the effect of new clauses 7 and 8. He was derelict in his duty in coming before the House without having properly informed himself of the view of the responsible Cabinet Minister.
      The difficulties that the House experiences in not being able to question the Lord Chancellor are of long standing, but it will not do to put up a Minister to answer a debate who has not taken the trouble to inform himself of the position, especially as he undertook to do so. No doubt that will be noted in another place when the Bill is reconsidered.
      All hon. Members are concerned about the problems of victims. We all know that, under this Government, the number of victims has risen inexorably year after year, and that the Government's instant criminal justice legislation
      878
      in almost every Session has done nothing to stem the rising tide of victims. No victims suffer more than the victims of drug trafficking, drug-related crime and the misuse of drugs.
      The Government's objection to the importation into the Bill of what is, after all, only a proposed power, not a requirement, to make grants to such persons is hard to understand. The Minister should simply have accepted the proposal, for it certainly does not impose a duty on him to make any amounts available; it simply allows the Secretary of State to intervene as appropriate in particular cases. The spectacle of the victims of drug-related crime in our inner cities gives rise to the deepest concern in our society today.
      I have no doubt that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were right to draw attention to the sense of outrage that is felt by many people whose relatives have been victims of a serious offence when that serious offence is dropped and a lesser charge preferred. I imagine that many hon. Members will have had experience of complaints from constituents in just such circumstances, because they do not find it satisfactory that the Crown Prosecution Service has not consulted in the manner proposed.
      In seeking to decide the appropriate charge to bring, it is surely important to consider the consequence of the offence, and if that is to be taken fully into account, consultation with the victim would seem an appropriate step to take. It does not, of course, mean that the victim would have any say over the appropriate charge; it would merely provide the Crown Prosecution Service with evidence on which to make an appropriate judgment.
      For those reasons, we shall support the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) if he decides to push the matter to a Division.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 270.

      Division No. 311]

      [7.05 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Callaghan, Jim

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Alton, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cann, Jamie

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clapham, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ann

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Bell, Stuart

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Benton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cryer, Bob

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Blair, Tony

      Dafis, Cynog

      Blunkett, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boateng, Paul

      Darling, Alistair

      Boyes, Roland

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Keith

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Denham, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dewar, Donald

      Burden, Richard

      Dixon, Don

      Byers, Stephen

      Dobson, Frank

      Caborn, Richard

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      879

      Dowd, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mahon, Alice

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mandelson, Peter

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Etherington, Bill

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maxton, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Meacher, Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meale, Alan

      Flynn, Paul

      Michael, Alun

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Milburn, Alan

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Miller, Andrew

      Foulkes, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fraser, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Galloway, George

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Garrett, John

      Mudie, George

      George, Bruce

      Mullin, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Murphy, Paul

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Gordon, Mildred

      O'Hara, Edward

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Olner, William

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Patchett, Terry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pickthall, Colin

      Gunnell, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hain, Peter

      Pope, Greg

      Hall, Mike

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hanson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Prescott, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Heppell, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Radice, Giles

      Hinchliffe, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Hoey, Kate

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Rendel, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hutton, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      Illsley, Eric

      Rooney, Terry

      Ingram, Adam

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jamieson, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Janner, Greville

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Short, Clare

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Simpson, Alan

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jowell, Tessa

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Keen, Alan

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Snape, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Soley, Clive

      Leighton, Ron

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lewis, Terry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Stevenson, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Straw, Jack

      Loyden, Eddie

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      McAllion, John

      Tipping, Paddy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Trimble, David

      McCartney, Ian

      Vaz, Keith

      Macdonald, Calum

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      McFall, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Watson, Mike

      McLeish, Henry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McMaster, Gordon

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      880

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wilson, Brian

      Wise, Audrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

      Wray, Jimmy

      Wright, Dr Tony

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Dunn, Bob

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Eggar, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Elletson, Harold

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ancram, Michael

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Evennett, David

      Ashby, David

      Faber, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forth, Eric

      Bates, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Body, Sir Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Booth, Hartley

      Gill, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowis, John

      Gorst, John

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hague, William

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Burns, Simon

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butcher, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butler, Peter

      Hannam, Sir John

      Butterfill, John

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hendry, Charles

      Churchill, Mr

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clappison, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Horam, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Congdon, David

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

      Conway, Derek

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jack, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan, Alan

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knapman, Roger

      881

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Sackville, Tom

      Knox, Sir David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Legg, Barry

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shersby, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lidington, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Luff, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, David

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Madel, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Malone, Gerald

      Steen, Anthony

      Mans, Keith

      Stephen, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stern, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Allan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thomason, Roy

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Trend, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Viggers, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Walden, George

      Paice, James

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waterson, Nigel

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Watts, John

      Pawsey, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Whitney, Ray

      Pickles, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wilkinson, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Willetts, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Richards, Rod

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Riddick, Graham

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Wood, Timothy

      Robathan, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      BAIL APPLICATIONS (CODE OF PRACTICE)
      '. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a Code of Practice for the courts in respect of the options available to them in deciding bail applications'.—[Mr. Michael]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      882
      The new clause is intended to deal with the need for action to reduce offending while on bail. Offending while on bail is one of the issues which seem to produce more heat than light, certainly among members of the Government. There is outrage in the country about the way in which young offenders in particular appear to be offending on bail with impunity.
      There are two ways of dealing with the problem. One is the punitive approach, or the refusal of bail, which is certainly necessary in some circumstances. However, we also need to tackle the problem from the opposite angle. Let me put it this way: if the bath is overflowing, it is sensible to turn off the tap and take out the plug. We believe that the Government should tackle the problem from both ends, which is the purpose of the new clause.
      We know that young people in particular commit many offences while on bail. It is surprising that Ministers have not set in train much more detailed research and analysis of the phenomenon. I have commented many times on the unsatisfactory nature of much existing research. Those who examine the research that is available will find that offending on bail is a serious problem which needs to be tackled, but we need to be precise about the numbers involved. Is there a small number of offenders committing a large number of the offences while on bail or a larger number committing some offences? Is the problem endemic or is it confined to a few? Such questions have not been properly researched.
      The Minister would help if he were to announce—and I call on him to do so—that he will commission some immediate research which will enable those who take decisions in court and in the House to have up-to-date and accurate information rather than information that comes to hand many months too late when the game—for that is what it seems to be to some people—has moved on. As in so many other spheres which impinge on the criminal justice system, there is a lack of information about offending on bail on which we can base our policies.
      The one recent major piece of Home Office research on bail, published in 1992, suggested that between 10 per cent. and 17 per cent. of people on bail commit further offences. Younger people on remand for car crime or burglary are the most likely to reoffend while on bail, which is why, in the documents that it has published, Labour has concentrated on trying to analyse the two problems and has come up with solutions. It is also why we call on the Minister, as we called on his predecessors, to take targeted action to deal with those two types of crime.
      There is no doubt that the offending behaviour of the young can escalate while they are waiting for a case to come to court. In my experience of working with young people, and with young offenders in particular, it was clear that the likelihood of something serious happening in court affected their behaviour. It is therefore important that the court should have a range of options available to it in deciding whether to allow bail. The court should also have the best possible information available to it.
      A policy that relies solely on providing the court with more powers after someone has reoffended while on bail offers insufficient protection to the public. We need to reduce the extent of the problem as well as considering ways of tackling it when it arises. That is why the Government's proposals to allow the courts to sentence more severely for offending on bail are inadequate to deal with the whole problem. We need sensible means to ensure that crimes are not committed in the first place. We need

      883
      to be tough on offending while on bail and tough on preventing offending while on bail in order to get the balance right.
      Among the options that should be available to all courts are bail hostels and bail support and enforcement schemes. A code of practice would help the courts to be aware of the range of facilities that should be available in each area and perhaps help them to be more pro-active in ensuring that those facilities become available in their localities if they are not already provided.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned bail hostels. Will he accept that the provision of such hostels does not prevent people from reoffending while on bail and that mature people who are put into bail hostels may also reoffend? Even those who have been accused of sex offences are also put in bail hostels, which may be located near schools and nursery schools. The hon. Gentleman makes much of how we should tackle the problem from both ends has nothing positive to say about how to stop people reoffending. We cannot incarcerate people in bail hostels for 24 hours a day; people are perfectly free to roam and reoffend at will.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady comes to the nub of one of my repeated criticisms of the Government. The Government have a range of options available, but they do not resource them adequately or think through properly the way in which they are used. Bail hostels are one of the available options but, all too often, they are not adequately supervised——
      Mrs. Winterton rose——
      Mr. Michael: May I ask the hon. Lady to contain herself for a moment? The problem that I am highlighting is the fact that we need a range of options to fit the appropriate one to the appropriate people. Sometimes people are put into bail hostels when such hostels are not appropriate for them.
      Mrs. Winterton rose——
      Mr. Michael: In a moment. That was the point that the hon. Lady was making, and it is a valid one. Unless we have a criminal justice system that offers a range of options for supporting and enforcing obedience to bail requirements, we shall not succeed in reducing the offending that occurs while on bail. If people are put into bail hostels for which they are not suited, they will reoffend. Part of the problem is that the Government have no coherent, rational approach and have not thought through their policy.
      Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so patient. I refute everything that he has said about the funding of bail hostels. The Home Office has thrown thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money at the problem. There is a bail hostel in my constituency. It is splendidly appointed and very well run, but one cannot incarcerate people for more than a specific number of hours at night, or after curfew and before the morning. The courts decide who shall and who shall not be allowed hail. There are two options: we put young and middle-aged people in bail hostels where they may reoffend, or we put them where they are incarcerated. What is the alternative to those two options?
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is not entirely right in saying that bail hostels have money coming out of their ears. I was able to inspect regularly a bail hostel in an adjoining constituency when I was for several years a member of a probation committee. At that time, there was a complete lack of finance to cope properly with the appointment and conditions at the hostel and with staffing levels. I accept that there have been improvements since then, but another problem arose when the Home Office recently decided to accelerate the number of places being made available at bail hostels. One could say that it went too fast because in many communities it seemed that decisions about the location of hostels were taken too speedily, which whipped up many problems. Decisions had to be taken very quickly if the probation committees were not to lose the money. We need a considered and intregrated approach to the problem.
      I must inform the hon. Lady that the options she outlined are not the only ones available. A range of options could be made available for dealing with young offenders if the resources were provided. As she says, one option is incarceration, whether in prison or in secure accommodation. One problem with that option is that, two and a half years after the Government's promise to deal with the scandal of young people being held in adult prison accommodation, secure places have not been made available.
      The second option is the bail hostel, but there are other options. For example, there is the option of a young person staying at home or being reintroduced to the home. There are various fostering schemes and options of employment-related placement. Let us not lose sight of the fact that there is a whole range of options, and a whole range of requirements, available to the court. The trouble often is that the court is limited because the options are not available in practice in the locality.
      For that reason, we have introduced the new clause, which is limited only by the geography of the Bill. We should like to go further and say that there should he a high standard of bail support and enforcement schemes in place in every area where the demand exists. But, for technical reasons, we are limited by the nature of the Bill, so we have tabled an amendment which, we hope, goes part of the way down the right road.
      7.30 pm
      It is for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a code of practice for the court in respect of the options available to it in deciding bail applications. If courts must consider the options available to them, there will inevitably be pressure for a greater range of such options.
      A great deal of work, some of it commissioned by the Home Office, has already been done. It demonstrates the extent to which we can reduce and prevent crime, including among those who have started on an offending pattern. The failure to follow that work through—to develop it from a project to a strategic basis—is a criticism of the Government's failure to tackle and reduce crime.
      Mrs. Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that none of the matters that he has put forward will stop people reoffending, no matter what wonderful schemes are introduced by the Government or proposed by the Opposition? Young and older offenders will not be stopped reoffending, and that concerns local people. They would prefer to see young offenders in institutions—

      885
      "incarcerated" is the word I used earlier—because at least they are then not being a problem to people going about their normal lives.
      Mr. Michael: It might be wise for me to translate that and leave the Minister to answer the hon. Lady because what she said flies in the face of everything that any Minister or Home Office publication has stated. She says that, if people offend, it is inevitable that they will continue to offend. That is not the case. She says that we must accept as inevitable that, whatever we do, people will go on reoffending and all our efforts will have no effect on their patterns of offending. That is not true.
      I worked on an estate in my city of Cardiff for a number of years. The inter-agency work that was done between probation, social services, youth workers and others was recognised by the police as having had great benefit. The local chief constable said in his annual report that it had led to a reduction in crime. Indeed, the probation service withdrew from the project because it reported that so few youngsters were coming to court, because they were not offending, that the service could not justify its continued involvement in the project.
      There are two alternatives—that is the hon. Lady's view and she may wish to have it polarised in that way—in that one either allows crime to rise and simply seeks to punish, or one does what the Opposition say, which is to punish where one cannot prevent but prevent where one can because if one fails to prevent, one will have damaged the offender, who will continue to deteriorate in his or her lifestyle, one will have damaged the victim and one will have damaged the community in which both of them may live.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent about the need to punish where one cannot prevent, and particularly about the need to take action over juvenile offenders. Will he support the Government's plan for secure training orders?
      Mr. Michael: I shall look carefully at the Government's plan for secure training orders. It is a curious plan because it comes from the Home Office without an indication of the Department of Health's view, even though the latter is the Department responsible for its implementation for 15 and 16-year-olds.
      I shall be interested to see the evidence that the Government have to support the need for that type of institution, which will be spread thinly across the country, some of them being a long way from offenders' homes and the places to which they will have to return after being in those institutions. Have we reason to think that those institutions will be more successful than the previous attempts, such as the short, sharp shock, from which the Government had to turn back?
      I would look with more interest at a Home Secretary who introduced such a scheme—if he were not running with enthusiasm for higher office in his party at the time—and if he or his predecessor had delivered the secure places necessary to end the scandal, to which I referred, of 15 and l6-year-olds having to be held in adult prison accommodation because of there being nowhere else for them to be sent.
      I suspect that, in private, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) would be as critical as I am
      886
      of the Government's failure, in relation to the promise made in February 1991, to deliver any of the places required. It is easy to point to areas where the Conservatives have failed abjectly to keep their promises and to deal with the enforcement and support of bail.
      Bail, when granted by a court, should be treated seriously. Youngsters and adults alike should say, "I shall be in real trouble if I breach my bail conditions." The slowness of the criminal justice system has led to bail being treated with contempt. That cannot be good for young people, for the community, for the courts or for the respect in which people hold the criminal justice system.
      That is why we need positive action. We must punish if the opportunity is not taken, when given, to come out of the pattern of offending—when the opportunity for support and enforcement is there—but we have every right to tell the Government that they should be making the conditions right to support and enforce bail conditions when they are granted by the courts. As we agree, reoffending damages everyone—the offender, the victim and the community—but above all it damages confidence in the criminal justice system and the police.
      The police will be further undermined by yesterday's White Paper, which will do nothing to cut crime and help them in their task. Action of the sort proposed by the new clause would do somethng to reduce the amount of offending and reoffending with which the police must deal.
      Bail support and enforcement schemes represent one of the best ways to reduce offending by young people, in particular, while they are on bail. The schemes must use a wide range of approaches to get people to comply with the requirements of bail, and I commend the reports that have been published on approaches that have been tried on an experimental basis. They have included regular reporting, placements with volunteers during evenings and weekends, the monitoring of school attendance, assistance with employment and work with offenders' families.
      The Minister will recall the Opposition's suggestion that an order should be available to the court to encourage those types of activity post-sentence. We made that and other suggestions in Committee when we debated alternative sentences for young people. Such schemes can apply to people who are on bail, but they must be put into operation quickly, preferably while the person is waiting to come to court for sentence. If one's own child does something wrong, one punishes him or her today, not in a week, a month or three months—now. All too often, the problem with the criminal justice system is that it takes many months before a sentence is given by a court. The period of bail is far too long,and that assists in bringing the whole system into disrepute.
      Some areas have remand fostering arrangements, such as I referred to in my response to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) in which foster parents are able to take remanded people at short notice. Only a minority of areas possess a comprehensive range of bail support and remand fostering facilities. That might in part explain the wide variation of the use of custodial remands across the country. It is one of the reasons why the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders called last week for a statutory obligation on local authorities to set up bail support schemes That was a plea from those who, day to day, deal with trying to enforce the observance of bail.

      887
      We could not craft an amendment or a new clause which would have gone that far, but in new clause 5 we go some way, and it at least gives a starting point which would enable the Minister to take a great step forward if he would only see what an opportunity it offers. Sadly, until now—I acknowledge that the Minister is new to his post—the Government have been big on talk and quick to legislate, but small and slow when it comes to positive action which will increase success in supporting and enforcing bail. A code of practice for the courts in relation to bail options will help to ensure that those facilities are provided more uniformly across the country.
      The Home Office's own research shows that there are links between offending and reoffending and the circumstances of the offender. If those matters are addressed during the period of bail, a contribution can be made to cutting reoffending and therefore cutting the increase in crime which we suffer at present and which the Government seem so ready to tolerate.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: The public are rightly alarmed at the large number of offences that are being committed by offenders while on bail, and they want something done about it. It would be encouraging if the Opposition said that they would positively support the Government's proposals to have secure training orders for the hard core of persistent juvenile offenders who most frequently in recent years have come to public notice for offending on bail. However. it is a matter not just of juvenile offenders but of adult offenders.
      It was in 1948, I think, that Lord Chief Justice Goddard, in the Phillips case, said that bail should seldom be given to burglars because they would only burgle while they were on bail. In this modern age, we cannot say such a thing, but that shows that the problem of persistent offenders has been with us for many years.
      I greatly welcome the Government's attitude to bail, which has been manifested by their action. Clause 29, which allows the courts to take into account the commission of a criminal offence while on bail as an aggravating factor when it comes to sentence, so that an increased sentence can be passed on anyone who commits an offence while on bail, is a constructive step forward and will meet considerable support from the British people.
      Mr. Michael: To assist the hon. and learned Gentleman, clause 29 is actually about money laundering. I think that he is referring to the amendments as urged by the Opposition, although not as well crafted as those to clause 29 of the 1991 Bill.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am referring to clause 65.
      That is not all that the Government are doing. They are also supporting the Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), which will give the prosecution the right to appeal against the grant of bail. That is a substantial step forward which, if passed by the House, will make a contribution and help to reassure people.
      A further step should be taken. One of the reasons why so many offences are committed on bail is that magistrates have a totally wrong idea of the law and seem to think, perhaps on the guidance of some magistrates' clerks, that they are unable to remand certain people in custody. With the 20 new prisons that have been built, there should be some places available for rather more people than there
      888
      were 10 years ago, in reasonable accommodation while they are remanded in custody. Magistrates should be retrained, or certainly better trained, in their responsibilities as magistrates to remand people in custody in appropriate cases. There are too many cases in which people are given bail by magistrates. Attention to training is necessary.
      7.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has brought forward a code of practice. That is fine, but he then shot down his balloon by saying something with which I wholeheartedly agree: it is time that we had proper research and analysis and came up with a more systematic response to the problem of offending while on bail. The Government have plans in mind—I do not know how far they have gone; perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us. However, as long as that matter remains incomplete, it would be rather feeble of us to introduce a code of practice.
      We do not need a code of practice; we need a code of action. If the Government are involving themselves in a code of action which, apart from the proposed changes that they are making, will improve the training of magistrates and judges and make sure that we examine the subject to the necessary extent, that will be a much more constructive response to the problem than a code of practice.
      Mr. Michael: I endorse the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the need for a code of action. I hope that I made it clear that the geography of the Bill limited us in bringing forward an amendment or a new clause that would have gone further than that. We are limited to the idea of a code of practice because of the way in which the Government established and crafted their own Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are at one on that point.
      Mr. Maclean: Let me make it clear that the Government's approach to crime is twofold—prevent offending in the first place and then crack down on those who abuse the right to bail. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) says, "Resources, resources, resources," as though more resources in this and every other matter would prevent youngsters from forming the wrong ideas of what is right and what is wrong in society in the first place. I would pay attention to his plea for more resources if he would acknowledge that, under the Government, resources in the criminal justice system have increased by 105 per cent. in real terms. In case the hon. Gentleman does not know what that means, it is above the level of inflation, and that is a considerable amount of resources.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) might be horrified to hear that we are spending not hundreds of pounds but millions of pounds on bail hostels. In 1992, an extra £8 million was allocated for bail hostels. That is supposed to be good news, but my hon. Friend might not take it in that way. That is just another example of the huge resources that we have been making available to the criminal justice system. The greatest part of resources is on the crime prevention side—16,000 full-time policemen in England and Wales. That is not to be sneezed at.
      I accept that the new clause seems to be an honest attempt to assist the courts in their awareness of the

      889
      options available in deciding bail applications. To my knowledge, there are only three possible decisions in any bail application: remand in custody, unconditional bail or bail with conditions. The Home Office has already established a substantial body of research into identifying practical ways of improving the information available for bail decision makers, thereby improving the quality of those decisions. The result will be available early next year.
      I do not believe, therefore, that we need a code of practice covering the courts' options when deciding bail. The Bail Act 1976 sets out the need to consider carefully all the factors in a particular case before the judges or magistrates arrive at a decision. It sets out the conditions that can be attached to a grant of bail. As I explained in Committee, both judges and magistrates are fully aware of the terms and requirements of the Bail Act—at least, they ought to be; they have training on it. I take on board the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about the adequacy of training. I believe that it is adequate, but this is a point to which I shall certainly turn my attention.
      Judges and magistrates know those terms and requirements and, if they are minded to grant bail with, for example, conditions of residence, they will inquire as a matter of course into local circumstances and local bail support provisions, hostels, accommodation, and so on.
      My main concern about the proposed code of practice is that we must beware of inhibiting a court's discretion. The court has all the relevant facts about the alleged offender. If it does not, it has the power to ask for them. The court is best placed to decide what conditions to impose on a defendant. The probation service and the courts are already in close contact to ensure that the latter understand what is available to them and the effect that any such scheme will have on defendants.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth shocked me by saying that bail was being treated with contempt—those were his words. If that is the case, bail ought not to be granted in the first place. It would alarm me if magistrates granted bail who had before them accused persons who had a history of treating bail with contempt; there would be a prime case for not granting bail. So I do not see how a code of practice would improve the situation if people were offending on bail.
      I have no objection in principle to any sensible innovation whose effect might be to make the courts better informed of the options available. After all, what my hon. Friends and I and the Opposition are aiming for is to will the courts to come to the right decision, so that people who are granted bail do not offend again, but treat it properly, and those who ought not to be granted bail are not granted bail. That is what we all want. We want every decision, magically, to be right.
      I believe that the courts have all the information that they need at the present time to help them come to those decisions. We cannot invent a code of practice, either voluntary or statutory, to deal with the hundreds of thousands of different people coming before different courts, in different parts of the country. and being charged with different offences. In my view, we cannot give any guidance that would better help in those individual, very local, personal decisions. We must leave magistrates with that essential discretion.
      890
      If magistrates were coming to me in droves, or even individually, begging me to give them a code of practice to help them reach better decisions, I would take it very seriously. Indeed, I might have a team of people already working on such a code. But they have not come to me with that request. For that reason and others, I cannot support the new clause.
      Mr. Michael: I regret the Minister's response, and a couple of points need to be made to him quite directly.
      I should be more impressed on hearing that resources for the criminal justice system are up 105 per cent. if the Minister would acknowledge with greater seriousness that the increase in crime over the period of office of this Government is up 121 per cent. If we look at those crimes for which the issue of bail is of most importance, we see that violence against the person is up 120 per cent. and robbery is up 324 per cent. Those figures are for recorded crimes, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) says. The actual increase, as far as we can tell, is commensurate with that, but certainly recorded crime shows those massive increases. The evidence of the Government's own reports is such that we should certainly be worried about the way in which these serious crimes are increasing.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: The point is that, if more people are reporting crime, because the courts are more user-friendly towards women, and there are more telephones, more cars and more insurance claims that have to be reported to the police, that obviously exaggerates the proportion of reported crimes compared with those that used not to be reported.
      Mr. Michael: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the courts are user-friendly and that people are reporting with such enthusiasm, he is more complacent than I thought. Many people in communities throughout the country say that they are not reporting things because there is no point in reporting to the police, since nothing happens. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge, therefore, that the likelihood is that, far from exaggerating the increase in crime, the figures for reported crime probably understate the situation.
      That makes the point on which we are both agreed, however, about the dearth of adequate research on some of these issues. If we look at the British crime survey and the figures for reported crime, we have some reason for confidence that the figures that I am quoting, which are Government figures, are not exaggerated.
      A moment ago, I quoted the figure for robbery, up 324 per cent. The Minister's figure of a 105 per cent. increase in resources for the criminal justice system does not look too bright against that. Burglary is up 148 per cent.; vehicle crime, up 162 per cent.; and criminal damage, up 182 per cent. Those are the figures in which the Minister should be taking a, real interest, rather than mentioning 105 per cent. for resources—a far lower figure—with such complacency.
      Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the British crime survey shows that the increase in recorded crime is about double the rise in actual crime?
      Mr. Michael: I believe that there is great suspicion about those figures, and I gave the reason for that. There

      891
      is a great feeling throughout the country, illustrated in all sorts of ways, that there has been a diminution in recording.
      If the hon. and learned Member for Burton thinks that people are reporting crime in increased numbers and with increased confidence, he should speak to some of the communities, young people and senior police officers to whom I have spoken recently. He will find that the view that he has just expressed is not one that any of them endorse.
      The need for courts to have all the necessary information in front of them is dealt with in another amendment, but some of the Government's decisions are not helping in that regard. The Government must set the pattern of facilities that is necessary for those options to be available to the courts. It is not much use a court having information about a very limited range of options if that means that its hands are tied.
      Resources are involved—I am glad that the Minister noticed that point. Modest investment is needed to deal with and diminish this problem of offending while on bail, instead of tolerating it, and therefore tolerating the massive increase in money that will be needed to lock away anybody who offends or reoffends, as seems to be the desire of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
      If the Minister—I thought that this was one of the most remarkable pieces of complacency from a Home Office Minister for some time, and there is quite a bit of competition for that accolade—thinks that bail is not being treated with contempt by some youngsters and groups of youngsters, in particular, and by some adults, he certainly needs to listen more to police, young people and communities in my constituency and in other constituencies throughout the country. He should listen to the views of other hon. Members. His complacency on that issue will not be reflected by comments from Labour Members or, I suspect by comments from Conservative Members, either.
      Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I was making the point that if bail was treated with contempt by some people, which I accept, his code of practice was not the solution to the problem?
      8 pm
      Mr. Michael: The code of practice would contribute to solving that problem, but it would not solve the problem in itself. There is a need for sentencing, punishment, disposals while on bail and disposals in the community to take into account the need to diminish reoffending.
      I said earlier that the current system was showing signs of strain and that there were many occasions on which police, magistrates and others felt that it was being treated with contempt. I should have thought that the Minister would act in two ways: first, he should accept the proposed code of conduct as a constructive, small step in the right direction; and, secondly, in his capacity as Minister, he should set about providing resources to enable the establishment of a full pattern of bail support and enforcement and the whole range of constructive options that I mentioned.
      I advise the Minister to consider the remarks of his predecessors in office. He will find that they praised projects of the sort that I mentioned and said how effective they have been. I urge the Minister to take a bit of time to consider my options and to work them more and more into
      892
      the implementation of Government policy, and not just to do as his predecessors have tended to do and pay lip service to them.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton acknowledged the important need for research. Perhaps the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which he is Chairman, may take a view on that. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the former Chairman of that Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), has led an investigation by the all-party group on penal affairs—of which he is chairman—which I hope will make a useful contribution. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister will consider the outcome of those considerations.
      This is the first time for a number of years that the right hon. Member for Westminster, North has not been involved in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill. He has always made a significant contribution and it is a little sad that he is precluded from participating, having taken up ministerial office. Bearing in mind his. contributions to such debates over recent years, it is only appropriate to congratulate him on his appointment.
      Reference was made to aspects other than those in the new clause. Of course the new clause is not the whole answer. The Bail (Amendment) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), made its way because of the help that I gave it in Committee, because some of the Opposition amendments were accepted and becasuse we smoothed its way through the rather difficult procedures that normally make it impossible for any continued support—as a result of which, I hope, we shall hear soon that that Bill, with the right of appeal for courts against the granting of bail in appropriate circumstances, will be back before the House at the end of the week.
      With all honesty, my hon. Friends and I have shown that we are not concerned with just one aspect of the fight against crime and the fight against reoffending while on bail. We are concerned that there should be a proper and balanced range of ways in which to deal with such problems, which will include punitive and preventive measures, as well as constructive measures such as those that we urge in the new clause.
      The Minister's response was most disappointing. However, in our debates in Committee, the Minister showed an interest in constructive ideas from the Opposition. I hope that this is an idea that he will steal, expand and bring back to the House, claiming ingenuously that it is his own. I look forward to that opportunity before too long.
      Question put and negatived.

    New clause 10

      REPORTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 3(I) OR 7(I) OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991
      '.—(1) Pursuant to sections 3(1) or 7(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 the Crown Court shall seek guidance from the Probation Service as to the minimum amount of time necessary in order to ensure that the report meets the standards set down in the National Standards for the preparation of pre-sentence reports published by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in accordance with section 3(5)(b) of that Act.
      (2) The Crown Court may, with the agreement of prosecution, defence and the Probation Service rule that the

      893
      circumstances of a particular offender and a particular offence or group of offences are such that no report is required in order to fulfill the interests of justice.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We now come to a point that is a development of an issue that we discussed only a few minutes ago. The Minister referred to courts having all the information that they needed before them to take a decision. I have always believed strongly in the need to take fast decisions and in the need, wherever possible, for the same court to take the decision. If the court has listened to the circumstances, there is a better chance that it will take the right decision, because it knows the circumstances of the offence and has received reports. That is not the point at issue.
      There is a difference between the magistrates courts and the higher courts. In the Crown court, it is far more likely that, if there is an adjournment, the same judge will be able to preside. He will therefore have his own notes and memory of the case. That is frequently not the case in the magistrates courts. The problem is that there now seems to be a pressure for same-day reports in the Crown court where problems can arise and where serious issues have to be gone into. We are concerned about the fastest possible service for the courts consistent with the fullest possible information for the courts. I hope that I can take it for granted that the Minister and I agree on those being the two objectives for which we have to strive.
      I now come to the background to our approach in the new clause. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires courts to obtain pre-sentence reports in all cases serious enough for a community penalty or imprisonment, except indictment-only cases in which the Crown court deems it unnecessary to obtain a report. To facilitate that requirement, the probation service undertook pilot trials in the preparation of a faster report-writing service to the Crown court. A statement of preferred practice was drawn up between the Home Office and the probation service with the approval of the Crown court judiciary.
      The statement establishes that the probation service will assess in every case how quickly it will be possible to prepare a pre-sentence report in accordance with national standards for the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and that it
      "will seek to write each report as expeditiously as possible".
      The point of speed is there again. The statement also establishes that the time required for preparation will
      "vary considerably from case to case."
      and that
      "in appropriate cases only this may be later the same day".
      I encourage the idea that, wherever possible, the report is written the same day, but it must be acknowledged that that is not always possible.
      In June this year, the Home Office probation inspectorate produced the first HMIP inspection of implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The report records that the use of the provision for expedited reports has been slow to date. It also records that there has been no expression of dissatisfaction with the arrangements by Crown court judges. Nevertheless, on 17 June, apparently in response to the report, the Home Office issued CPO letter 33 of 1993 in the name of the Home Secretary, requiring the probation service to ensure the provision of a same-day report in every case that the judge remands into custody.
      894
      The Minister will recognise that there is an immediate apparent contradiction. There is the recognition in the Department's own guidance that only in some cases can reports properly be prepared in the day, and the requirement that they shall always be prepared in the day in the Crown court.
      It appears that the letter to the chief probation officers is a response to different pressure from that which is being expressed—that is, pressure from the judiciary to repeal that part of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which requires automatic pre-sentence reports. Judges would prefer to return to their former discretion in deciding when to invite the preparation of pre-sentence reports. The trouble is that that is a dangerous outcome. It appears that the pressure on the probation service resulted in the offer of the same-day report service which, frankly, cannot be made to work if it is to be consistent with the idea of national standards which the Minister will want to pursue as vigorously as in the past year.
      There is a danger, therefore, that we shall be drawn into a conflict of requirements, which might have a disadvantageous effect on practice in the probation service and the standard of reports on which the courts have to take a decision. What is required are arrangements which will ensure that the statement of preferred practice to meet the national standards which the Home Office is pursuing can be pursued and that those arrangements are correctly in place.
      That is one aspect of the new clause before us. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that it is a serious point, and I make it in the belief that it conflicts in no way with Government policy or the principles that he seeks to adopt. However, there is a danger of requirements being placed which will in practice undermine one or more of the requirements that the Minister is pursuing.
      The proposal in the new clause that the probation service will be consulted about the minimum time required to prepare a report in accordance with national standards would consolidate the arrangements in the statement of preferred practice in legislation. That is necessary because of the fear that the Home Office will ignore the statement in its new instruction to prepare same-day reports in all cases. We need to protect the flexibility that is necessary to ensure that the national standards are achieved.
      The need for flexibility in time arises form the great variation in the nature and complexity of the cases before the courts. Some cases cannot be dealt with quickly. I have mentioned a number of examples with which the Minister will have sympathy—cases in which there is child abuse, physical, emotional or sexual; drug or alcohol abuse; homelessness; mental illness; and many offences involving young people. In such cases, the issues involving longer time may need referrals to specialist agencies or hospitals, or liaison with social services departments may be necessary for confidential information to be read which could not be released prior to a conviction. Those serious issues would be overridden by a same-day system becoming necessary and universal.
      I hope, therefore, that the Minister accepts that it would be impossible to sustain such a system 100 per cent. because of meeting demands, staff shortages, illness and annual leave, even if the problems that I have outlined are not present. Clearly, such problems are present, and it would be bad, dangerous and in contradiction of the Minister's stated principle that the courts should have the

      895
      fullest and most accurate information available to them when taking decisions if that were the case. I hope that the Minister accepts our view in support of the new clause.
      The second aspect is simple and straightforward—that is, to permit judges, with the agreement of defence counsel, prosecution counsel and the probation service, to sentence without a pre-sentence report. This matter generally arises not in the magistrates court but in the Crown court. The new clause seeks to return some discretion to the judiciary in determining when it is necessary to have reports in triable either-way cases.
      The step forward to the automatic preparation of reports in the 1991 Act was important, with its assumption that a community sentence might be appropriate in all those cases. It is important to retain that presumption. However, when there is no doubt about the imposition of a sentence other than a community disposal, it seems only helpful and sensible for all concerned, as well as cost-effective, to return discretion to the sentencer. If the sentencer believes that there is no need for a report, and if defence counsel, prosecution counsel and the probation service, which would prepare the report, all agree, it would seem a mere bureaucratic quibble to say that a report must nevertheless be prepared.
      I hope that the Minister will agree that what we have proposed in the new clause pursues his aim, but in a way which will ensure that there is not a clash of interest in the court and that there is not preparation of a report when in the minds of everyone involved a report is not necessary.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Maclean: The new clause will make important changes to the circumstances in which pre-sentence reports are obtained. It may assist the House if I briefly summarise where we are now and why we got here.
      The range of circumstances in which a pre-sentence report must be considered before sentence is passed was extended and rationalised by the 1991 Act. Parliament approved those changes on the basis that they would ensure that, in the case of more serious offences, there would always be an objective and independent report available to the court, irrespective of factors such as the timing of the plea or whether the trial had been contested. It was felt that that would be in the interests of consistent justice.
      It was recognised that the requirements in the Act would give the probation service additional work, but the Government concluded that the additional resources would be more than justified by the improvement to the sentencing process brought about by a consistent supply of reports in accordance with defined national standards. It was also recognised that the requirements in the Act had the potential to inject a new element of delay into the sentencing process. For that reason, arrangements were made throughout the country for probation services, in discussion with the courts, to provide facilities for reports to be written quickly and on the same day in appropriate circumstances.
      The recent report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of probation on the operation of the Act, which was published earlier this month, found that on the whole the quality of reports was good but that not enough use was being made of the facilities for fast reports that are now in place.
      896
      Bearing in mind the costs and problems of unnecessary delays—I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on this point—we have now asked the probation service to guarantee a pre-sentence report on the day of conviction in all Crown court cases where the alternative would be a custodial remand. That request was made to avoid unnecessary delays at the Crown court, which are costly and undesirable for many reasons, including their effects on the trial process as a whole and on individual defendants.
      Mr. Michael: For the sake of clarity, I make it clear that I agree with the Minister up to this point. The danger of the undertaking of every case being same day causes the problem. Up to that point, there is no dispute between us. The problem is whether the requirement that all cases shall be same day, especially the list of cases that I gave, might bring about a danger of the court not having full and adequate information available. That is the crux of the problem.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall come to that point. The evidence of Her Majesty's chief inspector of probation is that there is no necessary trade-off between speed and quality. Although the same-day target is stretching for the probation service, our judgment is that such a target is proper in those cases where a remand in custody would otherwise be necessary. Probation services will need to adjust their priorities as necessary to meet the target. In other cases where time is not of the same essence, the courts may well wish to look to the probation service for guidance about how long is needed for a report, but I do not see that statutory provision of the sort envisaged in the new clause needs to be made for that.
      Mr. Michael: I should like to ask the Minister about the use of the word "target". Surely the difference between a target and a requirement is crucial to the debate. I agree with the Minister about establishing a target and exerting pressure to ensure that a report is produced on the same day as appearance in court. He would also be right to say that delay does not necessarily improve the quality of reports. There are cases, however, involving complex evidence where it would be extremely dangerous to set not just a target but a requirement for a same-day PSR.
      Mr. Maclean: I do not want to have a discussion on semantics. Let me make it clear, however, that the target is same-day PSRs. We have requested the probation service to meet that target. We would like to require it to do that, but I am not suggesting that that requirement should be set in statute.
      The chief inspector of probation believes that that target is a reasonable one and, over the next few months, I will monitor progress carefully to judge whether that is true. Probation officers will be given a chance to see whether they can meet that target. I, too, will consider carefully whether they can. I shall also listen to what the judiciary has to say about the operation of that target.
      I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that it is not our intention to place speed at a premium over quality. The evidence from the inspection report suggests that the two can go together. If it emerges on the day, however, that further inquiries are needed, perhaps as the result of an offender's medical condition or because more detail is necessary, it will be open to the

      897
      court to ask for further inquiries to be made. We expect the probation officer to report, on the day, to say how that assessment should be completed.
      It may be helpful if I tell the House that we are reviewing the national standards that cover all the main aspects of the work of the probation services, including PSRs. It will obviously be necessary to monitor carefully how the new guidance works in practice.
      I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said when I consider the PSR provisions of the 1991 Act, but I am not persuaded that the new clause strikes the right balance. I am willing to reflect, however, on the points raised about its second subsection. I will also reflect on what practitioners, including the judiciary, think about it.
      Although the provisions requiring a written PSR—without exception and across a defined range of cases—are reasoned, I do not rule out changes if we conclude that they are justified. A judgment must be made, as ever, on the balance between consistency and discretion. The new clause raises difficulties by making a decision on whether a report is needed turn on the consent of the defence or the probation officer.
      One of the strengths of the PSR in comparison with the old social inquiry report is that the PSR is clearly perceived and valued by sentencers as an objective, independent report. I foresee a bit of difficulty in a provision that gives discretion with the one hand and takes it away with the other.
      Given that we are monitoring the national standards and that I am happy to return to the matter in future legislation should we discover in the next few months that the PSRs are not working as hon. Members would want, I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister's reply has been helpful. It is important to decide whether the objective of same-day reporting should be considered as a target, a request, a strong request or a requirement. To consider that objective as a target at which to aim would be welcome, but it would be a mistake if it was insisted upon to the detriment of the quality of the report. That the Minister has undertaken to monitor the PSRs, however, goes a long way towards meeting my concerns.
      Will the hon. Gentleman agree to ensure that that monitoring will be careful? Does he accept that the criteria for and parameters and method of recording that monitoring should be agreed in advance? That would ensure that everyone understood the way in which the information was interpreted.
      Will the Minister consult with those involved, including, obviously, the judiciary and those in the probation service, on the criteria to be used so that we are all clear, in advance, about the judgments that will be made? If the methodology of the monitoring is understood by all concerned, I cannot but be satisfied with the Minister's undertaking.
      Mr. Maclean: We would want to ensure that those whom we are monitoring understand exactly what is being monitored. In case I did not make it absolutely clear, I confirm that the requirement in table 93 is not that every
      898
      report should be prepared on the same day, but that same-day reports should be guaranteed in all cases that would otherwise involve custodial remand.
      Mr. Michael: I welcome that clarification from the Minister, which is helpful. In view of that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 12

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 57 OF NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT I99I
      '.—(1) Section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows—
      (a) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4)—
      "(4) This section applies for the purpose of terrorist investigations, that is to say investigations into—

      (a) the activities of an organisation concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism, or

      (b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 applies, or

      (c) any other act which appears to have been done in furtherance of or in connection with such acts of terrorism, including any act which appears to constitute an offence under sections, 2, 9, 10 or 11 or Part III of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, or

      (d) without prejudice to paragraph (c) above, the resources of a proscribed organisation, or

      (e) funds which may he applied or used for the commission of, or in furtherance of or in connection with, acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or

      (f) the proceeds of the commission of such acts of terrorism or of activities engaged in in furtherance of or in connection with such acts.

      (b) In subsection (5) for the references to paragraphs (a) and (c) there shall be substituted references to paragraphs (d) and (f) respectively.".

      (c) The following subsection shall be added—

      "(6) Persons authorised under this section in respect of investigations that fall within subsection (4)(a) to (c) shall be persons who hold or have held judicial office in any part of the United Kingdom or who are—

      (a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; or

      (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years standing; or

      (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least ten years standing.".

      (2) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 all the words after "paragraph 2" shall be deleted and there shall be inserted "shall be admissible in evidence and such admissibility shall not in itself be a reasonable excuse within the meaning of
      paragraph 4( 1 )".'.—[ Mr. Trimble.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Perhaps I should explain why I have adopted a slightly different position in the Chamber. That reflects not a change in political allegiance but my need for some lumbar support.
      The new clause stems from a speech made by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on 27 May when he introduced his fifth annual report. In that speech, he

      899
      mentioned changes in the law that he considered to be desirable for the police to be effective in dealing with the terrorist problem that we face not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He listed seven changes to the law that he considered to be desirable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) put them on record in a debate in the House a couple of weeks ago.
      In Committee, I tabled two new clauses to give effect to two of the provisions mentioned by the Chief Constable. At the end of a brief debate, I expressed the hope that we would have an opportunity for a further, wider debate on the issue in the House.
      I have not pursued the more radical of the two new clauses because I acknowledge that it is a radical proposal that needs to be subject to more debate and further refinement. The draft that I produced in Committee represented a stab at the matter. I have, however, retabled an amended version of the second, more modest proposal. That amended version is the result of advice that I have received from the RUC. I particularly commend the new clause, as currently drafted, because it has benefited from advice and refinement.
      The new clause would amend section 57 of and schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It is appropriate to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to do just that. I was surprised when the Minister said in Committee that the Bill was not the appropriate vehicle for such a change. The Bill makes massive changes to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and in effect rewrites the whole of part VII, so I do not understand the Minister's argument that it is not a suitable or effective vehicle for change. The Bill makes substantial changes to anti-terrorist law as it applies not just to Northern Ireland but beyond. It is therefore appropriate that we consider this further change.
      Section 57 and schedule 5 of the emergency provisions legislation empower the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to appoint "authorised investigators", who can require people to attend particular places, answer questions and produce documents. The provision offers a measure of protection, in that information covered by professional legal privilege or a duty of confidentiality arising from banking business does not have to be produced. However, other documents must be produced and other questions answered.
      Failure to answer by a person being questioned under that section and schedule is an offence. Making an inaccurate or misleading answer, or destroying documents, are further offences. The latter offence carries a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment, whereas the former carries a penalty of only five years imprisonment.
      8.30 pm
      I have gone through the existing provision to point out that it is substantial and makes significant inroads into what is known as the right to silence. The Government put that provision on the statute book in 1991. The new clause simply extends the range of circumstances to which the existing power under the 1991 Act apply, but it does so in a curious way. The significant inroad into the right to silence applies to offences relating to financing terrorism. I am proposing an extension of that to more serious offences.
      I could understand an objection to the new clause if it extended an existing inroad into the right to silence from serious to less serious offences, as people might then be
      900
      concerned about eroding a defendant's perceived right. But that is not what the new clause does; rather, it applies the section to more serious offences.
      In Committee, I suggested to the Minister that, in some respects, it was an anomaly that we have a power to appoint investigators to require people to answer questions and produce documents with regard to minor terrorist offences but have no such power with regard to serious terrorist offences. I was sorry that he did not respond to that point in Committee.
      I have slightly modified the drafting of the new clause and provided an additional safeguard. An existing safeguard with regard to the operation of authorised investigators is that their code of practice provides for the tape recording of interviews in the presence of solicitors. Because the provision would be operated in a wider range of circumstances, it is appropriate to offer further safeguards restricting those eligible for appointment as authorised investigators to persons who hold or have held judicial office, or to lawyers of at least 10 years standing. That would help to make the provision safe against any challenge under the European convention on human rights.
      A further change, although not by way of a safeguard, is to amend paragraph 5 of schedule 5, under which answers given to an authorised investigator are not normally permissible in evidence. Cases have already arisen in which that restriction has prevented the institution of proceedings. It seems strange that the legislation impels people to answer questions but that their answers are not admissible in evidence. The whole point of requiring people to answer questions is to provide information relating to breaches in the law and that information should therefore be admissible in evidence. That is provided for in the new clause.
      I hope that the Minister can give a different slant on the matter this evening because in Committee his remarks related mainly to the more radical of my proposals, which I am not pursuing at present. He referred to maintaining the character and reputation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the support of sensible and decent people. He also spoke about sustaining the judicial function and ensuring that a perception would not diminish it.
      Does the Minister consider that section 57 and schedule 5 to the 1991 Act undermine the judicial function of the legal system in Northern Ireland? Do they undermine the character and reputation of the criminal justice system in the hearts and minds of ordinary, sensible, decent people? I do not think that they do and I do not see how the Minister could argue that the 1991 Act does that. The new clause simply extends the existing provision to deal with more serious offences. It removes an anomaly, which is an appropriate thing to do.
      Last week, in the debate on the renewal of direct rule, and a couple of weeks earlier in the debate on the renewal of the emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism legislation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland quoted the same passage from the Chief Constable's speech of 27 May when he presented his annual report. In that passage, the Chief Constable purported to refute the widespread belief that the police are in some way shackled. The Secretary of State quoted that denial with evident satisfaction and went on to assert that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is given every resource that it needs and has asked for in order to fight terrorism.

      901
      In the light of what the Chief Constable said then and what has happened since, the remarks of the Secretary of State are not accurate, because the Chief Constable asked for specific changes to be made and went to the extent of saying to the public, a month ago, that he had been denied those changes. He asked for changes that have not yet been granted. That is remarkable, as he said that the matter had been delayed and blocked within the Northern Ireland Office.
      In Committee, the Minister linked that delay to the expected report of the royal commission, which we understand is coming soon. Although the royal commission report may be relevant to the more radical of my proposals, it is no reason for dealing with a provision that takes existing legislation, to which the Minister cannot reasonably object, and applies it to other circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can give me a better, more reasoned reply than he gave me last week.
      Mr. Maclean: I listened with great care to the remarks of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I am grateful for the customary courteous manner in which he presented his arguement, although I must confess that I was slightly alarmed to see him on the Bolsover Bench.
      The hon. Gentleman has again taken the opportunity of our consideration of the Bill to propose changes. Although, as he says, he has not proposed his more radical solutions, they are still of great significance to the criminal law in Northern Ireland.
      The new clause, like those that the hon. Gentleman proposed in Committee, would have a significant impact on the right to silence of a person suspected of committing a terrorist offence in Northern Ireland. The new clause achieves that effect by extending to all terrorist crime the authorised investigator powers currently available under section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in respect of investigations into terrorist finances, and by allowing a statement made by a person in response to a requirement imposed by an authorised investigator to be then used in evidence against that person in any prosecution, which I understand is not the case at the moment.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me whether or not the measure would undermine the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. That requires more consideration than we have been able to give it in the weeks since the Bill left Committee or in the few days that we have had to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposals. As I said then, and as I say now to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who are present tonight, the Government and the RUC keep the effectiveness of the law in combating terrorism continually under review, and the suggestions made reasonably by the Chief Constable are currently receiving not just full but urgent consideration.
      I checked the Hansard report of our debate in Committee and the hon. Gentleman asked me whether those suggestions were receiving urgent consideration. Yes, they are. The Government are determined to ensure that all reasonable measures are in place to assist the prevention and investigation of terrorist crime, but we have to balance that against the need to maintain the character and the reputation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the support of the people of
      902
      Northern Ireland for it. Therefore, the Government do not believe that it would be sensible to use the Bill to legislate on such issues.
      I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is giving the proposals the closest attention, but, given the nature of the threat posed by terrorist crime, I honestly believe that changes in the criminal law in Northern Ireland can be made only with great care and after full consideration. Even if I thought that the hon. Gentleman's proposals were excellent, I would not wish to take them on board after just a few days' consideration of them here, but would wait until it was possible to give them full and proper consideration with all the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland.
      It is true that the royal commission is about to report. I must say to the hon. Gentleman in all honesty that that is not an excuse that I plucked from mid-air for not wishing to take further action on the right to silence. I understand that the royal commission will be making recommendations on that matter. Again, the Government will wish to consider them seriously, and if we wish to make any changes to the right to silence, either here or as it further affects the law in Northern Ireland, it is best to wait for what the royal commission has to say.
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive contribution that he made to the debate tonight, as he did in Committee. I assure him that the Government are prepared to make changes to the legislation against terrorism when such changes are shown to be necessary and desirable. Part IV, which strengthens the law against terrorist finances, is clear evidence of that. However, hasty action in the area covered by the new clause would not be wise.
      The principles behind the clause must be carefully examined and, as I hope I have managed to explain, the Bill is not a suitable vehicle for that, especially when we are expecting the royal commission's report and when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having full and urgent discussions on the Chief Constable's proposals. In view of those assurances, I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he would care to withdraw his motion.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister has in effect repeated what he said in Committee, only with more emphasis. He has used basically the same argument and the same phrases.
      Let me briefly comment on just a few points. The changes are necessary. I am sorry if I did not put the argument to show their necessity. I refer hon. Members who happen to read or listen to my speech tonight to the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings, where I gave some examples of why they are necessary. They are made necessary by the existing situation and the way in which terrorists are trained to withstand interrogation and normal questioning. Their necessity is shown by the fact that the Chief Constable of the RUC decided to go public on this issue, and that is quite unusual.
      I should correct one point: the proposed measures are not simply changes to the law in Northern Ireland. Although section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has to start in Northern Ireland by an appointment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, it extends throughout the United Kingdom. It is

      903
      one of the few provisions of which we approve in that respect because there is a need for a common legal basis to operate thoughout the United Kingdom and it is one of the grounds on which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the recent comments by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he called for the need to tackle the present problem on a United Kingdom basis. We were glad that such an integrationist argument was put by the architect of direct rule. The provisions extend throughout the United Kingdom, and it is necessary that they be reinforced.
      The Minister said that it has been only a week since the Bill concluded its Committee stage and that we had had only a few days to consider the proposals in Committee. However, a month ago, the Chief Constable went public and the matter had been on the go before that; it is not as if the Minister had been given only nine or 10 days to consider the new clause.
      The proposals have been under consideration for months and the impression that we have received in Northern Ireland is that the Northern Ireland Office has been sitting on them. Perhaps the Minister has become aware of them only in the past fortnight, but that is a reflection on the way in which the Government have been operating and the lack of co-ordination between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office, and that reinforces the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
      Having said that, the Minister said in Committee that the proposals were a bit premature, to which I added the gloss they might be a little premature, but not much. Perhaps after consideration of the royal commission's report and after consultation with other bodies, it will be necessary for the Minister to put forward proposals that may not be exactly the same but are on similar lines. He will have to do that soon. I will ease the U-turn he will then make by not compelling him to vote tonight against something that he will have to support before long. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF GROUP A OFFENCES
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 3, line 6, leave out from '(1)' to 'For', in line 8.
      No. 14, in page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(2) For the purpose of determining whether or not a particular event is a relevant event in relation to a Group A offence, any question as to where it occurred is to be disregarded.
      (3) A person may be guilty of a Group A offence if any of the events which are relevant events in relation to the offence occurred in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 19

      OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LAUNDERING MONEY FROM DRUG TRAFFICKING: SCOTLAND
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 29, line 26, leave out from 'not' to end of line 30 and insert
      'make it an offence for a professional legal adviser to fail to disclose any information or other matter which has come to him in privileged circumstances.'.
      No. 29, in page 30, line 17, at end insert—
      '(8A) For the purposes of this section, any information or other matter comes to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated, or given, to him—

      (a) by, or by a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client;

      (b) by, or by a representative of, a person seeking legal advice from the adviser; or

      (c) by any person—

      (i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

      (ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

      (8B) No information or other matter shall be treated as coming to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated or given with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.
      No. 30, in page 31, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) Nothing in subsections (1) to (3) above makes it an offence for a professional legal adviser to disclose any information or other matter—

      (a) to, or to a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client; or

      (b) to any person—

      (i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

      (ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

      (4A) Subsection (4) above does not apply in relation to any information or other matter which is disclosed with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 22

      ENFORCEMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND ORDERS: DRUG TRAFFICKING
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 34, line 33, after 'orders),' insert
      'in subsection (1), for "19" there shall be substituted "18" and'.—(Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 25

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ETC. RECEIVED IN PRIVILEGED CIRCUMSTANCES
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 37, line 7, at end insert—
      '(2) The same subsections as are inserted in section 31 of the Act of 1986 by subsection (I) shall be inserted in section 42 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (corresponding Scottish provision).'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 33

      ENFORCEMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND ORDERS: PROCEEDS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT
      Amendment made: No. 16, in page 45, line 15 after 'orders),' insert
      'in subsection (1), for "89" there shall be substituted "88" and'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 49
      INVESTIGATION OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 64, line 46, after 'conceals' insert 'or destroys'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 64

      FIXING OF FINES
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 73, line 11, at end insert—
      '(1 A) In fixing the amount of any fine, a magistrates' court shall consider the weekly amount which it appears to the court the offender can reasonably afford to pay as a fine, and the amount of any fine imposed by a magistrates' court shall be the product of this amount and the number of weeks' payment which in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 2, in page 73, line 12, after 'court', insert 'other than a magistrates' court'.
      No. 3, in page 73, line 15, after 'court', insert 'other than a magistrates' court'.
      No. 9, in page 73, leave out line 46.
      No. 10, in page 74, line I, leave out 'and that Schedule'.
      No. 4, in clause 65, page 74, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert—
      '"29.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall prevent a court from passing a more severe sentence on an offender by reason of his loss of mitigation due to previous convictions or to any failure of his to respond to previous sentences, or by reason of any aggravating factors of the offence disclosed by previous offences, provided that the sentence (other than a sentence passed under section 1(2)(b) or section 2(2)(b) above) is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence or, where applicable, to the seriousness of the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it.".'.
      No. 5, in schedule 3, page 87, leave out from beginning of line 23 to end of line 42 on page 89.
      Mr. Michael: The way in which we dealt with the previous group of Government amendments demonstrates the co-operative way in which we have approached the Bill. However, the number of Government amendments shows that the legislation has often changed rapidly and dramatically as it has progressed. That led me to table amendment No. 1 and those grouped with it.
      They relate to a part of the Bill that did not exist on Second Reading, and which was therefore not considered in Committee or on Report in another place. The changes heralded by this group of amendments concern fines and the ways in which previous offences are dealt with.
      We take some pride in having provoked the Government into making one of numerous U-turns seen in recent months. This one is welcome, because there is a need to address the problem of unit fines and section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends frequently raised that issue on the Floor of the House and in correspondence, so the hon. Gentleman cannot claim all the credit. It is a perfectly common-sense move, and as ours are a common-sense Government, they normally adopt such improvements.
      Mr. Michael: I am delighted to share a piece of common sense with the hon. Lady. Previous Ministers were reluctant to exhibit that common sense, but I clear the present Minister of blame for that, as I have done at every stage. We can claim more credit, because there would have been no action had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), who introduced a ten-minute Bill, which
      906
      could have passed through the House—in the way that the Bail (Amendment) Bill did, with our support—had the Government been more forthcoming. We can claim some credit for being proactive in seeking amendments to parts of the legislation that were causing difficulty in the courts.
      Grouped with amendment No. I are amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 5, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), on which he will comment.
      Unit fines have been dogged with problems. When they were implemented last October, we warned that, if the Government did not take care, problems would arise. The over-excitable way in which the former Home Secretary performed his U-turn gave rise to the danger that not only the problems created by the Government's implementation of the unit fines system but principles that have not been contested by anyone might be removed. In other words, the baby might be thrown out with the bath water.
      Had some means of dealing with the unit fines system and section 29 of the 1991 Act formed part of the original Bill, we would have had an opportunity to move amendments and to improve the legislation as it progressed through the House. In Committee, we moved with commendable speed to test the Government's principles.
      The amendments seek to guide magistrates to impose fines that relate to the means of the offender and to be more precise than the formulation currently in the Bill. Magistrates will be required to observe a two-stage process—to assess the weekly amount that the offender can reasonably afford to pay, and to impose a fine reflecting the number of weeks of payment that the court considers to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
      For the same offence, a well-off offender would receive a higher fine than a poor offender, in line with their different weekly incomes and an amount that each could reasonably afford to pay as a fine.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman indicated assent.
      Mr. Michael: I believe that principle is agreed in all parts of the House—I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees—and by those who were dissatisfied with the system that was implemented by the Government and those who supported them.
      The basic argument for such an approach is that, if operated properly, it would ensure that the fines imposed a more equal degree of punishment on offenders having different income levels. A fine of £150 may be derisory to someone who is wealthy, but it could be crippling for someone on income support or who is caught in the poverty trap just above income support level. The degree of punishment felt by the two offenders is very different.
      That was the widely supported principle on which the House agreed in the past, but the statutory unit fine system operated in a way that led courts to impose unreasonably high fines on offenders having modest, middle incomes. The amendments will produce the benefits of means-related fines without the unintended ill effects that resulted from the statutory unit fine system. The House can see how generous I am, in assuming that incompetence rather than intention led to that system being implemented in the way that it was.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Much of the problem was due to offenders flatly refusing to fill in the forms. That

      907
      being so, the courts took an adverse view of their income. It was due to pig-headedness on the part of some defendants.
      Mr. Michael: I entirely agree. In the famous crisp packet case in Gwent, aggravating factors were considered by the court. The newspapers continually refer to the fine in that case being reduced on appeal, but it was not. It was reduced automatically when the defendant filled in the forms. The defendant had the grace to admit that that was the case, even though some newspapers did not.
      I am rather worried by this degree of agreement, but I hope that the Minister will join this party and will agree that we should pursue that principle. Things went wrong for a variety of reasons, but we must make sure that the changes that the Minister sought in Committee do not bring about another cause of difficulties and damage the Minister's reputation—in the way that implementing the unit fine system irretrievably damaged the former Minister of State, Home Office, who is now Secretary of State for Education.
      In this atmosphere of agreement, I return to what we are trying to achieve in the amendment. It is particularly important that we should not go back to the system that existed before 1991. Unrealistically high fines should not be imposed on offenders with modest or reasonable means, and certainly should not be imposed on those of low means.
      Before the 1991 Act, a quarter of the people who were sentenced to imprisonment each year in England and Wales were imprisoned for non-payment of fines. In 1991, a total of 18,973 people were imprisoned for fine default. The fines of the imprisoned defaulters were originally imposed for a wide range of offences. The largest categories were motoring offences, with 5,180 offenders, and theft and fraud, with 3,631. Some 26 per cent. of all sentenced prisoners entering prison in 1991 and 46 per cent. of those given sentences of six months or less where imprisoned for fine default.
      9 pm
      Those figures are not irrelevant. They are highly relevant, and not only to the behaviour of the courts in the new legislation. Has the Minister made any allowance in the acceleration and increase of the prison building programme for the increase of people imprisoned for default which may arise as a result of the change in the Bill? Most sentences fit fine defaulters short—defaulters represented just 1·2 per cent. of the average daily population of sentenced prisoners and 11·2 per cent. of those serving six months or less.
      However, even a small proportion of fine defaulters can cause serious problems for a hard-pressed prison system, especially as the strain is felt most in the local prisons where overcrowding is greatest. The Minister must pay particular attention to the fact that the work caused by almost 19,000 annual receptions—the processing of each offender and the reception, discharge, paperwork and so on—is substantial, regardless of the prisoner's length of stay.
      In Committee, the Minister said on 17 June 1993:
      "In the past, the courts have had a duty to reflect in the fine the offender's means, but only since the 1991 Act have they had a duty to inquire into the financial circumstances of the offender. That duty remains, so the courts should be armed with much better financial information about the offender's means and he better able to set an appropriate sentence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B. 17 June 1993; c. 259.]
      908
      However, the change is more apparent than real. In practice, before the 1991 Act, courts always asked offenders how much their income was before fining them. The consequence was an increase in the number of people being imprisoned for default despite that practice being observed.
      The Opposition amendments, therefore, are directed to helping the Minister. They will ensure that, after the unit fine system is abolished, the principle of means-related fines will continue to govern courts' decisions. That will ensure that financial penalties bear evenly on the wealthy and less well-off, avoid the imposition of unrealistic fines on the poor, and prevent a sharp rise in the number of offenders unnecessarily imprisoned for fine default.
      I turn to the amendments that deal with the way in which the Government have approached section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Clause 65 repeals section 29 of that Act and replaces it with a formulation allowing courts to take into account any previous convictions of the offender or any failure of his to respond to previous sentences when considering the seriousness of an offence for sentencing purposes. Our amendment seeks to make sure that this is done in a sensible way and says:
      "Nothing in this Part shall prevent a court from passing a more severe sentence on an offender by reason of his loss of mitigation due to previous convictions or to any failure of his to respond to previous sentences, or by reason of any aggravating factors of the offence disclosed by previous offences, provided that the sentence (other than a sentence passed under section 1(2)(b) or section 2(2)(b) above) is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence or, where applicable, to the seriousness of the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it."
      There are two elements there. One is the question of mitigation, which the Minister will note was discussed across the parties. The Minister will note that Conservative Back-Benchers asked how loss of mitigation would be brought into the system. There was agreement across the Committee on whether the approach to the loss of mitigation was the right one.
      Lip service was paid to the second element, which is that the offence should not be treated as more serious than it really was. Obviously, if there is a record, it must be taken into account and the sentence needs to be set accordingly. Loss of mitigation will occur accordingly. But the offence should not be treated as if the theoretical theft of a Mars bar became a serious offence akin to assault, burglary or other serious offences. No matter how often the offence is repeated, it remains only as serious as it is.
      It is that which we seek to maintain in the formulation that we put forward. We first make it clear that the courts may pass more severe sentences on offenders with previous convictions, but we also make it clear that that is subject to the limitation that the courts must not increase sentences to levels out of all proportion to the seriousness of the current offence. Therefore, in effect, courts will be able to increase sentences because of previous convictions or reduce them because of the offender's previous clean record, but it must be within the band of possible sentences broadly in proportion to the seriousness of the offence before the court.
      That observes principles that already exist. The guidance for the court is already there through Court of Appeal decisions and sentencing practices that have been established over a period of years. The danger is that, if we do not write into the law a limiting principle of proportionality, we could return, not to the position

      909
      before the 1991 Act, which is what the Minister intends, but to a more punitive sentencing framework, under which some offenders could be given sentences out of all proportion to what they deserve as a result of their offence.
      It is necessary to look at examples that might develop and at the position before the 1991 Act. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised that an offender should not be sentenced for the offences that he has committed in the past and for which he has already been punished. That principle is already within the law, and was established by R. v. Queen in 1980. The offender faced a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the new offence. To top up that punishment because of past wrongdoing for which the offender has already paid the penalty, would be to punish him twice for the same offence.
      That did not mean that the courts were required to treat a repeat offender in the same way as an offender with no or few previous convictions. The latter could be given a more lenient sentence because of the mitigation of having a clean record.
      I remind the Minister again of the fact that that principle was referred to in Committee by two of his hon. Friends. Therefore, it is a matter on which there is agreement among those who have experience of dealing with these issues in the courts. It could mean that a repeat burglar would eventually be sentenced more severely than a rapist. Surely that would not be right. It would offend against common sense. An offence does not become more serious than another simply because it has been repeated.
      I hope that the Minister will see that there is common sense and balance in what we are saying, and that he will recognise that, as a result of recent decisions by the House of Lords, what is said as the Bill passes through this place is important. This part of the Bill only emerged in Committee, and has had proper consideration only in Committee and here on Report. Therefore, it is particularly important to ensure that the right principles are enshrined in the statute.
      Will the Minister look with care at the two elements within the amendments that we have tabled? It is important to ensure that offences do not lead to custodial sentences where they would not otherwise have done so. I point the Minister to a reference in a 1988 Home Office research study of Crown court sentencing. It found that, in cases of theft valued at under £200, 39 per cent. of offenders received immediate prison sentences. In such cases, imprisonment is, in practice, often a response to persistent minor offending in the past, and cannot be justified by the gravity of the offence for which the court is purporting to sentence.
      The 1990 White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" said:
      "Injustice is more likely if courts do not focus on the seriousness of the offence before them when they sentence."
      I am again playing the Government's own music back to them, and asking that the point be borne in mind.
      I am sure that the Minister accepts that, where a punishment must be severe, because of the nature of the offence and because of its repetition, the courts must be able to act swiftly. It is equally important, however, to ensure that the system does not rack up offences, so that a severe punishment is not passed where the offences are not serious enough to justify it.
      910
      The departure from the principle of proportionality would mean imprisoning small-time offenders whose offences did not deserve it, passing disproportionately long prison sentences on those whose offences merited shorter sentences and using the most intensive community services for those who committed the most minor offences, for which lower penalties would suffice.
      The result would be a general increase in the severity of sentencing to levels more punitive than before the 1991 Act. That would do nothing to reduce crime but a great deal to create injustice in sentencing. The amendments aim to persuade the Government that, in rightly abolishing the unit fine system and the constraints on courts that prevented them from taking into account previous offences, we must ensure that we avoid nonsensical judgments in the future.
      I am sure that that will be the Minister's aspiration. I hope very much that he will take our constructive amendments on board in seeking to achieve those ends.
      Mr. Maclennan: Three amendments appear in my name, of which amendment No. 5 relates to schedule No. 3. On reflection, I am inclined to the view that it would have been better to strike not so much at the schedule, which depends on clause 64, as at clause 64 itself, since that really is the heart of the matter. Recognising the constraints on order, I believe that I would be wise to focus my remarks principally on amendment No. 1 and leave it to another place to address the demerits of clause 64 frontally.
      The last time I commented on the then Home Secretary's decision to abolish unit fines, he gave me the advice that I should retreat to a darkened room, take a pill and reflect on whether there was anything in the Government's proposals with which I was in agreement.
      A period of tranquillity has elapsed—perhaps it has even extended into the debate, in which about 10 hon. Members are participating. Having followed the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), although I did not require any artificial tranquillisers, I have come to the view that there is little to be said for the Government's proposals, which the amendments seek to modify.
      Throughout this sorry discussion, we have witnessed the rather dangerous element of instant government which has been responsible for some of the worst aspects of criminal law reform in recent years.
      Amendment No. I, to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke tonight, is an attempt—albeit a last-minute attempt—to attract some sense back into the business of fining. It does not go nearly far enough, but it will probably improve the Bill. I hope that the whole issue of fining—unit fining in particular—will be considered by their Lordships with the dispassionate objectivity which did not characterise the Government's introduction of new clause 64. That introduction was in sharp contrast with the manner in which the original proposal for unit fines was introduced by the Government in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990.
      9.15 pm
      There had been a long-standing debate on the issue. The principle of unit fines had been tried and tested in many jurisdictions. It had been introduced in Finland as long ago as 1921, in Sweden in 1931, and in Denmark in

      911
      1939. In five other European countries, including France and West Germany, it was introduced in the 1970s, and Spain and Switzerland are now planning to introduce unit or day fine systems.
      Thus, it cannot be said that, in proposing this means of tackling a long-standing series of related problems, we were without the benefit of international experience. I have gone through the history of the introduction of unit fines and have found that at no point did I criticise the principle. Indeed, I strongly welcomed the system as it was part of my party's policy. We saw it as a means of tackling three principal problems arising out of fining as it had developed in this country, particularly in the magistrates courts.
      The first problem arose from the inconsistency of fining practice as between courts. I fear that the Government's action will do little to eliminate that difficulty. We shall hear complaints—complaints at least as strong as those that have been made since the unit fine system was so ineptly introduced—about the extraordinary discrepancies between fines imposed up and down the land for the same offence. The Government will have to be held directly responsible for this, for they had a means of their own devising to prevent it.
      The second major defect that the Government sought deliberately to remove was the inequity of the fining system, which resulted in unequal pain being suffered by people fined fo similar offences without proper regard for their ability to pay. That is a real fear. The Home Office's own 'research shows that, in 1990, 90 per cent. of fine defaulters were unemployed.
      The third probem with which unit fines were designed to deal—and I believe that, had they been given a proper chance, they would have dealt with it—was that of fine defaulters. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth gave the figures. In 1991, about 19,000 people went to prison for defaulting. It cannot be a purpose of Home Office policy—I have no reason to believe that the Home Office has departed from its policy because the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, decided to stand on his head—that a person deemed by a court to be suitable for fining should end up in gaol at public expense. That is an extremely expensive remedy, and one with which a Government prudent with public finance ought not to be satisfied. We shall watch with great interest what happens to the figures as a result of this ill-conceived change.
      The Government do not know what has happened to sentencing and how the fines have worked in practice since the introduction of the unit fines system. As recently as 21 May, I asked the Home Secretary whether he would place in the Library the information collected by his Department on the operation of the system. The answer, from a Minister of State, was:
      "Statistical information about fines imposed since 1 October 1992 is still being collected. It will be published in due course in the usual way."—[Official Report, 21 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 343.]
      In other words, without the relevant information the Government moved to abolish what they had introduced scarcely two years earlier. It is almost inconceivably irresponsible, but it is entirely typical of the Government.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman says that it was irresponsible, but the then Lord Chief Justice pressed for it.
      Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Lady cares to read the Lord Chief Justice's remarks in full, as I have, she will realise that he was dealing with a range of issues that were causing dissatisfaction on the bench in relation to the curbing of magistrates' discretion. He was certainly not advocating anything like that which the Government have incorporated in the clause that we are seeking to amend.
      The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) gave the game away in Committee. In seeking to explain what was then new clause 39, and talking about the abolition of unit fines, he said:
      "We are concerned about the anomalous results that have been produced in several cases."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1993; c. 240.]
      Is it appropriate to alter the entire system of fining, which had been the result of careful consideration by the Home Office over a period of months, if not years, on the basis of several bad cases?
      I suggest to the Minister that such a move was ill considered and unjustified. The outcry to which he referred stemmed from one or two well-publicised cases which were plainly nonsensical and at least one of which was quickly put right when the facts about the defendant's income were brought to light, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. That is not sufficient cause for abandoning a carefully thought out system.
      The Home Office is not usually so frivolous in its approach. Had it given the issue serious consideration, we might have been prepared to accept that the carefully wrought structure had been misconceived and that something else should properly be put in its place. In May, the then Home Secretary said that he accepted the unit fines system in principle, but only a week later he threw it out in its totality.
      I suggested at the time—this clearly got under his skin—that he had on his mind thoughts other than the reform of the criminal justice system, that his head was high and that he had aspirations that some of us have noticed he rather quickly achieved, although I should hesitate to indulge in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and suggest that he owes his current eminence as Chancellor of the Exchequer to a packet of potato crisps flung out of a car window. For the sake of 24 hours of cheap popularity, the then Home Secretary was prepared to abandon a system of fining that was much more apt to produce just fines and to ensure that the penalties were related to means than had been the case in the past.
      This hour and this place, with its rather exiguous audience, is perhaps not the right time to deploy all the arguments that might be adduced about possible alternative ways in which the system might have been modified, and I doubt whether it would be in order to argue that matter because we are dealing with a particular modification of the scheme. So far as it goes, however, the amendment represents an improvement on what the Government have introduced, though it will not really do as a substitute for the Government's first thoughts on the subject.
      The pilot scheme which the Government introduced in four locations had much merit. It showed a distinct decline in the number of fine defaulters in all the areas affected and showed that it was possible for the courts to operate a system with some discretion against the background of the grids that had been established.

      913
      The difficulties that were thrown up in operating the new statutory scheme, which in some significant respects departed from the pilot scheme, were not insurmountable. They were surmountable in a number of ways which, I have no doubt, will be considered in the future by penal reformers and, I hope, by another place.
      The criminal law does not benefit from instant judgments of this kind. It is a piecemeal approach which has disfigured our statute book and led to a number of monstrous injustices being enshrined in the law, almost in response to the headline of the day.
      I do not wholly agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that unit fines should have been abolished, if that was what he was saying—[interruption.] I understood that Labour Members were also in favour of the principle of unit fines.
      Mr. Boateng: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) argued well for the principle of proportionality. I did not hear him in any other tone or to any other end.
      Mr. Maclennan: He was ambiguous on the point. He seemed also to accept that unit fines were unpopular in practice. He was not quite prepared to say that he accepted the principle and felt that they could be modified. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is right to say that he spoke of proportionality later in his remarks, but earlier he appeared to accept that it was appropriate to abandon unit fines entirely.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: In Committee and on the Floor of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has always argued that the unit fine system needed to be reformed, not abolished.
      Mr. Maclennan: That is a clear statement, and I am glad to have it. I had hoped that those who are anxious to ensure that fines are proportionate and who are concerned about the problem of fine defaulters landing up in prison might agree that the Govrnment have not properly tested unit fines before abandoning them. It would be a tragic outcome of this debate if the Government were able to perpetuate the myth that they have seriously tested the system of unit fines which has worked so well in many countries and avoided the monstrous nonsense of imprisoning the unemployed in particular because they default.
      If it can be accepted that, for short-term political reasons, the then Home Secretary decided that it was appropriate to stand on his head and his successor felt duty bound to put something in place which required some attention to be paid to means, and if amendment No. 1 is accepted, it might do as an interim measure while the matter is considered at greater length and with greater concern for the consequences than could have been the case when the then Home Secretary decided to throw out the baby with the bath water.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I intend to address the question of unit fines and sentencing, but I should like to clarify a confusion that might have arisen from some of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who suggested that my
      914
      hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) would reply on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. In fact, he will reply in relation to later amendments dealing with Scotland.
      On unit fines, the phrase that was used a moment ago about throwing out the baby with the bath water is precisely the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth used. Labour Members oppose the current system and the way in which it has been working. There is a need for change and for reform rather than, as my hon. Friend said, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
      Before the 1991 Act, the wealthy were fined derisory sums and the poor were heavily fined, thereby ignoring the wealth and the poverty in each case. The result was that, too often, the poor were imprisoned for default, and the rich laughed at the courts because there was no penalty to deter them from committing further offences. For that reason, when the 1991 Bill was considered in Committee, it was broadly accepted that there was a need for change and a need to reform the way in which fines were imposed. It was necessary to be fair not only to the poor and to the rich but to those on middle incomes.
      The problem which arose with the new legislation was that it imposed too strict a straitjacket upon the courts. Warwickshire magistrates have pointed out the problems with unit fines. In a letter to me, they set out clearly their concern about unit fines. It is a letter from the chief executive and justices' clerk to Warwickshire Magistrates' Courts Service and it is signed at the direction of and on behalf of the chairmen of the Atherstone-Coleshill, Mid-Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Rugby and South Warwickshire petty sessional divisions. They say:
      "We rely on the fine as a punishment in the majority of cases. The concerns of magistrates tend to be about the operation of the new system"—
      meaning the 1991 Act—
      "not the underlying principle. The results being thrown up are too disparate.
      Unit fines were piloted in four Courts around the Country and worked well. Those Courts restricted themselves to a maximum disposable weekly income of £25–£40. In the case mentioned above"—
      they quote some examples
      "the higher income man would have been fined in the range of … £1,200. Magistrates would find this more acceptable."
      They were suggesting a reform of the system. They said that they would like to see different criteria, and that
      "the maximum disposable weekly income figure should be at least halved, and preferably reduced by more than that;"
      and
      "the subordinate legislation should be altered to allow for a sliding scale of allowances to take account of the fact that the commitments of defendants tend to rise with their income."
      So, essentially, the magistrates were calling for reform.
      The Government appear to have decided that they are going to return to the very difficulties that existed before those reforms were undertaken. The result will be—this warning must be given—that we will get again exactly the same problems as we had before the reforms were undertaken. We will have the rich laughing again at fines, and the poor being too highly fined.
      I see the same problem arising with the proposals to reform sections 29 and 1 of the 1991 Act. There is, rightly, great public concern about these provisions, because they do not fulfil the requirements of good criminal law. They do not properly protect the public, reduce reoffending, or provide a deterrent.

      915
      Labour's view is that our clause would enable the courts to put in prison those who ought to go into prison, but would also ensure that the courts did not unjustly imprison those who should not go to prison. That balance must be struck. It is struck in the Labour party's amendment, but not in the Government's clause.
      The Government are proposing these changes only because of the substantial pressure that has been put upon them. Their response has been so slow that they have been rushed into providing these clauses at a late stage in the process of the Bill so that proper debate on and consideration of them has been very difficult.
      As late as October last year, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said before the Home Affairs Select Committee that he did not propose to make any changes in the 1991 Act for a year. He displayed the most appalling complacency about the criticisms that had been made of the sentencing provisions in that Act by magistrates—over 30 have resigned—by judges, and by the police. He felt that he could wait a year before doing anything. It was only under substantial pressure from this side of the House, from Government Back-Bench Members and from outside the House that the Government were finally forced to accept that changes needed to be made urgently.
      The Labour party takes the view that sections 29 and 1 are a straitjacket on the courts. But we accept some of the analysis by Ministers who introduced the 1991 Bill. We accept that the situation before that Bill was causing problems and creating unfairness in sentencing. In our view, the case for change was overwhelming. That is why Labour and Conservative Members supported the ideas put forward in the 1991 Act.
      The proposals now put forward by the Government will return us to a situation that everyone agreed did not work. We are going back to a situation that is similar to, or worse than, that before the 1991 Act. We should have been acknowledging that there was a problem before the 1991 Act, that we attempted to solve it in the wrong way by imposing a straitjacket, and that we now need to try another method of resolving the problem. The Minister is simply saying that they will scrap the attempt to remove the difficulties that existed before 1991 and go back to the situation that existed then and that was causing problems. It appears to me, however, that the clause being put forward by the Government is weaker than the situation that existed before 1991, gives less guidance, and could lead to far more difficulties than we had before 1991.
      The problem is that previous convictions, in particular, should be part, as the Court of Appeal has said, of the matrix of sentencing. It said that in the case of Bailey. But as the Court of Appeal also said in that case, an offender should not be
      "sentenced primarily for the offences which he has committed in the past and for which he has already been punished."
      For example, in the case of Crown v. Bailey, the Court of Appeal reduced to three months' imprisonment the sentence of a persistent offender for stealing cod fillets worth £12. Lord Justice Stocker said:
      "There is no doubt the appellant is a recidivist and no doubt he is a thorough pest. But as the Court of Appeal has often said, the sentence imposed must relate to the gravity of the offence in respect of which it is imposed. As the Government said, injustice is more likely if the courts do not focus on the offence which is before them when they sentence."
      916
      I quoted in Committee cases that illustrate the sort of problems that existed before 1991 to which the Minister seeks to return. In Crown v. Galloway in 1979, a shoplifter who stole three small items received consecutive sentences of 12 months, 12 months and six months, making a total of two and a half years. The sentence was disproportionate to the offences that were before the Court. In the case of Crown v. Skidmore, three offences of obtaining £20 by deception resulted in two years' imprisonment. Clearly, none of those offences would have merited a custodial sentence without previous convictions.
      The Government, in seeking to deal with that issue, went too far in the 1991 Act. Now they do not seem to accept that they went too far and instead want to return to the previous situation. I must warn the Government that clause 64 will re-create injustices in sentencing like those that existed before 1991. The wording of the clause is too vague and makes no reference to the key issue of proportionality, which is what the Labour party says should be the basis of on which the context of sentencing and previous convictions is set. The risks of no guidance to courts are as bad as the risks of too much guidance.
      In their provisions to amend section 29, the Government are lurching from one mistake to another. The public want the courts to impose sentences that deter and punish and the public want justice to be fair. The punishment should fit the crime; it should not exceed the crime. The clause will not achieve that key element of fairness and proportionality that the Labour party and the public want in the judicial system. If the Government are not careful, they will end up creating more problems than they solve.
      Mr. Maclean: Far be it from me to begin by making the odd political point that may provoke a wide-ranging debate, to incure the wrath of the members of staff at the Patronage Secretary's Office, or even to provoke the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to intervene.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (M r. Michael) said that he did not know whether to attribute the motive of the Government to incompetence or intention. What motive would he attribute to his own party and to those spokesmen who said that the unit fine system was so good that they would have liked it to he extended to Crown court offences?
      I accept that Opposition Members, including those who did not at that time have their present responsibility, have now seen the light. I accept that they have seen the light, but I am slightly mystified as to why they have suggested a new proposal in the amendment that maintains some of the old rigidities of the unit fine system which we are scrapping. It is as if, rather than acquiring the characteristics of Christianity, Paul has acquired the characteristics of Herod. However, I congratulate the Opposition on coming back with an amendment that seeks to overcome some of the problems of the unit fine scheme which we discussed in Committee.
      9.45 pm
      I can see what the Opposition are trying to achieve, but I am sorry to tell them that the amendment will not work. Its design of a scheme that, again, applies a fixed system, but tries to allow a bit of discretion as well, is flawed. I shall not go into detail about our reasons for deciding to abolish the unit fine scheme as it stands. We went into that

      917
      at great length and in good humour in Committee. However, for the benefit of those who were not there and who have not read the Official Report, I shall say that we believed that the scheme was over-mechanistic and over-complicated and that it interfered unnecessarily with magistrates' discretion to impose appropriate fines in individual cases. The amendment goes some way towards reducing those evils, but it fails to do so entirely because to do that it would have had to abolish the scheme altogether, as we have done.
      Under the system proposed in the amendment, the courts would be obliged to decide the weekly amount that an offender could afford to pay and would then multiply that by the number of weeks that related to the seriousness of the offence. That would produce some strange results. Because there are no parameters on the weekly amount that the offender might reasonably be judged to be able to pay, the courts could find themselves imposing fines that many people would regard as totally out of line with the seriousness of the offence.
      Let us consider one extreme first. A millionaire might readily be judged to be able to afford a weekly amount of £10,000 to pay a fine. For the famous trivial litter offence, he would therefore receive the maximum fine for that offence of £2,500. That would mean that the potential difference between fines, already considered too great by many under the unit fine scheme, would be even greater. If the same millionaire were arrested in a minor scuffle with someone who was unemployed and the court decided that they were equally guilty, for the same offence their fines could range beween £5 or less and £5,000.
      There may be some who would not be especially unsympathetic towards a hefty fine, however unjust, being imposed on a millionaire, but I point out that the results would be equally unjust for offenders of more modest means. For a 10-week litter offence, a middle-income offender whom the courts judged to be able to pay £200 a week would be fined £2,000. For the same offence, an unemployed offender might be fined £40 or less. I cannot see how such wide discrepancies could be justified.
      It is extremely difficult to combine discretion and such a rigid scheme. "Discretion" is defined by the "Oxford English Dictionary" as:
      "the liberty of deciding as one thinks fit".
      Operating a system requires one to proceed in certain prescribed ways. I suspect that the way in which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth really expects his amendment to work would be as follows: once magistrates had decided on the amount that an offender could reasonably pay and had then determined the number of weeks of payment that would be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, if they did not like the result—it seems very likely that, as with the unit fine scheme, there would be occasions when they did not—they would go back and change one of those parameters to arrive at the penalty at which they would like to have arrived if penalties were not prescribed by the unit scheme.
      I have no objection to magistrates adopting an informal unit model if they find it helpful in setting a fine—for example, in reaching a starting point from which they can use their discretion to depart to reach a just result. However, I am not prepared to accept a statutory scheme whereby magistrates are then, in effect, expected to fudge to achieve justice in all cases.
      The clear advantage of our new arrangements over this scheme is that they give primacy to seriousness and then
      918
      allow financial circumstances to be taken into account within the parameters set by seriousness. The amendment does not provide for any relationship between the two elements. The same fine could be produced by a serious offence that was rated at 100 weeks in seriousness terms at a weekly sum of £10 as could be produced by a minor one that was rated at one week's seriousness at a weekly sum of £1,000.
      The amendment, allowing for discretion, mixes uneasily with the remains of a rigid system. I accept that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has made an honest attempt to try to come up with some form of unit fine system. However, our new arrangements provide for discretion and the guiding principles on which it should be exercised. I hope that he will agree that ours is the better combination.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland pontificated grandly, as is his wont, on the dangers of instant government. He decided that his amendments were not the appropriate ones to which to speak and that he should speak to the Labour amendments instead. He criticised the Labour amendments and what Labour Members had said as not being appropriate, but he still decided to speak to their amendments. He showed us an example of instant decision making that does not render him a suitable spokesman to condemn any other hon. Member for coming to a right decision.
      The hon. Gentleman quoted from one part of Hansard, but he did not read the proceedings of the Committee as fully as he perhaps should have done. It was remiss of him to condemn me for being ill prepared and not carrying out a promise that I had apparently made, when he was totally wrong in that assertion. If he had bothered to read Hansard properly, he would have found that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that victims
      "deserve and should be entitled to special consideration and we must ensure that they get it."
      In Committee, I said:
      "The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not a Home Office matter and does not require legislation. I can give the Committee an assurance that I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department and I shall add my view that I am entirely in sympathy with what he says."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1993; c. 290–91.]
      If the hon. Gentleman had read Hansard, he would have found that I made no promise to rush back to the House today, having undertaken to consult the Lord Chancellor in the meantime. It was wrong of him to pontificate so grandly that we are ill prepared, when he was so ill prepared that he tabled amendments which, if we had accepted them, would have made total nonsense of the Act. He decided that he did not know whether to support the Labour amendments, simply condemn the Government or dither, as is the usual wont of the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Maclennan: With the leave of the House, it would be too much to expect the Minister to reply to the arguments deployed in the debate. It was not entirely uncharacteristic of him to devote himself to an earlier debate in which there had been a passage about the view of the Lord Chancellor. In responding simply to that point, it seems that if the Lord Chancellor was consulted, the Minister had a duty to tell the House what the Government's senior Law Officer thought about the matter.

      919
      I make it clear that I did not dissent from the view of the Labour party on the merits of its amendment—I thought that it was a good try. It is one of a number of possible approaches that one might take. The Labour party, like the Liberal Democrat party, would not believe that it made sense to propose a system of unit fines and suggest that it was the last word on the matter. Apart from anything else, neither the Liberal Democrat party nor the Labour party has Government resources at its disposal to enable it to produce schemes that will necessarily stand up to the test.
      The Government have engaged in instant government. On 4 May, the Home Secretary said absolutely clearly that he agreed with the principle of unit fines but the system needed to be amended. On 13 May, he abandoned the principle of unit fines. I cannot recall a more clear example of instant government. If the Minister can cite a better example, I will happily give way to him. It is of a piece with the way in which the Government have legislated to deal with headline concerns—the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and other criminal justice legislation.
      It is scarcely surprising that they do not stick and that the Government must come forward with amending legislation. No doubt they will have to do the same with the Bill, once enacted, when the prisons are filled, as, predictably, they will be, with those who have defaulted because fines of unsuitable severity in comparison with their income were imposed and could not be paid.
      The Minister is relatively new to his job and he would do better to address the substance of the argument than engage in the small change of petty party political abuse, which has been the characteristic behaviour of a number of Home Office Ministers of the past three years. That is not, by any means, in the best traditions of Conservative Home Secretaries. One recalls, for instance, the late Rab Butler. The Minister might choose to follow that model rather than that of some of the more recent occupants of that high office.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister has recognised that we are trying to undertake the serious job of getting the legislation right. At the beginning of his speech, he sought to make the very cheap political points that he said he did not intend to make.
      The Minister should be reminded that, from an early stage, reservations were sounded about section 29 of the 1991 Act and about the fine system. The method by which the fine system was implemented brought it into disrepute, as we have come to recognise. We must ensure that the new system does not replicate past problems—problems that led to many fine defaulters ending up in prison. The Minister has not, however, paid sufficient attention to that need. He should consider it carefully, because events will show whether our fear is justified or whether the legislation has been successful in getting the courts to approach the principles that we want to see observed sensibly.
      The Minister was wrong when he said that our amendment did not give appropriate weight to the seriousness of the offence, because it states that the fine and the number of payment weeks will be such
      "which in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it."
      That is the first principle that a court must consider when it comes to punish.
      920
      The burden of penalty is different according to whether it is placed on a well-off person or on a person of average or below average means. We did not have the opportunity to consider the fine system properly when the 1991 Act went through its Second Reading and Committee stage. That system was a late and important addition to the Act, which was debated on Report and, briefly, in Committee.
      Confusion and difficulty arose about unit fines because the Government decided to raise the maximum fine to £100 instead of the £20 that was set during the pilot scheme. It is clear that the system fell into disrepute. The Minister has enunciated the two principles that must be balanced. We seek to do that in the amendment.
      Section 29 of the 1991 Act enables consideration to be given to previous offences. The Minister has sought to say that no warnings were given about how that system would operate in practice. The records shows, however, that section 29 was subject to much debate. The former Labour Solicitor-General, Peter Archer, now Lord Archer, said in Committee on the 1991 Act that that issue should be subject to careful thought. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), shook his head at that request and Peter Archer responded:
      "He does not want to give the matter careful thought. So it will be on the record for the future when we raise the problem."
      It is on the record that we have raised that problem.Similarly, we have properly initiated amendments to section 29 to deal with the inadequacies of the unit fine system. Our amendment led to the amendment in the long title.
      I warn the Minister that he needs to continue to give careful thought to the matter. If he will not accept our amendment, I shall seek leave to withdraw it, but I warn him that he must ensure that implementation is effective and does not contravene either of those important principles.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 65

      POWERS OF COURTS TO DEAL WITH OFFENDERS
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 74, line 37 after
      'factor.' insert—
      '(3) A probation order or conditional discharge order made before 1st October 1992 (which, by virtue of section 2 or 7 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, would otherwise not be a sentence for the purposes of this section) is to be treated as a sentence for those purposes.
      (4) A conviction in respect of which a probation order or conditional discharge order was made before that date (which, by virtue of section 13 of that Act, would otherwise not be a conviction for those purposes) is to be treated as a conviction for those purposes.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Madam Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 32, with which we will discuss amendments Nos. 33 to 37.
      Mr. Maclennan: Not moved.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords] may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
      Question agreed to.
      As amended ( in the Standing Committee) again considered.

    Clause 71

      BACKING OF WARRANTS: SAFEGUARDS
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 79, line 45, at end insert
      'or any other offence which could lawfully be substituted for that offence.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 7, in page 80, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert—
      '(2) No such Order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Trimble: It is a pleasure to be able to move the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will be glad that I have not been tempted by offers of coffee and tea but have forgone that pleasure to be here.
      The two amendments are in my name. Amendment No. 7 is a procedural amendment to clause 71, which inserts new sections into the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. Those new sections refer to orders to bring the new sections into operation, and a subsection provides that those orders be laid before the House subject to negative resolution. Amendment No. 7 would simply make them subject to affirmative resolution.
      However, there is a strong case for the adoption of the affirmative resolution procedure with regard to those orders. Extradition—or, to be more precise, the delivery of prisoners—to and from the Republic of Ireland has often been a matter of controversy. In dealing with matters which have proved to be controversial and which undoubtedly have the potential for future controversy, and where we are making significant changes to those procedures, the orders changing those procedures should come before the House and, because of their importance, should be subject to affirmative resolution.
      The clause makes significant changes and amendment No. 6 would modify those changes. Is it open to the Minister to contemplate changes? Is there an agreement or treaty between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland requiring Her Majesty's Government to bring those provisions into operation? Does a deal lie behind those provisions? If so, the Government would have difficulty in even considering modifying those matters.
      I raised the issue on Second Reading, and was assured that there was no deal. That assurance now looks threadbare, however, because since then the Government of the Republic of Ireland have introduced legislation into the Dail to deal with anomalies under their 1987 extradition legislation. That legislation was based on the European convention on the suppression of terrorism and contained anomalies based on article 1 of the European convention. It removed the defence of a political offence from certain offences, and there were anomalies in how it operated.
      One of the clearest anomalies was that article I of the European convention referred to the use of automatic weapons but did not relate to the use of weapons that were not automatic. If a murder was committed with an ordinary revolver, the political defence would be available, but if an automatic pistol was used, the political defence would not be available. There are other anomalies; that is just one example.
      922
      It is good that the Irish Government are removing those anomalies, but it is remarkably suspicious that they are introducing such a provision after a measure has been introduced into the House limiting the scope and operation of the British legal system on persons who have been delivered from the Republic of Ireland.
      On Second Reading I asked whether there had been a deal, why we were making a fresh concession to the Irish and whether we were getting something in return. I was told that there was no deal, but the circumstances suggest that there was a deal and that the Irish Government agreed to extend their law only if we agreed to limit ours. If there is an agreement, it has not been published, because it is likely to have been made in that secret body which represents the real government of Northern Ireland—sometimes called the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference—with its secretariat behind it.
      I wish to ask the Minister whether that is the case. He may deny it, but is he sure that he has been told the truth? We are fairly sure that we are hardly ever told the truth about the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
      The clause stems from the case of Mr. Desmond Ellis, who was delivered from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom in 1990 on warrants presented by the proper authorities in Great Britain alleging offences contrary to the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975.
      After his delivery to the United Kingdom:
      "The Crown applied to the Thames Stipendary Magistrate that Mr. Ellis be committed for trial on those two charges … The magistrate declined to commit on those charges,"
      on perfectly understandable grounds and instead
      "committed Mr. Ellis to stand trial on two quite separate and distinct charges, namely, conspiracy contrary to section 1(l) of the Criminal Law Act 1977."
      I quote from the subsequent judgment of Mr. Justice Swinton Thomas in the Ellis case.
      Mr. Justice Thomas went on to say:
      "It is common ground that that committal offends the rule of speciality whereby a person who is extradited from a foreign country can be tried in this country only for crimes in respect of which he was extradited. Accordingly, the crime reinstated the original offences contained in the warrants in the present indictment".
      He went on to consider the charges, although the outcome of the consideration is not relevant to this discussion.
      I quoted that extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Swinton Thomas because it contains several mistakes. It states that it was common ground that committal offends the rule of speciality which is common where persons are extradited. Where there is an extradition treaty, there is a rule of speciality, but there is no extradition treaty or arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
      We loosely use the term "extradition", but the procedure that operates between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is the backing of warrants. There are no speciality, rules with regard to the backing of warrants procedure, and it was quite wrong for the judge to refer to what happened and the actions of the Thames stipendiary magistrate as breaking the rule of speciality, because the rule of speciality did not and does not apply to the backing of warrants procedure and would be foreign to the nature of that procedure.

      923
      There is a clear distinction between the backing of warrants procedure and proper extradition. The legislation is confusing the two by introducing into the backing of warrants procedure a rule of speciality that is appropriate strictly for extradition. If they were dealing strictly with extraditions, so called, the Government's proposals would be reasonable—but they are not necessary for a backing of warrants procedure, arid one must query why those proceedings are being introduced.
      When the Thames stipendiary magistrate made that decision, there was immediate reaction in the Irish Republic. The Irish News of 25 April 1991 reported:
      "The Irish government responded to the magistrate's decision by insisting the British legal authorities challenge the ruling in a higher court."
      Mr. Burke, the Irish Minister of Justice, was reported as telling the Dail on 19 February 1991 that the action of the Thames stipendiary magistrate broke a "gentleman's agreement" whereby the rule of speciality was to be operated by the British and Irish sides that were party to it.
      The Irish Government insisted that the British Government do something about the Thames stipendiary magistrate's decision, and the Government did precisely that. Mr. Burke also told the Dail on 19 February:
      "It would be preferable if we had speciality within the United Kingdom legislation".
      Now we have legislation coming forward in which the speciality rule is being introduced.
      On 21 November 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Welsh) asked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of what had been said and done with regard to the Ellis case, there would he any further bargaining between the British and Irish Governments, and whether any further concessions would be made by the British Government to the Irish Government, to get them to do what they ought to do in any event. The Prime Minister replied:
      "we do not bargain and …we do not do deals".—[Official Report, 21 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 419.]
      On 28 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) asked whether any agreement had been reached at the Anglo-Irish Conference on 19 November. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) replied:
      "The detail of discussions in the Anglo-Irish Conference is confidential, but my right hon. Friend has indicated that the question of setting the existing agreement on speciality in statutory form is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary and would be considered if and when a suitable legislative vehicle arose."—[Official Report, 28 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 607.]
      That was one week after the Prime Minister had said that there would be no deals, but now we have a deal coming through.
      My simple amendment relates to persons who have been delivered from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom. It states that such persons can be proceeded with only for the offences listed in the indictment or some other offence that could lawfully be substituted for it. That is part of the normal operation of our legal system.
      By not accepting that amendment, the Government will limit the range of offences for which people could quite properly be proceeded against in the event of their being delivered. British authorities applying for the delivery of a person would therefore have to make sure that they got the offence exactly right before sending the papers to the Irish Republic. That would continue to produce cases—and
      924
      there are too many of them—in which persons who appear to be guilty go free because the charge was not correctly briefed and some procedural requirement was not properly observed.
      These are important matters—some of the most serious terrorist offences that could he considered. It is not right that we should limit the scope of the legal system to be effective in respect of such cases. The Government are doing that because a deal was done with the Irish—concessions were made to them. Many concessions were made to them in the past, and we have seen precious little return in terms of the number of persons delivered up to justice. We see far too many persons whom we believe to be guilty of serious offences at full liberty in the Irish Republic. Right hon. and hon. Members may remember press coverage of persons who have gone fishing when they were supposed to be delivered here to stand trial.
      It is not right that the Government should make such concessions. I hope that they will look favourably on my amendment, which seeks only to preserve the normal operation of our own legal system with regard to persons delivered for trial here.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said. Amendment No. 6 would serve to defeat one of the objectives of clause 71—that the United Kingdom and Irish legislation on speciality should be identical in respect of extradition between the two countries. The hon. Gentleman said that we have backing of warrants rather than an extradition system, but it is a simplified form of extradition, so let us use the word "extradition", because we all understand it.
      It is only by making our law on specialty identical that we can minimise the scope for misunderstandings and any gaps in our arrangements. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, and I appreciate what he seeks to do, but I am afraid that it would mean that our legislation would not satisfy Irish legislative requirements for extradition. Therefore, offenders could argue in the Irish courts that the courts had no power to order their return to the United Kingdom.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister said that we all understood. Some of us are a little confused. Will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked? Has there been agreement between the two Governments? Has an understanding been reached? Or will we continue to exercise the farce that allegedly friendly Governments do not co-operate in handing over terrorist suspects? I ask that question because, 10 years ago this year, my young colleague, one of the outstanding lawyers of the United Kingdom, an academic lawyer, Edgar Graham, pressed for proper extradition arrangements between the two countries, and was murdered because he was getting too close to the mark.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me whether there was a treaty and whether there was a deal. There is no treaty. I am not privy to what goes on in the Anglo-Irish forum. I am not privy to those discussions. All I know is that there has been a mutual understanding of long standing that the rule of speciality should apply to

      925
      extradition. There has been such an understanding between the Law Officers of the two Governments for some considerable time.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister said that there had been a mutual understanding of long standing between the Law Officers in the two jurisdictions that speciality would apply. Can he date that understanding? Since when?
      Mr. Maclean: The short answer is no, I cannot. But the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree that it is sensible to reproduce that understanding in both our laws, and to ensure that, in our discussions with the Irish Government, our extradition laws are as evenly matched as possible, so that there can be no possible misunderstanding which a potential offender could exploit in any court to avoid extradition.
      As the range of charges which could lawfully be substituted is, depending on the circumstances, considerable and not confined to offences related to that for which the return was ordered, the amendment would in practice render the concept of speciality meaningless.
      A substitution of charges would be possible in certain circumstances pursuant to the new section 6A(3)(d). That enables the description of the offence to be changed if certain prescribed conditions are fulfilled, but, in the circumstances, I do not believe that we should go any further. Following my explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann does not wish to pursue his amendment further.
      I perfectly understand the reasons behind amendment No. 7, but I am afraid that I must resist it, too. The negative resolution procedure is clearly preferable, because it is possible that events could require an order to be made or amended urgently, when, for example, Parliament was in recess.
      Negative resolution enables us to start the legislative process, but not to finish it during the recess. I am sure that, even under a negative resolution procedure, the hon. Gentleman would ensure that the orders were debated.
      We have no wish to deprive the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends of that opportunity nor to resist proper scrutiny by hon. Members in this House or another place. However, we wish to maintain the negative resolution procedure, because of its advantages of speed and flexibility. Therefore, I hope that, in his usual courteous way, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Trimble: We have heard some remarkable comments from the Minister. He cannot bring himself to face the facts, which speak for themselves. There has been some dirty work at a crossroads before we came to this legislation. The Minister may avert his eyes from it and say that he will not inquire too deeply into its origins, but I urge him to do so. If he looks into the background of this legislation, he will find that there are some things of which the Government cannot be very proud.
      I do not have any pleasure in seeing this legislation go through, but, because of the lateness of the hour, we have no desire to prolong the sitting further by dividing the House. On that ground, and that ground alone, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 77

      SHORT TITLE, EXTENT ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 84, line 4, after '23,' insert
      '( Appeal against order forfeiting drug trafficking cash),'.
      No. 20, in page 84, line 4, after '71,' insert
      '( Power to extend certain offences to Crown servants and to exempt regulators etc.),'.
      No. 21, in page 84, line 5, at end insert—
      'paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Schedule ( Extensions and exemptions).'.
      No. 22, in page 84, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—
      '(3) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Great Britain—
      sections 13(9) to (11), 21(3)(e), 24(2), (3) and (7) to (10), 28 to 31, 33(1), 34, 66(1) and 72; and
      paragraph 3 of Schedule ( Extensions and exemptions).
      (4) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Scotland—
      sections 17, 19, 20(2), 21(3)(c) and (d), 22(2), 24(12) to (15), 25(2), 32, 67, 68, 74 and 75; and
      paragraph 2 of Schedule (Extensions and exemptions ).'.
      No. 23, in page 84, line 15, leave out from '43' to 'extend'.
      No. 24, in page 84, line 17, at end insert—
      '( ) The provisions of Schedules 4 and 5 have the same extent as the provisions on which they operate.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 84, line 30, leave out from 'period' to end of line 36 and insert
      'containing provisions corresponding to part I and sections 16, 18, and 28 to 31, shall be laid before each House of Parliament within a period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'.
      This is a simple amendment, and it would be a simple job. This is a funny Bill. It contains a range of provisions, some of which apply directly to Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see pass through the House primary legislation which applies to Northern Ireland, as it gives Northern Ireland Members an opportunity on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report to participate in the debate.
      Although that aspect of the Bill is commendable, there is also a hangover from the bad system of legislating for Northern Ireland, because there are provisions for Orders in Council. Worse than that: we have provisions for an Order in Council under what my right and hon. Friends call the theft clause. We call it that because it was first used in a theft Bill. It is appropriate to call it a theft clause, because it steals from us even that little fragment of parliamentary procedure that the direct rule regime allows to us.
      When Orders in Council are proposed and debated in the normal way, we have an opportunity to contribute in a discussion that is sometimes limited to 90 minutes, without the opportunity to amend. However, at least there is a little discussion. Clause 77(11) is what we call the theft clause. It provides that equivalent legislation to part of the Bill can be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council, subject to negative resolution. Therefore, it deprives us of the opportunity of any debate on the issue.
      I know that, with the negative resolution procedure, there is the theoretical possibility of gaining sufficient support to have a debate. That is only a theoretical possibility and for Northern Ireland Members there is no substance in it. Therefore, authorising the negative

      927
      resolution procedure is saying that Northern Ireland Members will not be allowed an opportunity to discuss legislation for Northern Ireland.
      Why is it in the Bill? It already makes substantial provision for Northern Ireland and additional provisions for Northern Ireland were included in Committee. The theft clause applies to merely half a dozen clauses. It does not make sense.
      The amendment would require an affirmative resolution procedure in the normal way. That would at least be an improvement on the situation, but it would still be open to all the objections that we have to the Order in Council procedure. The amendment does two further things. The clause mentions provisions that correspond to drug trafficking legislation. Amendment No. 8 deals with the definition of conspiracy.
      In Committee, I asked the then Minister of State why we were not making equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland, which in all respects is the same as that of England and Wales, because the Bill changes the definition of conspiracy in the law of England and Wales and in the law of Scotland. The then Minister replied:
      "In the way that these matters are conducted, I transmitted his worries"—
      those are my worries, which I had expressed to the Minister several days before the sitting—
      "to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is considering these matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that at this stage I cannot go beyond that statement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 May 1993; c. 57.]
      I had assumed that I would subsequently hear the result of the consideration from the Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. A month has passed, but I have heard nothing. I repeat the question that I asked on 27 May: why are no provisions being made for changes in the law in Northern Ireland equivalent to part I?
      I suspect that the answer is that the Northern Ireland Office is having great difficulty in doing anything.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend's concern is shared by many Northern Ireland Members. The Order in Council procedure and the tardy response of the Northern Ireland Office are exasperating. The children's order should have been published no later than today, but despite a delay of 10 years. it is still coming.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which is apposite to the present situation. Children legislation for England and Wales was enacted four years ago, and the Black report was published 10 years ago. I know that, throughout his time in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has pressed the Northern Ireland Office to do something about the Black report, but more than 10 years later, and four years after the enactment of equivalent legislation for England and Wales, nothing has been done.
      That ties in with my second point about amendment No. 8, which would oblige the Northern Ireland Office to lay before the House an Order in Council identical to provisions in the Bill, which consequently would not require any detailed work and preparation, within three months.
      There is no reason why that cannot be done. The Bill's passage through the House has taken some time. The draftsman has had plenty of time to consider its
      928
      provisions. No great drafting is necessary to work out the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation. I am sure that it should be ready, yet it is not.
      Similar problems have arisen before. Hon. Members may remember that I raised this matter on the Adjournment some time ago and cited a number of examples of where the Northern Ireland Office had not been able to get things done within a reasonable time. There had been delays of up to a year, when it had merely to copy the equivalent legislation for England and Wales.
      The amendment has three purposes—to ensure, first, that we have a proper debate on Northern Ireland legislation; secondly, that we have equivalent legislation to part I on conspiracy to keep our law in step with that, in England and Wales; and, thirdly, that the Order in Council be laid within three months. Those are reasonable proposals. As the Minister has acknowledged a couple of times this evening, I have been reasonable, and I hope that he will now reciprocate.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support the spirit of what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said: where there is no difference between Northern Ireland law and the law in England and Wales, it makes sense to keep in step. In the case of some areas of law in which Northern Ireland had different legislation, one could understand a delay. I hope that Ministers will adopt the hon. Gentleman's practical and sensible proposals.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Maclean: To fulfil the United Kingdom's obligation to implement the terms of the European Communities directive on money laundering, it is essential that provisions corresponding to clauses 16 and 18 be enacted for Northern Ireland as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to bring forward an Order in Council under the negative resolution procedure to achieve that end and to enact provisions in respect of other serious crime, similar to those dealt with in clauses 28 to 31.
      With regard to part I and the rest of the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend will be considering the extent to which other provisions ought to be reflected in Northern Ireland legislation and will bring forward proposals in due course. I can do no better than communicate to my right hon. and learned Friend the hon. Gentleman's exhortation that the legislation be introduced as soon as possible.
      However, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's condition that there should be placed on other Ministers and myself a duty to lay legislation within a certain time. I ask him to accept the assurance of our good intention. We wish to take this step as soon as possible. I hope that the good spirit in which the hon. Gentleman spoke in Standing Committee and in which he has spoken in the House today will be continued by his withdrawal of the amendment.
      Mr. Trimble: I must first correct a very serious mistake on the part of the Minister, who, I appreciate, is a comparative newcomer to the awful shambles created by the way in which the House of Commons deals with Northern Ireland business. We are not talking here about secondary legislation. Orders in Council made under this procedure will be primary legislation.

      929
      In addition, the Minister's case is contradictory. He said that legislation complying with the European directive must be enacted as soon as possible, yet he cannot accept a requirement that this be done within three months.
      But there is another point. As the European directive requires us to keep in step, the obvious step to take is to make provision in the Bill, and thereby avoid any worry about time limits. The Bill contains provisions relating to Scotland, which has a separate statute book. There would be no difficulty in including, after clauses relating to England and Wales and to Scotland, a provision relating to Northern Ireland. All that is required is a little effort on the part of the draftsmen and a little imagination on the part of Ministers, as well as a little willingness to exercise legislative powers responsibly.
      I should like to direct the Minister's attention to a very valuable report published a couple of weeks ago by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I refer in particular to the appendix, in which the author, setting out the case in great detail, says that, in effect, the squalid procedure adopted by the Government amounts to their saying that they are not required to exercise the legislative function in respect of Northern Ireland either fairly or willingly and responsibly.
      The Minister may not be fully aware of it, but the implication of what he is saying is that he will not make the effort to handle Northern Ireland business fairly, willingly or responsibly. As for what he said about part I, he is repeating what his predecessor said more than a month ago, which was that he would be writing to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who would presumably communicate with me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I wonder when the Secretary of State will make the effort to read the communications and reply to us.
      Nevertheless, as I said in relation to an earlier amendment—[Interruption.] I hear the blandishments and suggestions of Conservative Members that we press the amendment to a vote. If they can assure me that they will support us, we shall willingly give them the opportunity to do so. Will they rise and confirm that? I see, however, that it is nothing but words. I have no desire to keep the House longer than necessary, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 38, new schedule—

      SHORT TITLE, EXTENT ETC.
        'SCHEDULE
          EXTENSIONS AND EXEMPTIONS
            The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (c.32)
            1. The following section shall be inserted in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, after section 36A—

            Extension of certain offences to Crown servants and exemptions for regulators etc.
            36B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act shall apply to such persons in the public service of the Crown, or such categories of person in that service, as may be prescribed.
            (2) Section 26B of this Act shall not apply to—

            (a) any person designated by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this paragraph; or

            930

            (b) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, any person who falls within such category of person as may be prescribed for the purpose of this paragraph.

            (3) The Secretary of State may designate, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, any person appearing to him to be performing regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions.
            (4) The categories of person prescribed by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, shall be such categories of person connected with the performance by any designated person of regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions as he considers it appropriate to prescribe.
            (5) In this section—
            "the Crown" includes the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland; and
            "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
            (6) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
            (7) Any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".

            The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (c.41)
            2. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, after section 46, as section 46A, but with the substitution—

            (a) in subsection (1), of "sections 42 to 43B of this Act" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

            (b) in subsection (2), of "43A" for "26B".

            The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33)
            3. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, after section 93F, as section 93G, but with—

            (a) the substitution in subsection (1), of "sections 93A, 93B, 93C(2) and 93D above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

            (b) the omission of subsections (2) to (4).

            The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c.4)
            4. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, immediately after section 19, as section I9A, but with the substitution—

            (a) in subsection (1), of "sections 9 to 11, 17 and 18A above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

            (b) in subsection (2), of "18A" for "26B".

            The Criminal Justice ( International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c.5)
            5. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, after section 23, as section 23A, but with—

            (a) the substitution in subsection (1), of "section 14(2) above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

            (b) the omission of subsections (2) to (4).

            The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (c.24)
            6. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph I shall be inserted in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, after section 55, as section 55A, but with the substitution—

            (a) in subsection (1), of "sections 53, 54(2) to (6) and 54A above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

            931

            (b) in subsection (2), of "54A" for "26B".'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 3

      FINANCIAL PENALTIES
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 88, line 47, leave out from '1989)' to the end of line 48 and insert—

      (a) section 18(1) above, and section 35(4)(a) of the 1973 Act, shall not apply; and

      (b) section 18(3) above shall apply as if the words from "including" to the end were omitted.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 4

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 93, line 45, leave out 'section 93F' and insert 'sections 93F and 93G'.
      No. 27, in page 94, line 24, after '54A' insert ', 55A'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Shares (Disclosure of Interest)
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.
  The motion stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whom I am sure we all wish a speedy return to the House.
  The regulations will, if Parliament approves them, be made under section 210A of the Companies Act 1985. They will amend part VI of the 1985 Act, which contains the law on the disclosure of interests in the shares of public companies.
  The basic rule in part VI is that anyone who acquires or disposes of an interest of 3 per cent. or more in the vote-bearing share capital of a public company must disclose that fact to the company. In addition, the stock exchange rules—the so-called yellow book—require listed companies to inform the exchange of disclosures made to it under Part VI; the information is then made public.
  The regulations are needed to take account of the EC Directive on the information to be published when a major holding in a listed company is acquired or disposed of—known as the major shareholdings directive. Our domestic legislation and the directive share a common purpose—greater transparency concerning concentrations of interests in companies. The directive will introduce transparency in other member states comparable to that which exists already in the United Kingdom. We supported it for that reason, and the directive has already been implemented in nine member states.
  In most respects, our own legislation is stricter than the directive; the threshold for disclosure is lower—3 per cent. against 10 per cent.; the time limit for disclosure is shorter—two days against seven; our criterion for disclosure is that someone has an interest of any kind in the shares, whereas the directive requires disclosure only where there is control of voting rights; and our domestic legislation applies to all public companies whereas the directive applies only to listed companies. Since the directive is a "minimum standards" measure, not a harmonisation measure, it is open to us to keep our stricter legislation, and we intend to do so.
  There are certain respects in which the directive goes further than our domestic legislation. In particular, it contains fewer exemptions from the obligation to disclose. We must bring those aspects of our law into line with the directive, and that is the purpose of the regulations. But we have taken the opportunity to make some other improvements not related to the directive. The regulations take the form of amendments to the present legislation, and in two cases, entire sections of the 1985 Act have been replaced.
  The organisations most affected by the regulations are likely to be the banks and the major institutional investors. Those bodies often hold interests in the shares of individual companies in various parts of their organisations. They maintain procedures for aggregating those interests, so as to be able to disclose them under the legislation when required to do so. The removal of some current exemptions from disclosure will inevitably increase the regulatory burden on them to some extent, but we have

  933
  minimised the increase through close consultation with those affected and have been able to reduce the burden of compliance in other ways.
  I shall explain the contents of the regulations in more detail. They are somewhat complicated, mainly because we have gone to some length to preserve, so far as permitted under the directive, the substance of the exemptions provided for under our present law. I hope that the House will bear with me.
  First, it has been possible, consistently with the directive, to preserve—with modifications—the current exemptions for interests held by market makers and for interests held by banks and others by way of security. But whereas the current exemptions cover only British firms in those categories, the regulations extend the exemptions to their counterparts in other member states and the market-maker exemption has been extended to market makers in derivatives.
  The relevant provisions are to be found in regulation 8, which substitutes a new section 209 for the present version. The new exemption for a security interest is in the new section 209, subsections (I)(c) and (2) and that for a market maker is in the new section 209, subsections (8) and (9).
  Secondly, there are a number of categories of interest which are now exempt from disclosure for which the directive provides no specific exemption, but which will not normally be caught by the directive because they do not as a rule exercise voting rights. Those include interests of trustees, including unit trust trustees; custodians; a personal representative of an estate; unit holders in unit trusts; beneficiaries under a retirement benefits scheme; and the interests of a takeover bidder whose offer has not yet succeeded or failed.
  All those categories remain exempt from disclosure so long as they do not exercise or control voting rights. This "voting rights proviso" is in subsections (5) to (7) of section 209. In addition, we have widened the exemptions for trustees and custodians so that they benefit all persons in the relevant categories. The existing exemptions are limited by reference to United Kingdom law or to establishment in the EC. That change will benefit international groups active in the London market without compromising the purpose of the legislation.
  Thirdly, there are the categories of interest which now enjoy exemptions but for which no equivalent exemption is provided in the directive and which do normally exercise voting rights. Those include two major groups of interest—those of investment managers and unit trust managers, and a miscellaneous class of more specialised interests listed in the new section 209(10). For those categories, we cannot maintain a complete exemption, but we can minimise the burden by requiring disclosure only from the directive threshold of 10 per cent. instead of from the domestic threshold of 3 per cent., and that is what we propose.
  The relevant provision is to be found in regulation 4, which replaces the present section 199(2) of the Act with a new and inevitably more complex set of provisions. I draw particular attention to the new section 199(2A)(d). This will ensure, among other things, that parent companies
  934
  can take advantage of the 10 per cent. threshold in respect of interests held through their subsidiaries, in the same way as they may do so in respect of interests held directly.
  The interests to which I referred as miscellaneous will retain a complete exemption as regards unlisted companies and are most unlikely ever to reach the 10 per cent. threshold in listed companies. So, for practical purposes, they are unlikely ever to be subject to disclosure.
  Unit trust managers have considered themselves to be exempt under the present legislation, although that is, I am advised, not altogether free from doubt. There is no corresponding exemption under the directive, and the regulations will, therefore, require them to disclose from the 10 per cent. threshold. That requirement will apply to interests in both listed and unlisted companies. Disclosure of interests in unlisted companies is not a directive requirement, but unit trust managers are active and important investors and there is no good reason for a complete exemption for their interests in unlisted companies.
  Investment managers now enjoy exemption from disclosure, but only where their sole right is to dispose of the shares they control as managers. I understand that very few investment managers fall into that category and that the present exemption may therefore be something of a dead letter. The regulations will put investment managers in exactly the same position as unit trust managers, which, I am sure, is logical.
  The main provisions of the regulations are, as I have explained, to be found in regulations 4 and 8. Regulation I provides for a 60-day delay between the making of the regulations and their entry into force. That is to allow those affected a reasonable time to adapt their internal reporting systems so as to comply with the new requirements.
  Regulations 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 contain technical and consequential provisions; regulation 9 contains a complete new set of definitions for the interpretation of part VI of the Companies Act; regulation 10 revokes two statutory instruments now superseded by provisions to be inserted by the regulations into the body of the Act; and regulation 11 makes transitional provisions so that once the regulations enter into force, any interests which become disclosable because of changes in the law will have to be disclosed within two days.
  I commend the regulations to the House.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through the regulations in the way that he did. He mentioned the President of the Board of Trade. Opposition Members extended to the right hon. Gentleman our best wishes when he took ill. We welcome him back to our country and wish him a speedy recovery.
  Ten years ago, we heard the former Minister, Alan Clark, present his first affirmative order. He was criticised at that time by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) for going too slowly, he was criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for going to quickly, and he was then criticised further by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who could not understand what he was saying. Tonight, the Minister took us through the intricacies of the regulations in such a way that their

  935
  purpose and the amendments are clear and, of course, we note that he is referring to amendments of the Companies Act 1985.
  I have with me a copy of the Act and of the handbook on the 1985 and 1989 legislation. It is not surprising that the Minister has set himself the task of cutting through the red tape that those tomes have engendered and we wish him well in that task. He gave himself a deadline of July, which is approaching fast, and we look forward to hearing how he is progressing with cutting that red tape. Before he fell ill, the President of the Board of Trade said at a pharmaceutical dinner that the Department had carved through 3,500 regulations, but he had to admit that they were duplicate regulations, the same as 3,500 others on the statute book, so the Government still had a long way to go.
  The regulations touch on a variety of amendments, some coming from European legislation and some being tidying-up measures. Although we want to cut through red tape and get rid of the regulations on small and medium-sized companies, we want an appropriate framework of corporate governance and regulation to cover the very shareholders to whom the regulations apply and also other shareholders.
  Opposition Members embrace the principle of the share-owning democracy. We want to protect the small shareholder as well as the large company, subject to the terms of the regulations. With the Companies Acts that we are amending, a climate was created which set loose an orgy of profligacy in the City—an orgy of creative accountancy and of laxness which has culminated in a series of awesome corporate failures, the likes of which we hope never to see again.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), for whom I have high regard, mentioned last week that he was one of 61,000 small shareholders who lost their money, if not their shirts, on Asil Nadir's Polly Peck. Those small shareholders were seduced—if that is the right word—to part with their money in a dubious enterprise when the true owner, Asil Nadir, who had 24 per cent. of the shares, transferred £300 million from Polly Peck International to companies such as Unipac, operating not out of Northern Cyprus but, believe it or not, out of Jersey.
  It is a fact, of course, that many of the small investors would not have been covered by these regulations tonight, for many of the investments were made by fund managers and they would be exempted from declaring their interest, as I understand it, by the amendment to section 199(2)(a).
  Asil Nadir used the money to purchase his own shares, which kept the share price high, so that he could borrow more money—the share price stood at 418p in August 1990—but he also used it to finance his life style and, as we know, for donations to Conservative central office.
  It is not my intention to broaden the debate, but to stay within the guidelines of the regulations. As we know, the declaration of political contributions is listed with charitable gifts under paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1985, which we are amending today. No political contributions ever appeared in the balance sheets of Polly Peck, however, not surprisingly they have not surfaced, so far as anyone can tell, in the financial statements of Unipac.
  We are, of course, dealing with the changes that the regulations make in relation to the disclosure of interests in shares, and we have to ask ourselves where, in accordance with these regulations and this Companies
  936
  Act, we are going in relation to the share-owning democracy. The proper route to a share-owning democracy is not the route which led the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West to invest in Polly Peck and lose his money, but that of enlarging share schemes through which the work force who invest their lives in gainful employment can also invest in their companies.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Esher (M r. Taylor) in his place, as he has done sterling work in this area and is one of the hon. Members who has understood what is an appropriate route to a share-owning democracy. The hon. Gentleman has properly understood that we on this side of the House have always sought to extend protection and participation for workers in their place of work. Clearly, protection and participation would not come through this order, but it was thought that they would come through nationalisation, perceived to be the simplest route to common ownership and the fulfilment of clause 4.
  The principle had its attractions for us on the Labour side. One took over an industry and once it belonged to the state the workers got both the protection and the participation that they had sought for years, but that simplistic approach has not worked in practice. As the hon. Member for Esher has pointed out, one could not possibly take over every company, even under a Companies Act as wide and munificent as the one that we are modifying tonight, so we could not, by nationalisation alone, extend worker protection and participation to every employee.
  Common ownership is not a principle that we on this side of the House propose to abandon. As we discuss these regulations and the Companies Act, we accept that we already have common ownership, because the major companies are owned by the institutions referred to by the Minister earlier, who use our money—and yours, too, Madam Deputy Speaker—through pension funds and insurance. The trick for a future Labour Government will be to decide how to bring such common ownership under control. We hope and believe that it can be done without a major Act of the size of the Companies Act 1985, which we are amending tonight.
  We believe that employee share-ownership schemes should be expanded. We believe that we should examine the question of allowing investors in employee share-owning schemes to elect one of their own to company boards. We believe that share option schemes should be expanded to cover employees of subsidiary as well as parent companies.
  I am seeking to show, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will follow me in this, that there is a link between the Companies Act 1985, the regulations that we are debating tonight, and what goes on in the outside world.
  These Acts that we are modifying tonight—in particular, the Companies Act—have not prevented the perpetration of huge frauds in the City of London, thereby reducing the respectability and the reputation of the City. These Acts have never been fully followed by companies in our own country, and there have never been proper investigations into known abuses, such as the failure to declare political donations. When I asked the President of the Board of Trade——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I remind him that

  937
  what is under consideration tonight is fairly narrow. The hon. Gentleman is now broadening out the debate in a way that is not acceptable.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had one eye on you in the hope that I should stray only within the narrow bounds of the regulations. Having strayed outside them, I seek to return——
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Good lad.
  Mr Bell: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the instrument is a draft, and that my speech is only a draft too. Nevertheless, I respect your kind advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  We hope that the regulations are a forerunner of others which will bring stricter and tighter regulation to the City of London. That is called for by City practitioners and would give stronger powers, if they are needed, to the investigation branches within the Department of Trade and Industry. Such regulations would also inaugurate a more vigorous approach to company law, which is so badly needed to enhance the reputation of the City so that it is not diminished still further.
  Through the regulations, we are redefining the disclosure requirements of shareholders. However, the regulations do not cover corporate governance, nor the aspects of the shareholder's role in the enterprise. Those questions may be dealt with in future orders, and in future directives and regulations coming from the Department of Trade and Industry. The House could then fully debate the questions of corporate governance, the direction that the City should take and how we might get back a sense of respect for the City of London.
  The regulations define derivatives. The Minister referred to derivatives and to market makers, which shows how the statute book is catching up with City practice. According to David Walker, deputy chairman of Lloyds bank and former chairman of the Securities and Investments Board, derivative trading has become the most significant growth area in financial services. Estimates of amounts outstanding in important exchange traded and over-the-counter contracts show growth from $1,000 million five years ago to $8,000 million at the end of 1991.
  As the Minister has defined derivatives in the regulations and places the term in our Companies Act, as well as in the Financial Services Act 1986—I relieve him of giving me an immediate response to these questions and he does not need to answer them tonight—I ask him how he sees an appropriate regulation of the derivatives market. He might tell the House eventually whether he believes that such regulation should be collaborative and international, and whether it should be based on a shared understanding of problems.
  I am sure that the exchanges that make up the derivatives market, which have been recognised by the SIB, will be gratified that the statute book is catching up with their practice. However, at present we have self-regulation of those markets, where the exchanges are required to have sufficient resources to provide adequately for the protection of investors and to have procedures for the monitoring of business, the enforcement of rules and the investigation of complaints.
  938
  Depositary receipts are also defined in the regulations. That is another example of the statute book catching up with the global market place, as depositary receipts are used in the United States for the purchase of non-American quoted shares. They are a legal way round the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, whereby receipts are offered in place of non-American shares bought on behalf of customers. They have added suppleness to our financial markets.
  I am sure that you will be happy, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am staying within the remit of the regulations when I refer to the Banking Coordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992 (d). Every time I mention them to my parliamentary colleagues, their eyes glaze, predictably and perceptibly. I note, however, that the paragraph dealing with the European institutions carrying on home-regulated investment business in the United Kingdom is now revoked, presumably because that paragraph is now subsumed in the text of the regulations. In section 202 of the Companies Act 1985 and the modifications proposed in paragraph 9 of the order, we see how the intricacies of the European Community and its laws entwine in our legislation.
  I began my short speech by congratulating the Minister on the presentation of the facts and his marshalling of the arguments. I referred to the former Member, Alan Clark. Before he took his first order on the Floor of the House 10 years ago, he went to see Lord Tebbit and was told to stick to his script and avoid any jokes. Tonight, we have avoided the jokes and stuck to our scripts. I hope that we have provided an enlightened debate, which is narrow but nevertheless broad enough to allow us to make some points in the interests of the City of London. The House can do no better than that.
  11 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not wish unduly to detain the House, but I want to clear up one or two points. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, this is a technical area in which I do not claim expertise. I doubt whether many other hon. Members who are not directly involved in it can claim to have such expertise.
  The draft order derives from the EC directive passed in 1988. I want clarification that I have understood the thrust of the order, which is that the 3 per cent. rule will remain, other than for special exemptions, and that the exemptions will remain or be subject to the 10 per cent. rule. I want to know at which point the 10 per cent. rule will come into effect as opposed to the 3 per cent. rule.
  As I understand the Department's release, the member states can continue to operate a threshold lower than 10 per cent., while ours is 3 per cent. It is the intention of the United Kingdom that that will continue, although the directive allows our threshold to be raised to 10 per cent. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether there is any forward thinking on extending that. I appreciate that he is trying to simplify the procedure for shareholdings and groups that have no specific reason to disclose because their intentions are not likely to lead to any degree of hostility to the management of the company. The House needs to be assured that we will not inadvertently create any new loopholes and that the categories embraced are only those that cannot and will not be presumed to have any hostile intent. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to Asil Nadir.

  939
  We would like an assurance about pension funds. Such funds might be able to get through the net by acting as trustees and securing in some way a position in which they have hostile intent which they would not be required to disclose until such time as it became apparent. If the Minister tells me that I have wholly misunderstood the thrust of the regulations, I am happy to be rebuked. However, I would simply like some clarification and development of that point.
  I am concerned that the climate relating to takeovers in the United Kingdom is fundamentally different from that in the other member states. Generally speaking, hostile takeovers in the other 11 member states are rare events, but they are normal or frequent events in the United Kingdom. In that different climate, the EC directive may be only the lowest common denominator, but it would not be especially appropriate to the United Kingdom. I simply seek an assurance that our basic rules are not being fundamentally altered. We are talking about the details of certain categories that are currently exempted. I hope that the regulations do not provide for any inadvertent modifications that could lead to any future problems with people getting through the net.
  I appreciate that the intention of the regulations is constructive and non-controversial. I hope that they will help to simplify the procedure and not create any untoward problems. While it may be a positive start to the simplification process, the Government must address the matter of how we lower the threshold cost of dealing with small groups of shares. That is relevant to the regulations.
  There is no doubt that many shareholders currently hold only those shares that they bought in a privatisation portfolio. They have not gone on to transact in shares, partly as a result of ignorance about how to do that and concern that the fixed charges are disproportionate to the value of the shares. Any measures that the Minister can introduce to simplify that process will help to achieve the broader share ownership that the Conservative party wants. It would also enable people to deal in shares rather than just hold on to those that were bought in discounted sales.
  I hope that the Minister will he able to set my mind at rest.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: With permission, I will reply lo the debate.
  I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for his support for the deregulation initiative. I assure him that my scissors for cutting red tape will be as sharp as his intellect. I am also grateful to him for the welcome that he gave to the regulations.
  If I may say so, most of the hon. Gentleman's remarks dealt with the more cosmic surroundings of the regulations
  940
  than the regulations themselves. I will not, therefore, spend too much time for addressing those larger issues. I should be happy to return in due course to the question whether we should extend more regulation to the derivatives market. I do not believe, however, that it would be proper for me to consider that now.
  I can give the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) the assurance that he sought. We are not seeking to change the fundamental rules of our disclosure system. We are enabled to keep the stricter regime that we have had in the United Kingdom and we intend to do so. Regulation 4 is the relevant regulation that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. It provides for different thresholds at which an interest in shares is to become notifiable, according to the type of interest that is involved.
  Most types of disclosable interest will continue to he disclosable at the existing 3 per cent., as set out in section 199 of the Companies Act 1985. A person who has interest falling within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 199(2A), as proposed, would be obliged to disclose it only when his total interest reached 10 per cent. That will cover investment managers, unit trust operators and a variety of recondite miscellaneous provisions in subsection (10). I believe that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance he requested.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether pension funds would become vehicles for getting around the obligation of disclosure. Pension fund trustees will not benefit from the 10 per cent. threshold, as originally proposed by the Department of Trade and Industry in its consultation document. We decided that it would be inappropriate to include provisions relating to such trustees in the regulations before the Goode committee's review of pension law and its recommendations are published. No doubt we will return to the matter at a later date.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other matters that were only distantly related to the regulations, in particular takeover activity in the United Kingdom and dealing costs for small groups of shares. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to reply to those matters now.
  I commend the regulations to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.

  Shares (Disclosure of Interest)

    NATIONAL HERITAGE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Paul Channon be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Michael Fabricant be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    VAT and Prescriptions
    11.8 pm
    Mr. David Hanson: I take great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of Mrs. Molly Hoffman, who is a pensioner from Mynydd Isa in my constituency, and 1,000 other constituents in Clwyd.
    The petition calls on the Government not to put value added tax on fuel bills and to stop the extension of prescription charges to children and pensioners. The petition ends with the prayer
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do not implement the Value Added Tax on fuel bills and do not extend charges on Prescriptions for children and Pensioners.
    I support the petition and pay tribute to Mrs. Hoffman, who attended my surgery and collected the signatures.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway]
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I am especially grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the future of outdoor education centres and to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools for his kindness in coming here to reply to the debate.
  This debate arises from a meeting that I had on 11 June with the Association of Heads of Outdoor Educational Centres in the Lake district centre, which included a number of the centres in the north of England. I met 17 heads of outdoor education centres, 15 of whom were from centres supported by local education authorities and 12 of whom were from Cumbria, which is where my constituency is. Eight of them—almost half—were from centres in my constituency.
  May I begin by saying how important those centres are to the economy of Cumbria and my constituency. The 12 local education authority supported centres in Cumbria employ 150 full-time staff—plus, I imagine, a good many part-time staff. They provide no fewer than 160,000 bed nights for young people and others who come to enjoy their facilities. Most importantly, they inject £3·25 million a year into the local economy of Cumbria.
  The centres exist in areas far beyond the Lake district. There are more than 100 centres throughout the country, of which some two thirds are run by local education authorities. I am grateful for a note that I have received from the Sports Council, which says:
  "2–3 million young people per annum take part in a vast range of outdoor education programmes arranged by statutory, voluntary and private sector providers".
  The national curriculum quite rightly now recognises the importance of adventurous activities with an inherent element of risk, such as rock climbing, white water canoeing, and expeditions on land and sea. Although the whole House will commend those activities, the recent tragic incidents in Lyme bay are not far from our minds. Outdoor education centres must be run safely. I do not wish to discuss what happened in Lyme bay. The lesson thatat safety must be paramount has been well learnt by OECs throughout the country.
  A key word in the work of the centres is "success". Many young people fail in formal education as they may not be good at exams or the analytical thinking required by many school subjects. They also sometimes fail at home or among their own social circle. The OECs often provide an opportunity for those young people to succeed, develop self-esteem and grow in self-confidence. Learning involves the whole person. It is relevant to other aspects of life; it encourages personal response and responsibility.
  The centres encourage good citizenship. They unlock talents that remain hidden in formal teaching. Young people experience challenging situations which invllve problem solving, group co-operation, negotiation, creative thinking and decision making. It is common for teachers and leaders to comment on the improved levels of motivation and achievement which are often taken back into the classroom or the workplace. For those and a good many other reasons, the centres provide help for all sorts of young people.

  943
  A centre in my constituency, Bendrigg lodge, provides help for disabled young people and those from disturbed and difficult backgrounds. Many of the centres play a significant part in the fight against rising youth crime. it is clear to me and to many people that the centres do a fine job in offering good education and value for money, but they are most concerned and anxious about certain aspects of the development of education policy. That is particularly true of those financed by local education authorities, although I knowe there are anxieties at many others, including those in my constituency.
  Many centres are run by local education authorities in the north-east of England, Yorkshire and industrial Lancashire, but there are also a number of very distinguished privately run centres. For instance, the YMCA runs a fine centre which various Ministers have visited, at Lake Side on Lake Windermere. There is also the Outward Bound movement in Cumbria. We have an extremely distinguished centre at Brathay hall, again on Lake Windermere. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), the chairman of the organising committee at Brathay hall, in his place. My hon. Friend may have the chance to make a brief intervention when I sit down.
  The problems being encountered are that the local education authority OEC provision is finding its funding eroded to the extent that there is serious risk of reduction, if not wholesale removal, of that valuable service. Although the Government have allocated more money to the national education budget, changes to the distribution network have meant that the amount of money delegated to outdoor centres has been greatly reduced.
  I want to highlight the value of outdoor education and the threats to quality and safety and to suggest to the Minister some ways in which that high quality provision can be safeguarded as I believe it is worth safeguarding. I am told that 50 local education authority centres are facing imminent threat of closure or major reductions in funding. Seven centres face closure this year, and 70 centres face imminent staff reductions and in some cases are down to skeleton staffing levels. Most centres are reviewing charges to pupils, in many cases up to the full break-even level.
  The amount in the overall education purse has not been reduced, and it might be expected that grant-maintained schools would buy back the services previously subsidised by local education authorities. Likewise, schools that, under the local management of schools scheme, enjoy budgets almost wholly delegated should buy in the service. In practice, head teachers, faced with increasing demands on available resources, are showing a tendency to direct any additional funding at maintaining the service provided by the school rather than support an outdoor centre.
  If centres are compelled to increase fees and pupils are required to pay the full economic rate, that will be educationally and socially divisive, and will certainly discriminate against the very pupils who might benefit most from the unique personal and social education experience that only a residential centre can offer.
  All centres have made significant expenditure cuts in recent years. Most are now full to capacity throughout the year, providing courses for their local community and all other groups, to maximise the use of their facilities. It is now felt that all reasonable cost-cutting has been effected without compromising safety—which must be paramount.
  944
  It is apparent that, to provide a safe and effective quality course for the full range of pupils, a base level of subsidy is still required.
  Subsidies range from £50,000 for small centres to £200,000 for larger ones, and should ideally be channelled through local authorities. Ways should be investigated of allowing the Government to provide centres with a base level of subsidy. I am told that there may be two ways of doing that. First, local education authorities or local funding councils could be allowed to provide properly accredited and monitored centres with a low level of funding calculated on throughput. Secondly, local councils could be given an incentive to provide that low level of funding. Agreement would have to be reached between local and national Government on ways of giving priority support to that vital service.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give those matters further thought, and to consider whether there are ways in which those centres can continue their wonderful work. Britain has the most extensive network of outdoor and environmental centres in the world. Centres based on the British model are being established throughout Europe. It would be tragic if our own centres of excellence were threatened and subjected to wholesale closures.
  I am delighted to have this opportunity to publicise those problems, and to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do his best to help these worthwhile ventures in the time that lies ahead.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and to my hon. Friend the Minister for this opportunity briefly to support the case that my right hon. Friend clearly and ably put on behalf of outdoor centres.
  I speak from a lifetime's involvement with Brathay hall in the Lake district. It was one of the earliest independent centres, founded and funded by charitable trust. It has existed for almost 50 years and is well known for its reputation in education to staff at the Department for Education.
  I know well the difficulties of funding such centres. They have been well explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The danger is that if funding does not continue to be available, at worst the centres will close and at best they will inevitably be driven to seeking adult trainees who can pay higher fees if they are supported by their companies. It will take the centres out of youth education, which is their fundamental purpose. That would be a great loss to the country.
  I re-emphasise the importance of the type of education offered to young people by outdoor education centres. I have witnessed it over a long period of involvement in such activity at Brathay hall. The experience of success is hugely important, as is the experience of residential living. Learning through exciting activities—although not dangerous activities, because the safety net is there—enables young people to learn to be responsible and to be dependent on each other. That learning option is not always available in school; but in residential centres, doing challenging, difficult and exciting outdoor centres, it is.
  Children learn leadership and responsiveness in the group. They learn many social skills of living and working together which are the very skills that we all need when we

  945
  set out in the outside world. Some of the most disadvantaged youngsters need such education most of all. It is provided at such centres.
  As my right hon. Friend said, Britain has more outdoor education centres than anywhere in the world. It certainly has more centres than anywhere in Europe per head of population. That is an aspect of our education system which we certainly should not put at risk of diminution. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage us to be confident of the future and consider some of the issues in the longer term.
  11.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on obtaining the debate and thank him for his comments. I recognise and pay tribute to his vigorous and persistent representations to the Government, to me and to my fellow Ministers in the Department on behalf of outdoor education centres, which are so well represented in his constituency and the surrounding area. I join my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) in paying tribute to the extremely valuable work that is done and has been done for some years by the outdoor centres in all the ways that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend described.
  Outdoor education centres make a valuable contribution to the requirements of the national curriculum and, beyond it, to helping young people to see a wider world and understand more possibilities within themselves and in the context of their education. Therefore, we can all readily agree on the important role that has been played by the centres and, I sincerely hope, will continue to be played by them.
  My right hon. Friend made it clear that one of his anxieties is the future viability of such centres, with particular reference to local management of schools. I understand that anxiety. It arises from the rapid move from total control of education funding by local education authorities towards local management of schools.
  I emphasise that LMS is well established and has been widely welcomed throughout the education world by LEAs and schools. The process of delegation of responsibility for funding from local authorities to schools brings in its train great changes in attitudes and the extent to which priorities are set. One of the ways in which the changes take place arises because authorities can no longer absolutely determine the way in which moneys are spent. Those decisions are now increasingly being made, as my right hon. Friend recognises, at school level.
  We placed a great deal of emphasis, correctly I believe, on the importance of giving school governors, heads, teachers and parents much more say in the way in which the funding available at school level should be spent. One of the effects of that is that it will be for schools to decide in which way they spend their funds. As a result, it is vital that outdoor education centres are able and prepared to market their services and their excellent contribution—so ably set out by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks—directly to schools.
  It can no longer he assumed that their excellence is known and understood by local education authorities and
  946
  that they will automatically direct their funding and pupils to the outdoor centres. In future, the centres, separately and, I hope, co-operatively, will sell to the schools, which are becoming increasingly independent in their funding and decisions, the excellence of their service and the relevance of what can be done for pupils. That will require changes of attitude, approach, policy and technique, and I suspect that we are seeing only the early stages of that.
  I have heard my right hon. Friend's positive suggestions. I cannot immediately respond to them as positively as he would like, but I want to look carefully at them. They seem to revolve around a continuing element of central Government subsidy, either through local education authorities or directly to schools.
  In all honesty, given the real constraints on public expenditure, central Government funding of such centres, by whatever route, could be provided only by taking money away from revenue support grant to local authorities. My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is for each local authority to determine its own budget and to decide how that budget should be allocated. As funds are increasingly delegated to schools, it is for governors and heads to decide which local authority services to support.
  Where a local authority has reduced its centrally held outdoor education service or decided not to provide such support, the money may not be available to transfer. Where a local authority has decided to maintain its support, it could not be required to pay what would, in effect be a levy, to support similar services elsewhere. Therefore, there are problems associated with the approach suggested by my right hon. Friend. However, I do not want to totally rule out his suggestions at this stage. I want to see whether any of his suggestions are practical or possible.
  I should like to take up the challenge laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The other concern often expressed is about the limitations placed by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 on local authorities not trading beyond their margin of capacity where an increasing number of schools become grant maintained. I do not want to go into the details of what constitutes a margin of capacity, because that will be determined by finance officers, authority by authority.
  Even where margins of capacity are reached or exceeded and the restrictions begin to apply to local education authorities' involvement, I believe that for outdoor education centres and other services hitherto provided by local education authorities, new possibilities exist, and I hope that they will explore them.
  There is the possibility in the Education Bill of the Secretary of State designating a further two-year period of continuation of the service. It may be that the staff who provided the service until the margin of capacity was reached could look at management buy-outs where existing employees, perhaps those already in a business unit, would form a company to take over the service and provide it on a more flexible and widespread basis. The current providers could seek out a private sector partner and leave the aegis of the authority to give them flexibility beyond the constraints of the 1970 Act, which may bite on the increasing number of grant-maintained schools.
  We are already aware of examples of that in other similar areas of service that have been provided hitherto by local education authorities. It is entirely possible, and is almost certainly the way ahead. Outdoor education

  947
  centres should be urgently investigating the different possibilities—not seeing themselves constrained, as hitherto, by being local education authority-owned or provided, but seeing themselves in a much more open and flexible context, perhaps marketing services differently and looking to a different marketplace altogether.
  Outdoor education centres might, as an interim stage, set up trusts whereby income provided by the authority decreases over a specified period, requiring increasing independent income generation so that the move to full independence, under which constraints on provision are removed, is smooth. A number of local authority services have, indeed, already achieved total independence from former authorities, such as the Cambridge Education Personnel Service and Kirklees Music Service Educational Trust—the latter being a company limited by guarantee with charitable trust status that trades as the Kirklees Music School.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met representatives of the school, who spoke with great commitment of their success in taking this very different approach and selling services in a different way.
  I have received representations in addition to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends from a number of interested bodies about outdoor education centres. I am acutely aware of the problems. I hope that the matters with which I have dealt—I can give my right hon. and hon. Friends more details if they require them—provide interesting and revolutionary new ways ahead that could be explored by these excellent centres. I hope that they will take up this opportunity to explore them all, and if they do we shall give whatever help we can.
  948
  That is the positive way ahead, and the pessimism that has prevailed among the centres is unjustified. If they look at the ways in which other parallel services have been developed, they will find that they can take a much more optimistic approach to the future.
  Although I well understand the reservations, hesitations and unhappiness that have been expressed by the centres, I hope that they will reconsider the possibilities for the future—that they will look not backwards to the traditional way in which services have been provided under local education authorities, but forwards at new and different ways in which they can work in the new environment that is being created by the increasing grant-maintained sector and by the changing role of local education authorities.
  That is the way ahead, and I hope that with these few words I have been able to offer some idea of how we can move forward. Officials in my Department and I are always prepared to help in identifying how the centres can move forward and free themselves of the unhappiness and hesitation that they have understandably felt up until now.
  I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will continue to play his part in forming a bridge between the centres, my Department and local education authorities, where they have a continuing role to play. In that regard, I hope that the debate has been a positive sign to my right hon. and hon. Friends and the centres to which they are so dedicated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to 12 o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors to the Police
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to require the Law Society immediately to report known cases of dishonest practice by solictors to the police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Society is an independent body, regulated by statute. Section 32(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974 gives the Law Society the power to report dishonest practice, where there is prima facie evidence of it, to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it is a matter for it to decide when it should do so.

  Debtors' Addresses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to give powers to county courts to obtain debtors' current addresses when the courts have made an order in favour of a creditor, and to pass that information on to creditors or their representatives.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are currently no plans to give county courts powers to obtain debtors' current addresses when the courts have made an order in favour of a creditor.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary., Lord Chancellor's Department 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.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  From April 1992 to May 1993 inclusive, the Lord Chancellor's Department has spent £1,850 on legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme. All advice was provided in-house.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sexual Abuse Cases
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many sexual abuse cases were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service in 1992–93; how many were not proceeded with(a) due to staleness and (b) in total; and how many cases where the Crown Prosecution Service was satisfied as to the sufficiency of the evidence were not proceeded with.

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought by the hon. Member is not centrally recorded, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  410

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much her Department spent on legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Jack
  Since November 1991 the Department has spent no money on the provision of external legal advice regarding the implications of the TUPE Regulations 1981.

  Over the period November 1991 to June 1993 the matter has been looked at by the Department's own legal staff as part of their continuing duties.

  Cattle Disease
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received regarding imported disease in live cattle; how many incidents of diseased live imported cattle have been found by her inspectors since I January; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department has received a number of representations seeking reassurance that the single market will not increase the risk of disease entering the country through imported livestock. Since 1 January warble fly has been found in animals imported from Poland, Belgium and France, some of which were imported before that date. A case of enzootic bovine leucosis in an animal that may have been imported is also under investigation.

  Forests (Sales)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, by county, those forest areas in England currently available for sale to the private sector.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: The areas of forest land in England currently being offered for sale by the Forestry Commission on the open market are as follows:

  County and Name

  Area (hectares)

  Avon

  Abbotts Wood (East)

  1

  East Tanpit

  6

  Fifty Acre Wood

  21

  Old Park Wood

  10

  Round Hill Clump

  2

  Scutches

  5

  Three Corner Wood

  3

  Warren House

  3

  West Tanpit/Ox House

  16

  Wraxall

  13

  Yewtree/Snakes Well/Fishpond

  11

  Cornwall

  Hay Wood

  54

  Pathada Perdredda

  69

  Penance and Derry's

  7

  Port Eliot (small wood)

  39

  Treworgey

  17

  Cumbria

  Walton Wood

  89

  411

  County and Name

  Area (hectares)

  Derbyshire

  Birch Wood

  24

  Britton Wood

  6

  Noton Street Wood

  4

  Devon

  Bedpark

  8

  Brownsham Woods

  70

  Deershill Wood

  11

  Hawkmoor

  22

  Lotherton

  13

  New Moor

  12

  New Part Coppice

  15

  Durham

  Stanley Woods

  64

  Hampshire

  Ashe Park Wood

  37

  Peaky Close

  23

  Roke Mead Copse

  9

  Woodhay House Copse

  5

  Humherside

  Seaton Ross

  43

  Sutton

  34

  Kent

  Great and Little Twyvers

  12

  Lincolnshire

  Wraby Wood

  70

  Norfolk

  Blackwater Plantation

  4

  Northumberland

  Colley Law

  8

  Corbies Crags Woods

  54

  Haydon Fell

  20

  North Yorkshire

  Averhams Wood

  52

  Gateforth East

  29

  Hayton

  51

  Hazelwood

  56

  Moreby

  33

  Overton

  48

  Raisdale

  180

  Sawley

  323

  Seaton Old Wood

  5

  Turf Graft Wood

  3

  West Gateforth

  47

  Shropshire

  Coed Detton

  14

  Preston Springs

  38

  Somerset

  Chantry

  6

  East Wood

  12

  Ellicombe Common

  2

  Fry's Wood

  24

  Higher Bitcombe

  30

  Oaktrow Wood

  17

  Penny Wood

  2

  Pightley Coppice

  1

  The Thickets

  4

  West Wood

  9

  South Yorkshire

  Green Springs

  12

  The Old Park

  41

  Walker Wood

  6

  Suffolk

  Langley High Wood

  49

  412

  County and Name

  Area (hectares)

  West Sussex

  Sparwood and Swear Hanger

  12

  Wephurst Wood

  38

  Wiltshire

  Roundway Hill Covert

  27

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to combat homelessness.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to his question of 25 June 1993 at column 330.

  In addition, we have made available a further £86 million over the next three years—1993–94 to 1995–96, to continue our rough sleepers initiative in central London. A strategy document, inviting bids for funding, was issued on 16 June. Emphasis will continue to be on funding permanent accommodation in houses and flats. Resources will be targeted more tightly, to make the initiative more effective, and some of the resources will be focused on "zones", starting with the Strand. Copies of the strategy document are in the Library.

  The latest quarterly homelessness statistics show an encouraging downward trend in the number of households Northumberland accepted by local authorities as homeless: the number of acceptances during the first quarter of 1993 was 5 per cent. lower than in the same quarter last year. The number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation fell by 37 per cent.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of green belt have been used for urban development in the last five years; and if he will make a statement on Government policy.

  Mr. Curry
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested, but individual local authorities may be able to provide information about green belt decisions in their areas. Government policy is set out in "Planning Policy Guidance note 2" published by HMSO in January 1988.

  Property Services Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the asset value of the Property Service Agency.

  Mr. Curry
  The value at 31 March 1993 of PSA Services fixed assets, excluding land and buildings, is estimated as £8 million.

  EC Correspondence
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made in achieving the target of responding to all correspondence from the European Commission within agreed time limits.
  413
  Mr. Baldry
  Since the beginning of the year, we have received nine formal letters from the Commission on environmental issues, requiring a reply within two months. So far we have had to send interim replies in only two cases, but we were able to follow both of them up with full responses shortly afterwards.

  Statistics User Group
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department in establishing a statistics user group.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are well-established liaison groups covering local authority statistics. In addition, a consultative committee on construction industry statistics was set up last year. We are also considering how best to take user interests into account for statistics in other areas.

  Gas Suppliers
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will conduct a survey of the savings which have been achieved by those local authorities which have switched to independent suppliers of gas.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to conduct such a survey. Local authorities have a duty to their taxpayers to secure value for money in their finanical affairs, including in the procurement of goods and services. It is for each local authority to decide whether value for money could be achieved by switching to an independent gas supplier.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will use the 1991 census data in compiling SSAs for 1994: and what safeguards there will be for those local education authorities whose grant is thereby reduced.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is our policy to use the most up-to-date information available within SSAs. For 1993–94 SSAs, population estimates based on the 1991 census were incorporated and it is intended to make use of the remaining information now available from the 1991 census for 1994–95 SSAs. We will need to consider the effect of this and the outcome of the wider review of SSAs now in progress, before finally deciding whether it will be necessary to mitigate these effects, and if so what means and to what extent.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to compensate those local education authorities which have lost revenue as a result of the use of the 1981 census data and not the 1991 census data in compiling the education SSAs for 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The SSAs for 1993–94 were compiled using the best posible information available at the time. For 1994–95 it is the intention that the information now available from the 1991 census will be incorporated.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities on the adequacy of standard spending assessments mechanisms for the tasks now being demanded of them; what account he has taken of the 414
  specific criticisms levelled by the recent Audit Commission review; and what action he proposes to take to restore confidence in the revenue support methodology.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: As part of the current review of standard spending assessments—SSAs—we have received representations from more than 140 local authorities on all aspects of the SSA system.

  We welcome what the Audit Commission report "Passing the Bucks" has to say about SSAs and will consider the commission's conclusions carefully as part of our current review. The commission's finding that the system of SSAs is a more sophisticated mechanism for equalising needs than any overseas system examined in their study and that it is an improvement on its predecessor in many respects, is particularly welcome.

  The current review of SSAs which is being carried out in consultation with local authority representatives shows our continuing commitment to improve the system of SSAs used to distribute revenue support grant wherever possible.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for dealing with proposals to alter council tax valuations.

  Mr. Curry
  The Valuation Office agency (VOA) had received some 525,000 proposals to alter valuation lists in England by 25 June, the great majority in the first month of the initial appeal period. The rate at which new proposals have been received, however, has subsequently fallen significantly. While the initial appeal period does not end until 30 November 1993, the final number is likely to be substantially below earlier estimates. The overwhelming majority of appeals should therefore be settled by the end of 1994, and a high proportion well before then.

  We expect the agency and valuation tribunals to have settled some 560,000 council tax banding appeals in England by 31 December 1994, just 13 months after the initial appeal period ends on 30 November 1993. Any remaining appeals will be decided as rapidly as possible in 1995.

  In keeping with citizens charter principles, the agency has set standards for service for handling appeals. On receipt of a proposal the Valuation Office agency's objective will be:
  to acknowledge receipt of proposals within 14 days (against a statutory deadline of 28 days);
  to make the taxpayer an offer, within 60 days, to reband the property if the initial banding is clearly wrong;
  to let taxpayers know within 90 days if the agency believes the original banding is correct and that they intend to defend that decision; and
  in any other case, to make contact with taxpayers within 120 days and give them a named contact within the VOA for further discussion.
  Council taxpayers should have their appeals settled as quickly and efficiently as possible, giving appropriate priority to identified cases of hardship. We shall monitor progress to ensure that this is so and keep our plans under review in light of developments.

  Additional Educational Needs
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local education authorities on the range of support
  415
  funding now generated by the additional educational needs factor in the standard spending assessments methodology; and if he will make it his policy to look afresh at the validity of the small number of proxy indicators employed and the very heavy weighting then given to this AEN factor in determining overall assessments.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: As part of the current review of standard spending assessments—SSAs—we have received representations from more than 140 local authorities, including 57 local education authorities, on all aspects of the SSA system.

  We made clear at the start of the review that we would take this opportunity to consider the range of social factors used within SSAs including the additional educational needs index and the weight placed upon them.

  Building and Construction (Finance)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what survey his Department has carried out of banks' lending policies towards building and construction companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the building and constuction industry is given sufficient financial support to enable it to expand; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will meet representatives of the Chartered Institute of Building to discuss the institute's Bank Watch Campaign.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: Banks' lending policies are a commercial matter for the banks themselves to determine; however, I am aware of the construction industry's concern, and of the Chartered Institute of Building's Bank Watch Campaign. I regularly meet representatives of the construction industry and would expect to discuss this and other issues with them at such meetings.

HEALTH

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's aim in purchasing goods and services is to obtain the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. Where environmentally friendly products are available which fully meet our specifications and provide value for money then these are preferred. In respect of the specific products our policy is as follows:

  recycled paper—we are exploring with potential suppliers as part of a competitive tendering process, the feasibility of substantially increasing the use of environmentally friendly stationery supplies.

  low-energy light bulbs—a programme for changing all lighting on our departmental estate to low-energy tubes is well advanced; this also offers demonstrable long-term savings and an improved working environment.

  tropical hardwoods—are not purchased.

  peat—is not purchased.

  cars with catalytic converters—since January 1991 we have acquired only diesel vehicles or cars propelled by petrol and fitted with catalytic converters.
  416

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were born either mentally or physically handicapped in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The exact information requested is not available centrally. Such information as is available centrally for 1990 is given in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication "Congenital malformation statistics" series MB3 no. 6; copies of which are available in the Library. Information for 1991 and 1992 is not yet available.

  Hepatitis and Dysentery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) viral hepatitis and (b) dysentery have been reported in each district health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Notifications of viral hepatitis and dysentery are not collected for district health authorities. Notifications are available for county districts and are published in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication "Communicable disease statistics" series M B2; and are available in the Library. Information for 1992 has not yet been published.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of emergency admissions to(a) the Doncaster Royal and Montagu trust, (b) the Tickhill Road hospital in Doncaster and (c) to hospitals in the Trent regional health authority in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of non-elective admissions in the general and acute specialties provided by national health service hospitals in Trent region and by Doncaster Royal infirmary and Montagu NHS trust and Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust—of which Tickhill Road hospital is a part—for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montague Trust

  Doncaster Healthcare Trust

  Trent Region

  1991–92

  22,308

  1,948

  333,311

  1992–93

  23,097

  1,821

  348,327

  Source:

  Quarterly Monitoring of Provider Activity.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds would be closed or created on current trends by the year 2001 based on(a) growth in patient activity of 1 per cent. per annum, (b) decline in length of hospital stay of 4 per cent. per annum and (c) an increase in day care surgery of 25 per cent.

  Mr. Sackville
  All the information required to make the proposed calculation is set out in the "Statisical Bulletin" for 1991–92, a copy of which is available in the Library.
  417

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her Department spent on legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Sackville
  All legal advice on these regulations has been provided by the Department's in-house solicitors office. It is not possible to identify separately the costs.

  Wessex Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of each letter sent to the chairman of the Wessex regional health authority by the Secretary of State following each annual review meeting in the years from 1986 to 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Copies of the letters will be placed in the Library. From 1989 annual reviews have been conducted by the chief executive of the national health service management executive with the regional general managers.

  Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 May,Official Report, columns 507–8, if the funding which her Department will provide for the multidisciplinary research centre will come wholly from her existing research and development budget.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each research project her Department currently funds in the field of primary health care, with(a) the institution in which it is based, (b) the funds provided by her Department, (c) the numbers of staff involved and (d) the start and end date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department's research and development division currently funds and manages the following primary health care related research projects:

  Project: Child Health Surveillance, including general practitioners' involvement

  Institution: University of Kent

  Total estimated cost: £330,815

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 October 1990

  End date: 30 September 1994

  Project: Ambulatory Care Research Programme

  Institution: University of Newcastle

  Total estimated cost: £728,938

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 January 1991

  End date: 31 March 1994

  Project: Randomised Controlled Trial of Coronary Risk Factor Intervention

  Institution: Royal South Hampshire Hospital

  Total estimated cost: £232,559

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 July 1992

  End date: 30 June 1993

  Project: The Health Benefits of Routine Histological Examination of GP Excision Specimens

  Institution: University of Leicester
  418
  Total estimated cost: £42,609

  Number of staff involved:

  Start date: 1 June 1992

  End date: 31 May 1994

  Project: Evaluation of Collaborative Clinical Guidelines in Hackney General Practices

  Institution: The Medical College of St. Bartholomew's

  Total estimated cost: £59,794

  Number of staff involved:

  Start date: 1 October 1992

  End date: 13 October I994

  Project: Breast Cancer in Remission: Follow up by GPs

  Institution: University of Oxford

  Total estimated cost: £74,567

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 December 1992

  End date: 30 November 1994

  Project: Process and Outcomes of Consultation in Primary Care

  Institution: University of Wales

  Total estimated cost: £37,296

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 January 1993

  End date: 31 December 1994

  Project: Doctor Variability

  Institution: RCGP Research Unit, Birmingham

  Total estimated cost: £110,780

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 January 1988

  End date: 31 December 1995

  Project: Retrieval of Patients from Long-Term Follow-up in Hospital Outpatient Departments

  Institution: University of Manchester

  Total estimated cost: £163,500

  Number of staff involved:

  Start date: 1 April 1992

  End date: 31 March 1994

  Project: Cross Referrals in Hospitals

  Institution: University of Manchester

  Total estimated cost: £70,000

  Number of staff involved:

  Start date: 1 January 1993

  End date: 30 June 1994

  Project: Specialist Outreach in General Practice

  Institution: University of Manchester

  Total estimated cost: £51,193

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 January 1993

  End date: 31 December 1993

  Project: Out of Hours Care in General Practice

  Institution: University of Manchester

  Total estimated cost: £33,000

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 January 1993

  End date: 28 February 1994

  Project: Death Registers and Audit of Death in General Practice

  Institution: University of Newcastle

  Total estimated cost: £121,157

  Number of stuff involved:

  Start date: 1 October 1991

  End date: 31 March 1994

  Project: Evaluating the Outcomes of Treatment for Menorrhagia

  Institution: University of Oxford

  Total estimated cost: £56,503

  Number of staff involved:

  Start date: 3 September 1990

  End date: 31 August 1993
  419
  Project: Feedback of Patient Specific Morbidity Data in Asthma: a Randomised Controlled Trial in General Practice

  Institution: King's College Hospital

  Total estimated cost: £198,999

  Number of staff involved:

  Start date: 1 January 1991

  End date: 31 March 1994

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 May,Official Report, columns 507–8, what will be the prime consideration in judging tenders for the multidisciplinary research centre.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The prime consideration will be the extent to which the universities concerned can provide high-quality, scientific, research-based information for the Department, in the key strategic field of primary care. Of particular importance will be intentions as to leadership, clarity of management arrangements and the commitment of the university to the centre, its funding and staff. Proposals will be expected to specify how collaboration with other funders is to be achieved. A copy of the statement of requirements for the centre for research and development in primary health care will be placed in the Library. This has been sent to all vice-chancellors, a wide range of researchers and all those inquiring.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 233, if she will list for each of the 13 research units currently subject to peer review (a) the date of the site visit, (b) the end date of the unit's current contract and (c) the timetable for making decisions about the future of each unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Site visits to two of the units have already taken place. For the remaining 11 units, five site visits are taking place over the next four months. Dates for the final six site visits are to be arranged soon and are expected to be completed in March 1994.

  Current contract end dates for units are on the last day of month:

  Contract

  Date

  Childhood Cancer Research Group

  August 1994

  Medical Care Research Unit

  March 1995

  Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit

  May 1995

  National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit

  June 1995

  Centre for Primary Care Research

  June 1995

  Social Medicine and Health Services Research Unit

  July 1995

  Clinical Operational Research Unit

  September 1995

  National Institute for Social Work

  October 1995

  Personal Social Services Research Unit

  October 1995

  Social Policy Research Unit

  December 1995

  Centre for Health Economics

  January 1996

  Dartington Social Research Unit

  February 1996

  Thomas Coram Research Unit

  March 1996

  Decisions about the future of units will be announced once the series of site visits has been completed and following due discussion and full consideration. Earlier decisions may be required, depending on the particular circumstances of the unit.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to public funds of(a) publication, (b) conferences, (c) staff and (d) press liaison costs in connection with the paper. "The Health of the Nation".
  420
  Mr. Sackville
  Total costs of publicity and communications in connection with "The Health of the Nation" Green and White Papers are shown in the table:

  Year

  £'000s

  1991–92

  1,005

  1992–93

  2,680

  1993–94

  11,710

  1 budget estimate.

  This includes conference costs of £230,641 for 1991–92 and £568,885 for 1992–93.

  "The Health of the Nation" is an integral part of the work of the Department and the national health service. For this reason, it is not possible to separately identify staff and press liaison costs.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the assessed accuracy, expressed in percentage terms, of census figures relating to the size of the ethnic minority communities settled in the United Kingdom; and to what extent the census figures are believed to reflect the numbers of immigrants living illegally in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1991 census is estimated to have counted 98·1 per cent. of the resident population of Great Britain.

  No estimates are yet available of the coverage of particular ethnic groups in the census. Such estimates as are possible when the "Census Report for Great Britain on Ethnic Group and Country of Birth" is published in late summer will be included in that volume. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  The census validation survey for Great Britain, carried out soon after the census to help assess coverage and quality of census statistics, will provide some information on the accuracy of answers to the ethnic group question. Preliminary results on accuracy of answers will be published in an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys monitor in the autumn. A full report will be published in 1994.

  As the census contained no questions relating to nationality or immigration status, no information on these topics is available from the census.

  The 1991 census in Northern Ireland did not contain a question on ethnic group.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the distribution of average gross weekly earnings per person for each of the NHS clinical nursing and midwifery grades, listing the percentages of each grade earning under(a) £140, (b) £150, (c) £160, (d) £170, (e) £180, (f) £190, (g) £200, (h) £210, (i) £220, (j) £230, (k) £240, (l) £250, (m) £275, (n) £300 and (o) those earning £300 and over in 1991 and 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: The information is in the tables.
  421

  Percentage distribution of average weekly earnings per person for each of the national health service clinic nursing and midwifery grades

  Great Britain—Full-time staff

  1991–92

  Per cent.

  Clinical grade

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  I

  Under £140

  12·63

  8·85

  5·71

  6·33

  6·76

  5·72

  2·38

  2·89

  1·90

  £140 to £149

  8·42

  1·78

  0·81

  0·71

  0·70

  0·68

  0·31

  0·44

  0·02

  £150 to £159

  11·18

  2·99

  1·09

  0·76

  0·64

  0·62

  0·20

  0·34

  0·19

  £160 to £169

  11·12

  6·25

  1·28

  0·80

  0·62

  0·57

  0·33

  0·35

  0·23

  £170 to £179

  12·81

  7·28

  3·20

  0·91

  0·80

  0·52

  0·31

  0·50

  0·31

  £180 to £189

  11·42

  8·71

  5·67

  1·12

  0·88

  0·61

  0·29

  0·35

  0·15

  £190 to £199

  7·00

  10·00

  12·46

  2·62

  0·89

  0·54

  0·27

  0·29

  0·21

  £200 to £209

  5·67

  10·36

  13·51

  4·05

  0·87

  0·64

  0·33

  0·38

  0·21

  £210 to £219

  4·39

  9·15

  12·50

  8·56

  1·01

  0·75

  0·31

  0·47

  0·10

  £220 to £229

  2·47

  7·05

  12·57

  13·46

  1·96

  0·68

  0·34

  0·25

  0·13

  £230 to £239

  1·51

  6·20

  9·06

  13·12

  2·76

  0·67

  0·31

  0·32

  0·29

  £240 to £249

  0·94

  3·90

  4·69

  10·89

  4·90

  1·25

  0·40

  0·34

  0·27

  £250 to £274

  0·95

  3·85

  5·94

  14·14

  20·64

  4·82

  0·89

  1·03

  0·67

  £275 to £299

  0·46

  1·25

  2·49

  7·46

  21·03

  10·73

  2·55

  0·90

  0·71

  £300+

  9·05

  12·37

  9·01

  15·06

  35·55

  71·20

  90·79

  91·14

  94·59

  TOTAL1

  100·02

  99·99

  99·99

  99·99

  100·01

  99·96

  100·01

  99·99

  99·98

  1 Total percentage figures may not equal 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  1992–93

  Per cent.

  Clinical grade

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  I

  Under £140

  30·25

  14·28

  6·40

  6·95

  6·99

  5·97

  2·50

  3·35

  1·50

  £140 to £149

  9·40

  3·33

  1·96

  0·73

  0·62

  0·47

  0·29

  0·40

  0·22

  £150 to £159

  8·21

  3·88

  2·84

  1·10

  0·66

  0·53

  0·28

  0·44

  0·05

  £160 to £169

  8·43

  5·93

  6·78

  1·81

  0·71

  0·51

  0·32

  0·36

  0·30

  £170 to £179

  7·81

  6·48

  6·55

  2·90

  0·72

  0·58

  0·22

  0·48

  0·27

  £180 to £189

  6·70

  8·26

  7·36

  5·60

  0·91

  0·55

  0·22

  0·36

  0·19

  £190 to £199

  5·25

  7·33

  9·13

  7·33

  1·24

  0·57

  0·27

  0·41

  0·27

  £200 to £209

  4·36

  9·37

  10·68

  15·10

  6·11

  1·67

  0·54

  0·63

  0·27

  £210 to £219

  2·74

  6·98

  10·54

  8·08

  11·81

  2·87

  0·53

  0·66

  0·36

  £220 to £229

  2·49

  5·83

  6·88

  5·75

  12·45

  7·21

  1·65

  0·69

  0·44

  £230 to £239

  1·70

  4·07

  5·46

  6·51

  5·56

  8·98

  3·24

  1·03

  0·38

  £240 to £249

  0·93

  3·67

  4·60

  6·83

  3·70

  10·64

  14·13

  2·82

  0·30

  £250 to £274

  1·22

  3·23

  5·96

  11·14

  6·69

  5·98

  14·21

  14·49

  2·43

  £275 to £299

  0·40

  1·64

  3·20

  5·22

  11·32

  6·02

  7·66

  13·50

  4·48

  £300+

  10·10

  13·53

  11·63

  14·95

  30·51

  47·44

  53·92

  60·37

  68·51

  Total 1

  99·99

  100·01

  99·99

  100·00

  100·00

  99·99

  99·99

  99·99

  99·97

  1 Total percentage figures may not equal 100 per cent. due to rounding.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  HMSO
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the terms of reference of the imminent consultancy study of HMSO.

  Mr. David Davis
  I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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.
  422
  Mr. Waldegrave
  All such legal advice to my Department—including its agencies, HMSO and COI—has come from the Treasury Solicitor's Department at an estimated cost to date of £16,500.

TRANSPORT

  Road Freight
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the maximum road freight movements which the existing road system can accommodate; and if he will set targets for reducing such movements.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has made no estimates of the maximum road freight movement that can be accommodated on the existing road system, which would depend on assumptions about vehicles used, other traffic and many other variables.
  423
  He has no intention of setting targets for a reduction in such movements. It is to the advantage of the economy if generators of freight movement can choose the most appropriate mode for their purposes.

  Traffic Volume
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will consider setting targets for traffic flow reductions(a) within urban areas and (b) on inter-urban roads; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the initiatives he is assessing to reduce traffic flows and the use of private vehicles; and if he will set targets for each initiative.

  Mr. Key
  The Government set no targets for reducing traffic flows: it is for individuals and businesses to decide where and how to travel. Nevertheless, the Government do have a responsibility to ensure that, collectively, individual decisions do not have unacceptable consequences for the environment.

  Policies aimed at reducing congestion and the environmental impacts of traffic include:

  —measures to reduce harmful emissions from vehicles (particularly through requiring 3-way catalytic converters to be fitted to new cars);

  —the annual increases in fuel duty announced in the March budget;

  —the programme of research into road pricing in London;

  —high levels of investment in public transport;

  —assistance for local authorities in introducing traffic calming measures;

  —assistance for local authorities in developing strategies for urban areas, supported by investment in all forms of transport;

  —the recently issued draft planning policy guidance note (PPG 13) on reducing the need to travel;

  —investment in bypasses, included in the current roads programme.

  Traffic Growth
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what traffic growth forecasts have been made for(a) each region of England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland, for (i) the period 1993 to 2000 and (ii) periods beyond 2000.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend does not make forecasts for traffic growth for the regions of England. Forecasts are made for particular roads and areas as necessary when considering road schemes. The method used, which is described in the Department's "Traffic Appraisal Manual"—a copy of which is available in the Library—ensures that these scheme specific forecasts are consistent with the national road traffic forecasts. My right hon. Friend's responsibilities do not extend to Scotland and Wales.

  Rail Track (European Gauges)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the route mileage, listing the actual sections, of British Rail track capable of operating to western European or Berne loading gauges; and what studies of the extension of such mileage are under consideration; and along which routes.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no railways cleared to such loading gauges in the United Kingdom at present. Although there are no plans to upgrade existing British Rail track to European gauges, it is proposed that the channel tunnel rail link—68 route miles—should be built 424
  to the UIC B+ loading gauge. The merits of upgrading certain freight routes to an intermediate gauge are being discussed by British Rail and other interested parties.

  Driver Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he has to improve driver training and testing; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has to introduce compulsory or voluntary motorway training as part of a programme to improve driving standards; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he will issue a consultation paper on issuing a probationery driving licence after taking the driving test.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend is considering possible measures to reduce accidents involving new drivers and to improve their training and testing, and hopes to issue a consultation paper shortly.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.

  Mr. Norris
  Approximately £15,000 has been spent on external legal advice on the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations in the past year. Costs of in-house legal advice by activity is not separately recorded.

  Ships (Pollution Control)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his Department's programme of port inspection of ships, targeted on pollution control compliance; how many prosecutions the port inspection of ships has led to; and if he will give details of the offences which have been committed.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The United Kingdom has inspection programmes for both United Kingdom and foreign-registered ships which include the targeting of ships which may present a special hazard such as tankers. All ship types may be inspected for pollution control compliance as part of such an inspection. Port inspections have led to two successful prosecutions of ships in the last 12 months, both for deficiencies in safety equipment. However, detention has been found to be generally more effective than prosecution in securing early remedial action and can result in the ship owner incurring considerable financial penalties. Non-compliance with international safety and pollution prevention standards led to the detention in United Kingdom ports of 188 United Kingdom and foreign-registered ships during 1992.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of prosecutions that have taken place under the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Orders since 1988; and if he will give details of the fines imposed and the policing that enforces the regulations.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding reply 24 June 1993]: Since the regulations entered into force, one prosecution has been

  425
  instigated by my Department's marine pollution control unit. The vessel concerned was found guilty of the offence, fined £750 and ordered to pay £515 in costs. Further cases may have been brought by other authorities but records are not held centrally.

  My Department investigates reports of contravention of the regulations and recommends prosecution where it is considered there is adequate evidence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Inspection
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary met(a) the Atomic Energy Police Federation, (b) the British Transport Police Federation and (c) the Ministry of Defence Police Federation and the representative organisation of other ranks, without their management representatives being present on the occasion of his last inspection of the respective forces.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The British Transport police has its own inspector, separate from Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. The Atomic Energy police force and the Ministry of Defence police are inspected by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary by invitation. The conduct of the inspection is a matter for the HMI concerned.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether copies of reports of Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary are made available to the respective local police federation and representative organisations of other ranks.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Yes.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary has with respect to(a) the Royal Parks constabulary and (b) the Northern Ireland Airport police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary may inspect non-Home Office forces only by invitation.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to request Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary to meet local police federation and representatives of other ranks, without their management representatives being present, when he makes an inspection of a police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is the existing policy and practice to do so.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new methods his Department is proposing to deal more effectively into persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 2 March at columns 139–42, in which he announced the Government's intention to 426
  provide courts with a new sentence, provisionally entitled a secure training order, to assist them in dealing with persistent juvenile offenders aged 12 to 15. We will bring the necessary legislation before the House as soon as possible.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in enabling young people who have committed serious offences and represent a danger to the community to be named at an early stage.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are examining the current legislation closely to determine the extent of the present restrictions on publication in order to see what precise changes are necessary. We are determined to come forward with proposals as soon as possible with a view to introducing the necessary legislation in the next Session.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often, over the most recent period for which figures are available, courts have hound over the parents of(a) children under 16 years who have committed criminal offences and (b) 16 and 17-year-olds who have committed criminal offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1991 is given in the table. Data for 1992 will not be available until the autumn.

  Number of parents or guardians ordered to enter into a recognisance if juvenile found guilty of a criminal offence by age of juvenile, 1991 England and Wales

  Age of offender

  Number of parents or guardians

  10 to under 16 years

  3

  16 to under 18 years

  1

  Total under 18 years

  4

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the value of the assets seized from people convicted of drug offences in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  For information relating to England and Wales only, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 27 May at column 722.

  Similar information is not readily available for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women waiting for entry clearance visas for entry into the United Kingdom at high commission offices in Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka as of 1 June.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest available information for posts in Pakistan and India relates to 31 March 1993 and is given in the table. No information is available centrally on the gender of applicants.
  427

  Number of applicants for Entry Clearance Visas waiting for first interview at 31 March 1993

  Number of persons

  Settlement queues

  Bombay

  New Delhi

  Islamabad

  Madras

  Queue 1

  Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years old. special compassionate cases

  0

  0

  35

  —

  Queue 2

  Spouses, and children under 18 years old

  256

  337

  1,096

  —

  Queue 3

  Fiance(e)s and others applying for the first time for resettlement

  338

  183

  226

  —

  Queue 4

  Re-applicants

  246

  116

  865

  —

  Total

  840

  636

  2,222

  126

  1 Madras does not operate a separate queuing system.

  In Calcutta and Colombo, there are no applicants awaiting first interview. Information on the number of applicants in Karachi is not available centrally but all applicants are expected to receive a first interview within three weeks.

  Crime Prevention, Portsmouth
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific help his Department is giving to assist action against theft and vandalism through the use of video cameras to assist in crime prevention in Portsmouth.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No specific assistance has been given to Portsmouth. But the Home Office crime prevention centre gives practical advice to all police forces on the use of closed circuit television as a crime prevention measure and the police research group has published an evaluation of the effectiveness of CCTV in car parks which has been sent to all police forces.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's response to the third report of Session 1992–93 from the Home Affairs Committee on domestic violence (HC 245).

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's reply to this report which is being published today as Command Paper 2269. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Chinese Refugees
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Chinese nationals are now political refugees in the United Kingdom arising from the Tiananmen square demonstrations: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is that in the period 4 June 1989 to 31 December 1992 a total of 115 Chinese nationals—excluding dependants—who had applied for asylum in the United Kingdom were recognised as refugees and granted asylum here. In addition, 95 Chinese nationals—excluding dependants—who had applied for asylum were not recognised as 428
  refugees but were granted exceptional leave. At 31 December 1992, about 600 applications for asylum by Chinese nationals—excluding dependants—were awaiting a decision.

  Also, as at end January 1993, an estimated 900 Chinese nationals—excluding dependants—had been allowed to remain in the United Kingdom on an exceptional basis without applying for asylum, under the arrangements announced in June 1989 for those in the United Kingdom on 4 June 1989 and who were unwilling to return to China for the time being.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since November 1991 all legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1988 for the Home Office market-testing programme has been obtained from Home Office legal advisers. It is not possible to isolate the cost of this advice.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the Sheehy report he proposes to supply free of charge to the Superintendents Association of England and Wales, on publication of the report.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Sixty.

  Immigration Statistics
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dependants have been admitted for settlement in each of the past 25 years from(a) Africa, (b) the Indian sub-continent, (c) the rest of Asia, (d) the Caribbean and (f) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the total numbers of spouses and dependants for settlement in the United Kingdom in the years of 1974 to 1992 is given in table 14 of Home Office Command Paper "Control of
  429
  Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1984", table 9 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1991" and table 3 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 14/93 "Control of Immigration Statistics-Third and Fourth Quarters and Year 1992". Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  A breakdown by the nationality regions requested of acceptances of spouses and children in the years 1981 to

  Acceptance for settlement of spouses and children by geographical region, 1982–1992

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Geographical region

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Africa

  2,570

  3,000

  3,100

  3,400

  2,950

  3,760

  4,290

  4,420

  6,450

  7,500

  6,540

  Indian sub-continent

  17,230

  14,380

  12,900

  15,310

  12,360

  9,580

  9,930

  9,530

  10,360

  11,190

  11,820

  Remainder of Asia

  4,670

  5,330

  5,180

  5,340

  5,150

  5,470

  5,510

  5,290

  6,560

  7,050

  6,530

  Caribbean countries2

  400

  490

  490

  600

  650

  710

  830

  640

  1,120

  1,640

  1,400

  Rest of the world

  9,940

  11,240

  11,630

  11,750

  10,080

  10,710

  10,530

  8,630

  11,370

  12,310

  11,440

  Total (all nationalities)3

  34,810

  34,440

  33,300

  36,400

  31,190

  30,230

  31,090

  28,510

  35,860

  39,690

  37,730

  1Provisional.

  2Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and (for 1982 and 1983 only) West Indian Associated States. Information for other Caribbean countries is not separately identifiable in the statistics and is contained in the figures for "Rest of the world".

  3The fall in acceptances after 1985 and 1988, and part of the increase in 1990 and 1991 reflects the temporary effect, and subsequent unwinding, of the introduction in 1985 and extension in 1988 of the requirement that wives serve a probationary year prior to settlement. Acceptances from 1986 were also reduced by an estimated 1,200–3,000 a year as a result of a determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal that those who apply for settlement but have the right of abode should be given a certificate or confirmation of that right instead of an entry clearance.

  Hong Kong
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made to allow applicants for British national (overseas) status in Hong Kong to continue to hold a British dependent territories citizen passport when they are registered as British national (overseas) status.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have agreed with the Hong Kong Government that the following arrangements will come into effect on 1 July:

  (i) A person registered as a British national (Overseas) (BN(O)) who has a British dependent territories citizen (BDTC) passport which is valid until 30 June 1997 may retain it when issued with his BN(O) passport.

  (ii) A BN(O) applicant who wishes to have a new BDTC passport as well as a BN(O) passport must pay the prescribed fees for both the BDTC and BN(O) passports.

  (iii) The fee for a BDTC passport will be the same for all applicants regardless of when the passport is issued.

  (iv) An existing BN(O) who gave up his BDTC passport when registering as a BN(O) and who wishes to re-acquire a BDTC passport may do so on payment of the appropriate BDTC passport fee.

  All BDTC passports will, of course, expire on 30 June 1997.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  1992 is given in the table. Breakdowns are by region of acceptances of other dependants, and of spouses and children.
  The numbers of spouses and dependants accepted in the years 1968 to 1973 are not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Viral Hepatitis

  Dysentery

  1988

  527

  58

  1989

  402

  375

  1990

  313

  51

  1991

  440

  66

  1992

  304

  174

  Hepatitis and Dysentery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of(a)viral hepatitis and(b)dysentery have been reported in each regional health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:
  430

  11-plus Examination
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates the 11-plus examination will be held this year; what provision has been made for trial examination papers to be available; what guidelines primary school teachers have received for this examination; how parents of children for this examination have been kept advised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The transfer procedure tests will he held on 15 October and 26 November 1993. Practice tests will not be issued to schools. A specimen paper was issued to all schools on 27 April to give an indication of the variety and type of questions which may appear in the main tests; a further batch of sample questions will be issued to schools at the beginning of September. The tests will be based on the programmes of study for English, mathematics and science which schools have peen required to follow since 1990.

  Schools were notified of the test arrangements by circular on 17 February 1993; further details were given in a circular on 27 April which accompanied the specimen paper and in a further circular on 22 June. Copies of an information leaflet about the new tests have been sent to all primary schools for distribution to the parents of all pupils eligible to take the tests in the autumn. I am satisfied that schools have sufficient information to enable them to prepare pupils adequately for the tests.
  431

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  During the period of the market-testing programme identified in the citizens charter White Paper last November, some £400 has been spent on legal advice from the private sector on the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations for the market-testing programme. It is not possible to identify separately the cost advice provided by in-house legal advisers during the same period.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were registered as disabled in Northern Ireland on the most recent date for which this information is available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Terry Davis, dated 28 June 1993:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were registered disabled in Northern Ireland on the most recent date for which this information is available.

  The Secretary of State has passed your question to me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, for reply.

  The latest date for which the information you require is available is 25 June 1993 when the number of people on the Register of Disabled Persons was 10,180.

SCOTLAND

  HIV
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will review the level of funding for non-statutory providers of education about HIV risks;

  (2) what information he has on the resources allocated to counselling people who are HIV positive;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the current strategy for HIV prevention; and if he will hold discussions on the subject with relevant groups;

  (4) whether he will fund research into the effectiveness of current education strategies aimed at decreasing the risk of HIV infection;

  (5) whether he will review existing mainstream health education on HIV with a view to targeting gay men more effectively.

  Table 1: Notifications of Bacillary Dysentery

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Scotland

  196

  154

  235

  1,526

  3,486

  Argyll and Clyde

  16

  7

  13

  12

  57

  Ayrshire and Arran

  7

  3

  7

  51

  306

  Borders

  10

  7

  2

  3

  25

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  2

  —

  80

  20

  432
  Mr. Stewart
  The prevention of HIV and AIDS was identified as a priority in the national policy statement "Health Education in Scotland" published in March 1991. Later that year, a ministerial task force was set up to consider how current prevention initiatives could be further developed and enhanced. The task force report, "Prevention the Key", was published in 1992 and its wide-ranging recommendations are now being implemented.

  The task force recognised the invaluable contribution made by voluntary organisations in providing educational information on the risks of HIV and in providing support to those infected and affected by HIV or AIDS. Grants are made to voluntary bodies under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 for HIV and AIDS services and/or initiatives. Planned expenditure for such purposes in 1993–94 by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department amounts to £154,000, 7 per cent. more than in 1992–93.

  The task force report stressed the importance of prevention initiatives among gay men and this continues to be one of the themes of public education campaigns. The report also underlined the need for evaluation strategies and the AIDS Prevention Co-ordinating Group for Scotland (APCGS), set up in November 1992 in accordance with a recommendation of the task force, has been paying particular regard to the effectiveness of current strategies and discussing ideas for new prevention initiatives. The APCGS includes health board and local authority representation and representatives from the voluntary sector, the Health Education Board for Scotland and the police and prison services.

  NHS Reforms
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the cost to date of implementing NHS reforms.

  Mr. Stewart
  No details of actual expenditure by health boards on the NHS reforms are held centrally. However, an extra £121 million has been allocated to boards, in the four years since 1990–91, to help meet any additional costs incurred. This amounts to about 1 per cent. of health board expenditure over this period. The considerable benefits for patient care flowing from the reforms support the Government's investment in them.

  Hepatitis and Dysentery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of(a) viral hepatitis and (b) dysentery have been reported in each health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The numbers of cases of viral hepatitis and bacillary dysentery, notified by health board area since 1988, are set out in the tables.
  433

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Fife

  8

  16

  5

  111

  439

  Forth Valley

  6

  13

  76

  51

  52

  Grampian

  18

  11

  11

  16

  387

  Greater Glasgow

  32

  31

  50

  778

  702

  Highland

  3

  5

  2

  11

  14

  Lanarkshire

  27

  21

  15

  115

  241

  Lothian

  47

  34

  37

  266

  753

  Orkney

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Shetland

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  18

  2

  16

  32

  489

  Western Isles

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Table 2: Notifications of Viral Hepatitis

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Scotland

  848

  831

  546

  556

  319

  Argyll and Clyde

  14

  23

  20

  13

  13

  Ayrshire and Arran

  35

  26

  60

  100

  34

  Borders

  9

  2

  2

  21

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  —

  4

  —

  24

  Fife

  39

  17

  26

  9

  21

  Forth Valley

  18

  11

  5

  7

  7

  Grampian

  31

  46

  51

  55

  21

  Greater Glasgow

  135

  142

  175

  224

  99

  Highland

  14

  18

  10

  17

  5

  Lanarkshire

  26

  16

  28

  12

  10

  Lothian

  448

  364

  78

  75

  69

  Orkney

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  68

  166

  86

  19

  12

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Mr. Lang
  Legal advice on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations in relation to market testing has been provided by my Department's own in-house legal advisers. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of this advice from the totality of their legal advice on all market-testing matters.

  Tourism
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the review of tourism support arrangements in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The tourism review shows that Scottish tourism is in good heart and eager to work at an evolving partnership. The Minister with responsibility for tourism at the Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), will ensure that this is achieved.

  Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend, the composition of the Scottish tourism co-ordinating group will be reviewed and strengthened. It will supervise the preparation of a national strategic plan for Scottish tourism covering business development as well as marketing. The preparation of this plan will be the responsibility of the Scottish tourist board, working in close collaboration with Scottish Enterprise and
  434
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The plan will be put into effect by all three national bodies and will provide a framework for co-operation at local level between business interests, area tourist boards, local enterprise companies and the local authorities. The preparation of effective local strategies will be facilitated. In this way the public sector will help the Scottish tourist industry to forge a strong new sense of purpose.

  At the national level the arrangements for supporting Scottish tourism will be clarified. As from 1 April 1994 responsibility for tourism marketing and for area tourist board support will be consolidated in the Scottish tourist board. Also from this date business development activities will he consolidated in the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks. STB's activities under the section 4 scheme of capital assistance will be phased out. As from the date of this announcement no further formal applications for assistance will he accepted. Resources will be transferred to reflect these adjusted responsibilities. In terms of public expenditure the effect will be neutral.

  Collaboration among the national agencies will he underpinned by suitable appointments at board level. Arrangements for consulting the tourist industry will be improved by strengthening the Scottish Confederation of Tourism. As part of the "Scotland in the Union" initiative, the Scottish tourist board will establish, by 1 April 1995, a substantial office presence in Inverness and make compensating reductions in staffing levels in Edinburgh, which will remain the head office.

  As facilitators, providers of infrastructure and operators of tourist attractions, Scottish local authorities will remain major partners in the tourist industry. The proposed legislation for restructuring local government in Scotland will contain a statutory obligation on councils to

  435
  participate in the formation of area tourist boards, the number of which will be greatly reduced. It will also provide a power to make an order defining the boundaries of area tourist boards. The Scottish tourist board will be responsible for consulting local authorities and other interests and for advising me on the most suitable future area tourist board structure, which will cover the whole of Scotland.

  The proposed legislation will provide a duty on local authorities, where they wish to market their areas as tourist destinations and provide services to visitors, to do so only through an area tourist board. Area tourist boards will be required to co-ordinate overseas activities with those of the Scottish tourist board. In order to encourage further evolution of industry involvement in area tourist boards, the proposed legislation will provide that on executive committees, the members representing trade interests shall be in a majority. My hon. Friend will consider ways of strengthening local authority and area tourist board involvement in the development of tourism policy at the national level.

  Overall these changes build on the Scottish tourist industry's strengths, especially its understanding of the need for effective partnerships. They will eliminate the present duplication of effort identified by many who responded to the tourism review. The improved arrangements will help ensure the continued profitability and competitiveness of an industry which has a world-wide reputation for quality, friendliness and good service. My colleagues and I are grateful to all those who contributed to the tourism review with their time and ideas.

  Health Service Costs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what the total budget for the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland region blood donor centre was in each of the past 10 years;
  436
  (2) what the total budget for the protein fractionation centre in Scotland was in each of the past 10 years;

  (3) what the total budget for the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland region regional centre at the Royal Infirmary was in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: The information available relates to expenditure and is as follows:

  South East Regional Transfusion Centre

  Expenditure

  Year ended

  Revenue

  Capital

  31 March

  £

  £

  1983

  2,452,659

  n/a

  1984

  2,822,873

  10,459

  1985

  2,951,939

  206,018

  1986

  3,227,797

  238,905

  1987

  3,274,916

  111,652

  1988

  3,586,185

  233,812

  1989

  3,798,245

  230,366

  1990

  4,013,776

  732,161

  1991

  4,241,865

  618,422

  1992

  4,920,147

  857,856

  Note:—Separate figures for the Edinburgh and South East Scotland Region Blood Donor Centre are not available. The expenditure is included in the above figures.

  Protein Fractionation Centre

  Expenditure

  Year ended

  Revenue

  Capital

  31 March

  £

  £

  1983

  2,065,563

  n/a

  1984

  2,190,680

  242,520

  1985

  2,339,254

  756,928

  1986

  2,700,728

  716,656

  1987

  2,855,554

  278,090

  1988

  3,239,405

  647,205

  1989

  3,284,053

  531,563

  1990

  3,667,996

  1,315,526

  1991

  4,081,428

  978,776

  1992

  4,459,572

  2,505,399

  437

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  RECHAR
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department has made to extract funds from the European Commission to enable the RECHAR 2 programme to go ahead on 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  RECHAR has been one of 14 Community initiatives under the European structural funds. The future of these Community initiatives as a whole is at present under discussion in the Council in Brussels.

  Contact Lens Cleaners
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to encourage the provision of more sales outlets for cleaning and soaking solutions for contact lenses.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This is already the Government's policy. A recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report recommended, among other things, that the retailing of contact lens solutions—CLS—should be opened to all retailers who wished to sell them, subject to satisfying standards for storage and product recall. As I announced on 27 May, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has decided, following recent independent expert advice, that the existing rules restricting retail sales of CLS to opticians and pharmacies could be relaxed without any increased risk to health. Companies may now apply for appropriate changes to their product licences to permit supply of CLS via general sales outlets, such as supermarkets.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade receives a wide range of representations on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry. The competitive position of United Kingdom industry has strengthened considerably in the 12 months to April this year, during which period manufacturing productivity has increased by nearly 8 per cent.

  Assisted Areas
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) of 17 June,Official Report, column 715, what response he has had from the European Commission to his proposals for a new assisted areas map.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 25 June,Official Report, columns 293–94

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.
  438
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department is committed to purchasing recycled paper and recycling paper stationery products, wherever possible; installing energy efficient lighting wherever practicable; and reducing the use of tropical hardwoods where possible in the Department's building works and furniture, making every effort to ensure that, when tropical hardwoods are used, they come from sustainable sources. All new petrol cars purchased have catalytic converters fitted. The Department's green housekeeping strategy does not at present cover the use of peat; however, this will be kept under review.

  Accounting Firms
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the introduction of legislation debarring firms of accountants who have prepared a report on a business from accepting a commission for a receivership consequent upon such a report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have considered carefully the arguments both for and against investigating accountants being debarred from taking subsequent insolvency appointments and I am not convinced that the practice should be proscribed.

  House Insurance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has of the increases in insurance premiums for home(a) buildings and (b) contents policies in each of the last five years, and in the current year; what are those figures deflated by the retail prices index; and what estimates he has of the number of householders or occupiers who do not have (i) buildings and (ii) contents insurance.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department does not collect data on premium levels. The individual components of the retail prices index relating to buildings and contents insurance are not published separately. The latest family expenditure survey figures indicate that 24·1 per cent. of households are not holders of household contents insurance policies and 37·9 per cent. are not holders of building insurance polices.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of his Department's consultation on deregulation opportunities conducted with seven buisness sectors; and if he will indicate the environmental areas which will be affected by deregulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The seven sectoral deregulation task forces are still examining the impact of regulation on business and have not yet made recommendations.

  Nuclear Power Industry
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will include nuclear waste management, decommissioning of plants, financial controls and United Kingdom Government cover of future liabilities within the terms of reference of his review of the future of the United Kingdom nuclear power industry; and if he will make a statement.
  439
  Mr. Eggar
  The timing and scope of the review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom are under consideration within Government. A further announcement will be made in due course.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to underpin the future of the 12 pits of which he announced the reprieve on 29 March; if he will make a statement about the future of each of these 12 pits; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the most recent guidelines he has given British Coal and the generators about the level of strategic reserve coal stocks and the rate at which these are being drawn down.

  Mr. Eggar
  Decisions about the future of individual collieries are a matter for British Coal, after consultation with the unions. However, the Government have offered a subsidy to both British Coal and private sector coal producers that can secure a genuinely additional market for United Kingdom undergound coal for electricity generation at world-related prices where this is consistent with the relevant European Community provisions.

  I understand British Coal is continuing to test the market for supplementary sales.

  Guidance on the level of coal stocks for 1993–94 based on an analysis by the National Grid Company was given to the generators in March. It contains commercially confidential information which it would not be appropriate to make public. This guidance will remain in force pending the outcome of the Government's review of the basis for the current arrangements, which was announced in the White Paper, "The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review".

  Exports
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of United Kingdom manufacturing exports were accounted for by internal company trading in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made of the number of new jobs achieved through inward investment in(a) the past five years and (b) the preceding five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau has been notified of 1,411 inward investment decisions between 1982 and 1986 with 95,035 new jobs created. Similarly, between 1987 and 1991 there were 1,696 decisions, creating 129,955 new jobs. These figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. They take no account of subsequent developments.
  440

  Plutonium 240
  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department takes to monitor the end-use of plutonium 240 exported overseas.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: A licence is required for the export of plutonium-240. The Government take into account end-use and destination in assessing a licence application.

  Plutonium-240 is not classified as a special fissionable material. However, materials containing plutonium-240 are associated with other isotopes of plutonium which are subject to safeguards. Such materials would therefore come under the oversight of the international safeguards authorities.

  National Environmental Technology Centre
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 10 June to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan),Official Report, columns 303–04, if he will outline the environmental research work he expects the national environmental technology centre to conduct for the Government.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 21 June, Official Report, column 23

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the forward corporate plan from BNFL covering the next 15 years as submitted to his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: No.

  Assisted Areas
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings he had with the European Commission prior to the submission of the assisted areas map on 15 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not met the commission to discuss the assisted areas map. Officials from the DTI held informal meetings with commission officials prior to the submission of the proposed map on 15 June.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names. occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments; and if he will list details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of Public Bodies 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: There would be disproportionate cost involved in providing the names, occupations and current employers of all the Department's public appointees. The key considerations taken into

  441
  account in making public appointments, in addition to any statutory criteria which may relate to a particular post, are the needs of the post and the skills of the particular individual. The following table indicates the current

  Posts

  Body

  Chairman

  Deputy, etc.

  Members

  Notes

  Nationalised industries

  British Shipbuilders

  1, £17,368

  —

  2, £5,000 and under

  No change

  British Coal Corporation1

  1, £234,360

  2, £110,000*

  4, £95,000*

  *Plus performance related bonus (currently under review) of up to 25 per cent, of salary

  £93,744*

  £88,536*

  £85,000*

  5, under £8,000

  British Nuclear Fuels plc1

  1, £85,300* *

  1, £100,000–£105,000* *

  1, £145,000* *

  One member is a Chief Executive.

  1, £135,000* *

  1, £115,000* *

  * * The Chairman and full-time Board Members receive performance related bonus of up to 30 per cent, of salary

  1, £100,000–£105,000* *

  1, £80,000–£85,000* *

  5, £10,000

  Nuclear Electric plc1

  1. £150,925+

  1, £160,000+

  6, £10,015

  No change.

  1. £145,777+

  +A performance related bonus of up to 30 per cent. of salary is available

  1, £95,000+

  1, £85,000+

  1, £81,505+

  Post Office

  1, £91,500‡

  1, £58,662‡

  1, £175,001–£180,000‡

  ‡Plus performance related bonus of up to 40 per cent, of salary

  1, £100,001–£105,000‡

  2, £95,001–£100,000‡

  1, £15,001–£20,000

  1, £10,001–£15,000

  2, £5,001–£10,000

  1Transferred from Department of Energy to Department of Trade and Industry in April 1992.

  Posts

  Body

  Chairman

  Deputy, etc.

  Members

  Notes

  Consumer consultative bodies

  Advisory Committees on Telecommunications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  3, £60 per day

  —

  34

  Area Transport Users" Consultative Committees

  8, £6,310

  8

  118

  Central Transport Consultative Committee

  1, £7,910

  1

  12

  Domestic Coal Consumers' Council

  1, £60 per day

  1

  10

  Gas Consumers' Council

  1, £14,150

  1, £6,730

  11, £5,300

  5

  London Regional Passengers' Committee

  1, £11,010

  2

  20

  National Consumer Council

  [1, £43·90 per day]

  1, £12,720

  16, £4,730

  1, £19,905

  25, £72 per day

  2, £4,730

  Post Office Users' National Council

  1, £10,610

  —

  16

  Post Office Users' Councils for Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland

  3, £60 per day

  —

  29

  No change

  Square brackets denote an appointment by others.

  Posts

  Body

  Chairman

  Deputy, etc.

  Members

  Notes

  Executive, etc. bodies

  British Hallmarking Council

  [1, £5,750]

  —

  10. [6]

  No change

  National Enterprise Board1

  1

  —

  6

  No change

  National Research Development Corporation

  —

  6

  No change

  442
  position in relation to those bodies where posts or salaries have changed since I September 1992. In addition, various allowances are paid to cover travel and subsistence and other costs in some cases.
  443

  Posts

  Body

  Chairman

  Deputy, etc.

  Members

  Notes

  Design Council

  —

  1

  21

  English Industrial Estates Corporation (EIEC)

  1. £25,315

  1, £9,648

  4, £5,220

  12

  Hearing Aid Council

  1

  —

  12

  No change

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  1, £90,150+

  3, £31,625

  28, £12,7353

  +Full-time appointment

  5, £12,7354

  Policyholders' Protection Board

  1. £350 per day

  —

  4, £230 per day4

  No change

  The Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  1

  [1]

  1, £51,540‡[9]

  No change.

  ‡Full-time appointment

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority5

  1, £55,640

  1, £104,000+*

  3, £83,200

  + Full-time appointment

  5, £7,570

  *Chief Executive

  1The figures reflect the privatisation (January 1992) and the subsequent sale (March 1992) of BTG and the continued existence of the NEB and NRDC Board to facilitate orderly winding up.

  2ElEC's Chief Executive.

  3Including eight reserve members paid only when serving on references.

  4Including one reserve member paid only when serving as a reference.

  5Transferred from Department of Energy to Department of Trade and Industry in April 1992. Square brackets denote an appointment by others.

  Square brackets denote an appointment by others

  Posts

  Body

  Chairman

  Deputy, etc.

  Members

  Notes

  Advisory bodies

  Advanced Manufacturing Technology Committee

  1

  —

  11

  No change

  Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law

  1

  1

  16

  No change

  Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for England

  1, £60 per day

  —

  9

  No change

  Advisory Council of Research and Development1

  1

  —

  10

  Advisory Panel on Deregulation

  1

  —

  7

  Aviation Committee

  1

  —

  14

  No change

  British Overseas Trade Board

  1. £19,985

  1

  18

  Coal Task Force1

  1

  —

  14

  Engineering Technology Advisory Committee

  1

  —

  14

  Industrial Development Advisory Board

  1

  —

  10

  No change

  Information Technology Advisory Board

  1

  —

  15

  No change

  Innovation Advisory Board

  1

  —

  10

  LINK Steering Group

  1

  —

  7

  Monitoring Committee on Misleading Price Indications

  1

  —

  [30]

  No change

  Offshore Industry Advisory Board1

  1

  —

  23

  Overseas Projects Board

  1

  —

  14

  Regional Industrial Developments Boards

  5

  —

  47

  No change

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee1

  1

  —

  15

  No change

  Standards, Quality and Measurement Advisory Committee

  1

  —

  12

  No change

  444 445

  Posts

  Body

  Chairman

  Deputy, etc.

  Members

  Notes

  Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property

  1

  —

  [17]

  No change

  1Transferred from Department of Energy to Department of Trade and industry in April 1992.

  Square brackets denote an appointment by others.

  posts

  Body

  Chairman

  Deputy, etc.

  Members

  Notes

  Tribunals, etc.

  Copyright Tribunal

  1, £300 per day*

  2

  7, £177 per day*

  *Appointed from a panel of 3 chairpersons and 7 members

  Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal

  1, £10 per day* *

  —

  2, £16 per day* *

  * * Appointed from a panel consisting of 5 chairpersons and 16 members

  Persons Hearing Consumer Credit Licensing Appeals

  1, £221 per day+

  —

  2, £113perday+

  +Appointed from a panel of 21 chairpersons and 12 members

  Persons Hearing Estate Agents Appeals

  1, £221 per day ‡

  —

  2. £113perday‡

  ‡Appointed from a panel of 14 chairpersons and 18 members

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has not yet finalised the formulation of its environmental policy. None the less, where possible we are practising the policy in anticipation of its formal introduction. The majority of the Department's staff have recently moved into a new central headquarters building and we have adopted the following practices with regard to the items mentioned:

  (a) Recycled paper—Recycled paper is used wherever possible. Our bulk supply of white A4 paper and our letterheaded paper arc all recycled.

  (b) Low-energy light bulbs—Low-energy light bulbs have been installed in the new headquarters building. Automatic presence detectors ensure that no lights are left on unnecessarily.

  (c) Tropical Hardwoods—No tropical hardwoods or woods from unreplenished forests have been used in fitting out the new headquarters.

  (d) Peat—Use of peat or similar substances is minimal at our headquaters building, as we have no grounds. A total volume of only 3,000 litres (approximately) of potting mixture is used for live plant displays within the offices and the compost used is a mixture containing part moss peat.

  (e) Cars—The Department does not purchase any cars and relies on the Government car service for its needs.

  The Department has two agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces agency and the Royal Parks, which follow environmental guidelines for making the most efficient and economic use of the resources under their control. Recycled paper and low-energy light bulbs are used wherever possible. Tropical hardwoods are not used in furniture purchased by the agencies. English oak is used wherever possible for garden furniture at the royal palaces.
  446
  Both agencies are committed to reducing the use of peat by replacing it with alternative formulations wherever possible. The Historic Royal Palaces agency does not purchase any cars. From 1995 a new vehicle hire contract will require all royal parks and royal parks constabulary vehicles to be fitted with catalytic converters whenever possible.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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.

  Mr. Sproat
  Nothing.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement on the European Council in Copenhagen of 23 June,Official Report, columns 309–10, what were the main elements of the Commission paper on information disclosure and transparency discussed at the Council; and what was the policy position advanced by the United Kingdom on openness during the Council deliberations on the Commission's proposals.

  The Prime Minister
  The main points of the Commission's paper are:

  —a positive assessment of progress since Birmingham,/ Edinburgh;

  —suggestions for future activity, including follow-up to the Sutherland report on the single market (which addressed the need to ensure its effectiveness, for example through better explanation of the legislation and its rationale) and simplification of Community legislation to reduce burdens on business;

  —the possibility of a round table meeting with regional/local authorities and NG0s;

  —the need for a more responsive and effective Commission information/press service;

  447

  —a request to member states to improve openness at national level about the implementation of Community policies;

  —the idea of an inter-institutional agreement on access to information.

  At Copenhagen, we welcomed the progress made since the Edinburgh European Council, in opening up the work of the Council of Ministers, had emphasised the importance of continuing work in this area, including on the Commission's proposals for granting public access to information held by the Community's institutions.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to propose at the July summit of the G7 nations steps to ensure compliance with, and full implementation of, the Trinidad terms in relation to African poverty and debt; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The summit agenda is a matter for the Japanese. But we hope debt of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries will be one of the central issues for discussion at the summit. Our position on Trinidad terms for these countries is well known. I shall certainly continue to press for full Trinidad terms, in line with my original proposal for a benchmark of two thirds immediate reduction on the whole stock of debt, with up to 80 per cent. reduction for those in the greatest need.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to convene a special EC Heads of Government meeting to consider emergency financial and other assistance to Croatia and Slovenia to support refugees in both countries and to review the EC refugee burden sharing arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Community has, since the beginning of the crisis in former Yugoslavia, made available £397 million for humanitarian relief. This includes a £119 million contribution at the end of last month. The United Kingdom has given a further £44·5 million bilaterally. Both these figures include substantial grants to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee—UNHCR. UNHCR will hold a donor meeting in mid-July to consider future needs.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what further financial and other assistance European Community countries are proposing to make available to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia to support refugees and displaced persons; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will chair a meeting of donors in mid-July in Geneva. That meeting will focus on the latest detailed analysis of the needs of displaced people and others affected by the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, including Slovenia and Croatia. The acceptance of refugees and displaced people from the former Yugoslavia is the subject of frequent discussion between EC member states but at present there are no formal burden-sharing arrangements.
  448

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of his Departments on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Sir John Cope
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments all pursue a policy of green housekeeping. In respect of the items referred to:

  (a) where possible and cost effective, recycled paper is used;

  (b) low-energy light bulbs are already in use or are being progressively installed in all Departments;

  (c) where technically feasible, tropical hardwoods will not be used;

  (d) peat is not used by several Departments; advice on avoiding the use of peat will be issued by others;

  (e) some Departments already use cars with catalytic converters and in future all cars purchased or leased will have catalytic converters where practicable.

  Departmental Speeches
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to place copies of speeches given by officials of his Department and the Inland Revenue in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Officials in the Treasury and the Inland Revenue make a large number of speeches in the course of a year, many on subjects of interest only to a small number. However if a Member expresses interest in a particular speech that is on the record, a copy can then be placed in the Library.

  Unit Trusts
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the direct revenue effect in the years 1993–94 and 1994–95 of the announcements(a) that unit trust managers will be allowed to stream income which they receive and pay to corporate unit holders as between franked and unfranked income and (b) that there will be legislation to allow unit trusts to pay interest and other unfranked income gross to non-UK residents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated costs of the proposals are in the table.
  449

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) Unit trust dividends received by companies to be divided into franked and unfranked components

  10

  25

  (b) Distributions out of underlying interest income of unit trusts to be paid gross to certain non-UK residents

  nil

  negligible

  Note: The position regarding unfranked income other than interest paid to non-UK residents is not yet settled.

  Finance Industry (Debt)
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of(a) general and (b) specific provision for debt, as classified by the Inland Revenue, in the hank, finance and insurance sector for each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret the information requested is not available.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have been employed at the Inland Revenue on tax compliance work in connection with the corporation tax liabilities of banks and the finance sector in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to combat tax evasion in the construction industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Improvements to the existing tax regime in the construction industry are currently under consideration, as part of our commitment to tackling tax evasion wherever it arises.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to lower the VAT registration threshold to nil turnover for businesses in the Construction industry.

  Sir John Cope
  None.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the value added tax arrangements for the construction industry in order to reduce evasion; and if he will make a statement.

  Year

  PAYE amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total PAYE collected

  Classes 1 and 1A NIC—amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total NIC classes 1 and 1A collected

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  9,914

  0·05

  1,056

  0·01

  1981

  11,432

  0·08

  1,158

  0·01

  1982

  15,281

  0·06

  1,261

  0·01

  1983

  22,622

  0·08

  1,555

  0·01

  1984

  33,312

  0·11

  1,971

  0·01

  1985

  46,695

  0·14

  2,213

  0·01

  1986

  60,915

  0·17

  4,377

  0·02

  1987

  92,560

  0·25

  8,514

  0·03

  1988

  130,724

  0·33

  15,894

  0·06

  450
  Sir John Cope
  There are no plans to introduce special VAT arrangements in the construction industry. However, Customs and Excise seek to minimize evasion as a matter of course.

  VAT
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to simplify the VAT regime.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government keep the VAT system under regular review, in consultation with the relevant trade and professional bodies. Improvements proposed in the last Budget include the reform of VAT penalties and default surcharge, halving the qualifying period for claiming had debt relief, and increasing the turnover threshold for using the cash accounting scheme to £350,000.

  In addition, Customs and Excise have embarked on a deregulation five-year rolling review or VAT law and administrative procedures with the aim of making VAT more user-friendly. Trade and professional bodies have been invited to identify areas in which there is scope for simplification.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is is estimate of the total official revenue that will accrue to the Exchequer in a full year by imposing VAT at the rate of 5 per cent. on the goods and services described in categories 1, 6, and 8 of annex A of directive 92/77/EEC.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: Estimates of VAT revenue that would occur in a full year from a 5 per cent. rate are as follows:

  £ million

  Food

  2,000

  Books, newspapers and magazines

  300

  Artist royalties

  —50

  These estimates are for 1992–93 and make no allowance for behavioural change.

  Uncollected Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected PAYE and national insurance contributions deducted but not paid over to the Revenue, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of PAYE and NIC remitted or written off as irrecoverable since 1979 are as follows:
  451

  Year

  PAYE amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total PAYE collected

  Classes 1 and 1A NIC—amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total NIC classes 1 and 1A collected

  1989

  122,890

  0·28

  15,127

  0·05

  1990

  107,091

  0·22

  17,239

  0·05

  1991

  135,258

  0·26

  21,644

  0·06

  1992

  381,172

  0·71

  32,570

  0·09

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected capital gains tax, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of capital gains tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Amounts in thousands

  As a percentage of total CGT collected

  1979

  15,182

  0·51

  1980

  3,591

  0·71

  1981

  2,734

  0·60

  1982

  4,868

  0·78

  1983

  6,496

  1·01

  1984

  5,998

  0·84

  1985

  7,562

  0·93

  1986

  10,064

  0·99

  1987

  8,822

  0·79

  1988

  12,680

  0·80

  1989

  10,864

  0·47

  1990

  12,002

  0·64

  1991

  29,721

  1·58

  1992

  57,836

  4·69

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected schedule D tax, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of schedule D tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Amounts in Thousands

  As a percentage of total Schedule D collected

  1979

  N/A

  N/A

  1980

  33,081

  0·79

  1981

  41,552

  0·75

  1982

  52,763

  0·84

  1983

  68,536

  1·04

  1984

  91,229

  1·32

  1985

  90,196

  1·18

  1986

  124,297

  1·29

  1987

  133,878

  1·88

  1988

  252,424

  3·06

  1989

  242,024

  2·53

  1990

  254,989

  2·35

  1991

  383,566

  3·17

  1992

  703,422

  5·16

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected corporation tax, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of corporation tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable since 1979 are as follows:
  452

  Year

  Amounts in Thousands

  As a percentage of total Corporation tax collected

  1979

  15,182

  0·50

  1980

  16,214

  0·49

  1981

  20,688

  0·70

  1982

  34,396

  0·89

  1983

  40,912

  0·11

  1984

  58,051

  1·23

  1985

  75,342

  1·27

  1986

  91,365

  1·11

  1987

  92,830

  0·93

  1988

  225,597

  1·92

  1989

  151,368

  1·05

  1990

  184,725

  1·17

  1991

  320,929

  2·09

  1992

  542,233

  4·64

  Tax Relief (Domestic Maintenance Work)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the possibility of allowing tax relief against VAT-receipted invoices for domestic maintenance and extension work.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received no recent representations on this subject, although the idea has occasionally been put forward in the past. The Government's policy is to widen the tax base by reducing rather than extending reliefs. This has enabled us to reduce income tax rates for all taxpayers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) of 4 February,Official Report, column 299, if he will now make it his policy to estimate the extent of the black market in the construction industry and the annual cost to the Exchequer of lost revenue through tax evasion in that industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the revenue effects of tax evasion.

  Non-domicile Taxpayers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals, for each year since 1979, enjoyed non-domicile tax status; and what estimate he has made for each year of the revenue lost to the Exchequer through the availability of this status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of evasion of payments of(a) income tax and (b) other tax evasion have been discovered in each of the last five years; and what has been the value of the revenue recovered.
  453
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Income tax investigations

  Other investigations

  Yield from counter-evasion work (£ million)

  1988–89

  52,894

  12,032

  706

  1989–90

  57,997

  12,551

  933

  1990–91

  61,755

  13,219

  1,091

  1991–92

  59,993

  14,421

  1,324

  1992–93

  55,611

  12,952

  1,361

  Foreign-owned Firms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the percentage of United Kingdom manufacturing output accounted for by foreign-owned firms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information on manufacturing output including that for foreign-owned businesses is contained in "Business Monitor PA 1002, Report on the Census of Production, Summary Volume". Copies of this volume up to 1990, the last year for which figures are available, can be obtained from the Library of the House.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed in the Valuation Office and at what cost to public funds; when notices were issued requesting supply of information in respect of non-domestic rating; when these notices were issued; and at what cost.

  Mr. Nelson
  The average number of staff employed in the Valuation Office in the 1992–93 financial year was 5,806 at a cost of £121,558,000.

  Notices requesting supply of information in respect of non-domestic rating were issued in a phased programme spread over April to June 1993. The cost of issuing the notices will amount to approximately £500,000.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of the receipts accrued from the sale of nationalised industries for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Privatisation proceeds—including from the sale of nationalised industries—from 1979–80 to 1992–93 were about £50 billion, shown in the table by year.

  Privatisation proceeds

  £ billion

  1979–80

  0·4

  1980–81

  0·2

  1981–82

  0·5

  1982–83

  0·5

  1983–84

  1·1

  1984–85

  2·1

  1985–86

  2·7

  1986–87

  4·5

  1987–88

  5·1

  1988–89

  7·1

  1989–90

  4·2

  1990–91

  5·3

  1991–92

  7·9

  1992–93

  8·1

  454

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pugin Room (Rodents)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what proposals he has to engage a cat for rodent control duties in the Pugin Room.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  None.

  Palace of Westminster Terrace
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee on what terms the press are permitted access to the Terrace of the Palace of Westminster within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  In accordance with a decision of the Catering Sub-Committee of the former Services Committee and regulations now determined by the Catering Committee, certain members of the Press Gallery may use the Terrace Pavilion and Bar. Parliamentary Lobby correspondents and sketch writers are also allowed access to the southern part of the House of Commons Terrace but are not allowed to entertain guests there.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what restrictions exist as to who may be admitted to the Terrace of the Palace of Westminster within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons; and how these are monitored and enforced.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  On sitting days throughout the year, Members and Officers of the House may take up to six guests on to the southern part of the House of Commons Terrace from 10.00 am to 6.00 pm or the rising of the House, whichever is the later.

  On sitting Mondays to Thursdays between 10.00 am and 1.00 pm; on sitting Fridays from the rising of the House to 6.00 pm—except during the period from 1 May to the adjournment of the House for the summer recess—Members and Officers of the House may entertain up to 16 guests on the Terrace.

  A Peer or Member may give interviews on the Terrace which may involve handheld filming equipment. On sitting days these interviews should be brought to an end by 12 noon; on non-sitting days they should be completed by 5.30 pm. Visitors may take photographs on the Terrace, but not while either House is sitting.

  No guest may be left unattended for more than 15 minutes nor may they be taken to the two northern parts of the Terrace one of which is reserved for the use of Members and Officers of the House alone, and the other for the sole use of the Speaker as she decides.

  Staff of the House who are Senior or Higher Executive Officers and Parliamentary Lobby correspondents on a list maintained by the Serjeant at Arms may use the southern part of the House of Commons Terrace, but may not take visitors there.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  World Service Television
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role Mr. Li Ka Shing has played in the setting up of World Service Television.
  455
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  World service television was set up in 1991 as a commercial subsidiary of the BBC with no outside investors. It has since made commercial agreements for the provision of the service in various parts of the world, including one with Hutchvision of Hong Kong in which Mr. Li Ka Shing has an interest.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library all public statements made by participants at the first meeting of the preparatory committee for the 1995 non-proliferation treaty conference of which his Department has copies, including his Department's translations, where appropriate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Copies of participants' statements at this meeting have been deposited in the Library of the House, as requested.

  Sudan
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Sudan about human rights in that country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Such representations have been made on many occasions, most recently last week by a European Community Troika ministerial mission, in which the United Kingdom was represented.

  Hong Kong Airport
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest discussions which have taken place on the future of the Hong Kong airport.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Meetings with the Chinese side in the airport committee resumed this month. Agreement was reached on the letting of the western harbour crossing franchise, one of the airport core projects. Some progress was also made on the overall financing arrangements for the airport, but further discussions will be required. The next meeting of the airport committee will be held on 30 June.

  China
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the extent of religious persecution in the people's republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We continue to receive reports, often via non-governmental organisations, of human rights abuses in China including the persecution of religious believers. This matter is covered in chapter 4 of the report of the delegation of my right hon. noble and learned Friend Lord Howe, which is being published today. We regularly raise human rights with the Chinese authorities and urge them to adhere to international standards of behaviour.

  Mr. Parry:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding human rights in China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We remain deeply concerned by 456
  continuing reports of human rights abuses in China. Ministers have made our concerns clear to the Chinese at a high level both in public and in private on many occasions. The report of the delegation led by my right hon. noble and learned Friend, Lord Howe, which visited China last December, is being published today, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the report on Lord Howe's visit to China is complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The report on my right hon. noble and learned Friend Lord Howe's visit to China was published on 29 June. Copies have been deposited in the Library of both Houses and are available through Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  1 should, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, like to thank my right hon. noble and learned Friend and his colleagues, for all their efforts in undertaking this important visit and in producing such a comprehensive and constructive document.

  Human rights abuses in China, including Tibet, are of continuing conern to Members of the House and to the public. We hope that the Chinese authorities will study the report carefully and give it positive consideration. We, for our part, will consider urgently how to follow up those recommendations which involve action by Her Majesty's Government.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has spent £438·28 on legal advice from the Treasury Solicitors on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 since 1 April 1992. The aid wing has spent nothing so far.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the EC matters which it was agreed, in connection with the subsidiarity principle, should continue to be dealt with at the EC level rather than the national level, at the meeting between the British and French Governments of 15 June.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The meeting between the United Kingdom and French Governments on 15 June discussed ways to take forward implementation of the subsidiarity principle. This included work to identify existing legislation for amendment or repeal, to strengthen the Commission's report on subsidiarity which it will present at the Brussels European Council in December. There was no specific discussion between the two Governments about which European Community matters should continue to be dealt with at Community level.
  457

  Immigration
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which diplomatic posts abroad are designated to accept entry clearance applications.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The list of posts designated to accept entry clearance applications is as follows:

  Entry Clearance Issuing Posts

  Abidjan

  Abu Dhabi

  Accra

  Addis Ababa

  Algiers

  Amman

  Amsterdam

  Ankara1

  Antananarivo

  Ascension Island1

  Athens

  Atlanta

  Auckland

  Bahrain

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  Bangkok

  Banjul

  Beirut1

  Belgrade1

  Belmopan

  Berne1

  Bogota

  Bombay

  Bonn1

  Brasilia1

  Bridgetown

  Brussels

  Bucharest

  Budapest

  Buenos Aries

  Cairo

  Calcutta

  Canberra

  Cape Town

  Caracas

  Casablanca

  Chicago

  Colombo

  Copenhagen

  Dakar

  Damascus

  Dar es Salaam

  Dhaka

  Doha

  Douala

  Dubai

  Dublin

  Dusseldorf

  Florence

  Freetown

  Gaborone

  Geneva

  Georgetown

  Gibraltar

  Guatemala City

  Hamilton

  Hanoi

  Harare

  Havana

  Helsinki

  Holy See1

  Hong Kong

  Honiara

  Houston

  Islamabad

  Istanbul

  Jakarta

  Jedda

  Jerusalem

  Johannesburg

  458

  Kaduna

  Kampala

  Karachi

  Kathmandu

  Khartoum

  Kiev

  Kingston

  Kinshasa

  Kuala Lumpur

  Kuwait

  La Paz

  Lagos

  Lilongwe

  Lima

  Lisbon

  Los Angeles

  Luanda

  Lusaka

  Luxembourg

  Madras

  Madrid

  Manila

  Maseru

  Mbabane

  Mexico City

  Milan

  Montevideo

  Montreal1

  Moscow

  Muscat

  Nairobi

  Naples

  Nassau

  New Delhi

  New York

  Nicosia

  Nuku'alofa

  Oslo

  Ottawa

  Panama City

  Paris

  Peking

  Port Loius

  Port Moresby

  Port of Spain

  Prague

  Quito

  Rabat1

  Rangoon

  Reykjavik

  Rio de Janeiro

  Riyadh

  Rome

  San Jose

  San Salvador

  Sana'a

  Santiago

  Seoul

  Singapore

  Sofia

  St. Helena1

  Stanley

  Stockholm

  Suva

  Taipei1

  Tegucigalpa

  Tehran1

  Tel Aviv

  The Hague1

  Tokyo

  Toronto1

  Tripoli1

  Tunis

  Ulaanbaatar

  Valetta

  Vancouver1

  Victoria

  Vienna

  Vila

  459

  Warsaw

  Washington

  Windhoek

  Yaounde

  Zagreb

  1Restricted service only

  Consular Co-operation
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements exist in the European community for consular co-operation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  European Community partners have agreed guidelines for the protection of unrepresented EC nationals by EC missions in third countries. This means British nationals can seek help from any EC mission in a country where there is no British mission. This is a positive development and an excellent example of practical EC co-operation which will have direct benefit for Britons overseas.

  Trade Negotiations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of negotiations between the United States and the EC on(a) telecommunications, (b) audiovisual exports and (c) intellectual property.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Negotiators from the EC. the United States, Japan and Canada have been discussing a range of issues forming part of the GATT Uruguay round of trade negotiations over recent weeks, including proposals for improving market access for both goods and services. Following a meeting in Tokyo last week, Ministers involved in these discussions said that they had been able
  "to attain meaningful progress that would contribute to further momentum towards a positive outcome of the Uruguay round".
  The Ministers will meet again on 6 July in order to finalise a report on progress to the Tokyo economic summit.

  I welcome the progress that has been made. This must be sustained if the Uruguay round is to be successfully concluded by the end of this year, and a comprehensive agreement reached on all issues, including telecommunications, audiovisual exports and intellectual property.

EDUCATION

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the impact there has been of the removal of section 11 funded grants previously available in inner-city schools with significant proportions of ethnic minority background children.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Section 11 funding continues to support existing projects in the 1993–94 financial year at the current grant rate of 75 per cent. Thereafter, on current planning assumptions, the grant will be available to support the same volume of posts, albeit at a reduced rate.
  460

  Secondary Transfer
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for education if he will list, by local education authority area, how many pupils gained entry to their first preference school at secondary transfer for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  LEA Secondary Schools
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money in local education authority maintained secondary schools was spent in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The table gives the net institutional expenditure on LEA-maintained secondary schools in cash and real terms for the years 1987–88 to 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available. The figures for 1991–92 include estimates of expenditure for six LEAs.

  Numbers of full-time equivalent secondary school pupils fell from 3·1 million in 1987–88 to 2·8 million in 1991–92. Spending per secondary pupil rose from £2,068 to £2,277—both in 1992–93 prices—over the five-year period.

  Net institutional expenditure on LEA-maintained (England) secondary schools

  Total expenditure £ million

  Year

  (Cash)

  (1992–93 Prices)

  1987–88

  4,742

  6,477

  1988–89

  5,053

  6,435

  1989–90

  5,353

  6,396

  1990–91

  5,709

  6,317

  1991–921

  6,173

  6,389

  1 Provisional.

  Note: Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the costs of school meals, home to school transport, LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure. Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management of schools schemes.

  Teacher: Pupil Ratios
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) of 17 May,Official Report, column 232, if he will make it his policy to fund a research project into the effect of teacher:pupil ratios on individual pupils' educational achievement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Given the research in this area already carried out by other organisations, my right hon. Friend has no current plans to fund a project of this nature from the small budget he has for policy-related research projects. That budget is heavily committed at present with many competing priorities for future funding.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what modifications will be made in national curriculum tests to cater for pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Teachers may adapt or modify the tests to suit the individual circumstances of pupils with
  461
  special educational needs. The School Examinations and Assessment Council has given guidance to schools about ways in which this might be done in order to allow pupils to show what they can achieve, without compromising the rigour of the tests.

  Future test arrangements will be decided in the light of the review which Sir Ron Dearing is undertaking. His first recommendations are expected during July. Sir Ron is paying particular attention to special needs issues.

  Primary School Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the cost of his proposed one-year training scheme for primary school teachers; and what is the cost of training primary school teachers on conventional teacher training courses.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is no standard unit of resource figure for primary initial teacher training students. The cost of training any current primary student will vary according to the type and length of course, the institution

  Name

  Kingshurst CTC Solihull

  Emmanuel College Tyneside

  Dixons CTC Bradford

  Site

  Kingshurst School site

  St. John Fisher School site

  Newby Square, Bradford

  LEA

  Solihull

  Gateshead

  Bradford

  Opening Dates

  1988

  1990

  1990

  Planned number of pupils

  1,150

  900

  980

  Total Capital cost £ million

  9·71

  8·61

  9·16

  Exchequer contribution £ million

  7·60

  6·89

  7·33

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) committed 1 £ million

  2·11

  1·72

  1·83

  (ii) confirmed2 £ million

  3·07

  1·60

  2·90

  Principal Sponsors

  Hanson Trust

  Peter Vardy

  Dixons plc, Mr. Haking Wong

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  Building Contract—Laings Northern

  None

  Name

  Leigh CTC Dartford

  Britschool CCTA Croydon

  Djanogly CTC Nottingham

  Site

  Downs School site

  Site of Selhurst Tertiary Centre

  Sherwood Rise, Nottingham

  LEA

  Kent

  Croydon

  Nottinghamshire

  Opening dates

  1990

  1991

  1989

  Planned number of pupils

  1,250

  720

  1,000

  Total Capital cost £ million

  8·95

  10·00

  9·75

  Exchequer contribution £ million

  7·16

  8·00

  8·20

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) committed 1£ million

  1·79

  2·00

  1·56

  (ii) confirmed 2 £ million

  1·82

  2·94

  2·04

  Principal Sponsors

  Sir Geoffrey Leigh

  The British Record Industry Trust

  Sir Harry Djanogly

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  None

  None

  462
  attended and whether or not the student attracts grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The same will be true of the proposed one-year courses.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultations he has had with parent-teacher associations on his proposal to introduce one-year courses for primary school teachers.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has circulated his proposals for the reform of primary initial teacher training to the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mrs. Anne Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will update the table in his written answer of 12 March 1992,Official Report, columns 602–4, giving the latest available information in respect of each city technology college or proposed and planned city technology college.

  Mr. Forth
  The table covers announced CTCs.
  463

  Name

  Macmillan college Teesside

  Harris CTC Norwood

  Bacon's college Bermondsey

  Site

  St. Michael RC School. Middlesbrough

  Sylvan School site Croydon

  Bacon's School site. Southwark

  LEA

  Cleveland

  Croydon

  Southwark

  Opening dates

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Planned number of pupils

  1,100

  1,100

  1,100

  Total capital cost £ million

  8·45

  8·66

  15·47

  Exchequer contribution £ million

  6·74

  6·93

  3l3·87

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) committed1 £ million

  1·71

  1·73

  31·60

  (ii) confirmed2 £ million

  1·67

  1·80

  4l·00

  Principal sponsors

  BAT Industries plc

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust/Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  None

  None

  Name

  Haberdashers' CTC, New Cross

  Brooke CTC, Corby

  Landau Forte College, Derby

  Site

  Haberdashers' Aske's, Hatcham, School site

  Great Oakley, Corby

  Wood Street, Derby

  LEA

  Lewisham

  Northants

  Derbyshire

  Opening Dates

  1991

  1991

  1992

  Planned number of pupils

  1,150

  900

  900

  Total Capital cost £ million

  9·15

  10·19

  10·20

  Exchequer contribution £ million

  5·70

  8·15

  816

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) committed1 £ million

  3·45

  2·04

  2·04

  (ii) confirmed2 £ million

  54·45

  2·09

  2·05

  Principal Sponsors

  Haberdashers' Company as Trustees of Robert Aske Charity

  Mr. Hugh de Capell Brooke

  The Landau Foundation Forte plc

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  None

  None

  Name

  Thomas Telford School, Telford

  ADT College, Wandsworlh

  John Cabot CTC. Bristol

  Site

  Old Park, Telford

  Mayfield School

  Kingswood, Bristol

  LEA

  Shropshire

  Wandsworth

  Avon

  Opening Dates

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Planned number of pupils

  1,000

  1,000

  900

  Total Capital cost £ million

  10·75

  11·32

  11·20

  Exchequer contribution £ million

  8·40

  9·06

  8·96

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) committed1 £ million

  2·35

  2·26

  2·24

  (ii)confirmed2 £ million

  2·63

  2·39

  2·30

  464 465

  Name

  Thomas Telford School, Telford

  ADT College, Wandsworth

  John Cabot CTC, Bristol

  Principal Sponsors

  The Mercers Tarmac plc

  ADT plc

  Wolfson Foundation and Cable and Wireless plc

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  None

  None

  1 Committed sponsorship contributions represent agreed percentage contributions to CTC capital cash limits as secured in formal funding agreements with CTCs.

  2 Confirmed sponorship includes sponsorship beyond the cash limit.

  3 The sponsors commitment is stated net of the proceeds of sale of the site of the former school: the Exchequer contribution will be reduced by the amount of the net proceeds of sale.

  4 The confirmed contribution is net of the proceeds of sale of the former school site and of contributions to community provision and the chapel.

  5 This figure includes the donation of the present site, which has been valued at £3·445 million.

  Ethnic Minority Languages
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to ensure that schools with a high proportion of children with an ethnic minority background continue to be able to offer mother tongue language classes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All secondary pupils are required to study a modern foreign language as a national curriculum foundation subject. Nineteen languages qualify as a foundation subject. Schools must offer at least one of the eight working languages of the European Community and may offer 11 other languages of cultural and commercial importance—Arabic, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Japanese, Mandarin or Cantonese Chinese, modern Hebrew, Panjabi, Russian, Turkish and Urdu.

  To meet the national curriculum requirement, pupils choose one modern foreign language from among those

  Sources of Award

  1990–91 Expenditure £ million

  1991–92 Expenditure £ million

  u/grad

  p/grad

  u/grad

  p/grad

  England and Wales

  1. DFE and LEAs

  11·068

  0·008

  132·008

  0·011

  2. MAFF

  —

  0·002

  —

  0·002

  Scotland (SOED)

  22·596

  —

  23·756

  —

  Northern Ireland (DENI)

  2·515

  0·042

  3·718

  0·055

  United Kingdom Postgraduate Awards Schemes

  1.Research Councils

  —

  1·306

  —

  1·360

  2.British Academy

  —

  30·098

  —

  30·172

  1 Provisional.

  2 Undergraduate and postgraduate awards expenditure combined.

  3 Estimate.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 123, how much of the funds for the various EC student mobility programmes comes to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1993–94 the United Kingdom's allocation of the funding available for student mobility grants to support EC student mobility within the ERASMUS programme is expected to be some £6·99 million or 14·2 per cent. of the total programme funding available for this purpose; and for LINGUA £0·65 million—13·4 per cent.

  As leading participants and co-ordinators of inter-university co-operation programmes (ICPs) within these
  466
  offered by the school. Pupils with one of these languages as their mother tongue may therefore choose to study that language as a foundation subject if the school is able to offer it. All schools, including primary schools, are also free to provide languages outside the national curriculum if demand exists and they have the resources to meet it.

  EC Students
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 123, what was the total cost of the awards covering the fees of students from other EC member states studying third level courses in the United Kingdom in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Boswell
  Expenditure on fees-only awards to students from other EC member states studying in the United Kingdom in the academic years 1990–91 and 1991–92 is set out in the table.

  programmes, United Kingdom higher education institutions will also benefit from the funding available in support of the costs of establishing and running ICPs. The expected United Kingdom share of the student placement budget within the COMETT programme in 1993–94 is £2·4 million–18·3 per cent.

  School Leavers
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the expected number of school leavers who will join the labour market in July.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on intended destinations of school leavers is no longer collected centrally. In 1992, the most recent year for which information is available, the
  467
  school examination survey estimated that 147,000 school leavers in England intended to enter employment or the youth training scheme.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will announce the January class size figures for each local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information from the January 1993 schools' census will become available in the late autumn.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has incurred no expenditure on this matter additional to the normal cost of its own legal branch. It is not possible to identify separately the cost of advice provided by in-house legal advisers on particular issues such as the TUPE regulations.

  Pupils (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have 50 per cent. or more of their pupils drawn from the ethnic minority population; and what additional resources are made available to assist such schools, with particular reference to the teaching of English, where required.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the ethnic monitoring survey schools collect information on the ethnic origin of pupils on admission at ages five and 11. Data relating to individual schools are not returned to the Department, except in the case of grant-maintained schools. For other schools, returns are aggregated by local education authority area.

  Grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 is available for the employment of additional staff to meet the special needs of new Commonwealth pupils arising from language and cultural barriers. In 1993–94, section 11 grant for education will be around £120 million, the majority of which will be used to support provision for English as a second language. In addition, there is an ethnicity factor intended to take account of the needs of pupils who may not have English as a first language in the additional educational needs index which is used to weight standard spending assessments.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will monitor the education effects in individual local authorities arising from the education standard spending assessments for 1993–94 being based on the 1981 census data and not on the 1991 data.

  Mr. Forth
  No. In our view, the standard spending assessments set for 1993–94 are sufficient to allow authorities to maintain service provision. SSAs for 1993–94 were calculated using the latest information 468
  available for all authorities. Although it was possible to use population estimates derived from the 1991 census in the calculations, other 1991 census indicators were not available in time for the settlement.

  The most appropriate method of incorporating the full 1991 census data into the education element of SSAs is still under consideration. All the relevant 1991 census data will be incorporated into the education elements of SSAs for 1994–95.

  "A Common Funding Formula in Schools"
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of the respondents to the consultative document, "A Common Funding Formula in Schools", issued on 18 December 1992 who were listed in his answer of 22 June,Official Report, columns 132–34, stated (a) that they had objections, or (b) that they had no objection, to their responses being published or made available to others; and if he will list them in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The consultation did not suggest that responses would be made public, although it is open to respondents to publicise their own responses.

EMPLOYMENT

  Local Training Initiatives (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what local training initiatives are available in Essex.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Essex training and enterprise council supports a wide range of training activities for young people and unemployed adults, including help for owners of new small businesses, and is taking forward the "Investors in People" initiative which encourages companies to embed good training practice throughout their organisation.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those leaving employment training in Yorkshire and Humberside got a job in the last quarter for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest figures, an increase on the previous year, show that for the quarter ended June 1992, 37 per cent. were in a job three months after leaving. There will, in addition, be others who were in full-time education, on other Government training programmes or undertaking voluntary work. These figures do not, of course, reflect the outcomes of the new training for work programme and the other measures we announced in this year's Budget.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to retain and create jobs on Tyneside.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department's aim is to promote a free and flexible labour market to encourage employment on Tyneside as elsewhere. The employment service and Tyneside training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in Tyneside find the best and quickest route back to employment.
  469
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are unemployed in Britain.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In May 1993, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 2,809,300 unemployed claimants in Great Britain.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for long-term unemployment in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In April 1993 and on the unadjusted basis, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over a year was 1,075,067.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for more than one year in the London borough of Greenwich, in each of the past three years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the unadjusted basis, the number of unemployed claimants in the London borough of Greenwich who had been unemployed for over a year was 6,886 in April 1993, 5,063 in April 1992 and 2,896 in April 1991.

  Agriculture and Horticulture
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives he plans to provide additional employment opportunities in those rural areas particularly hard hit by reductions in the agricultural and horticultural work force.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The promotion of enterprise, economic diversity and employment in rural areas is primarily the role of the Rural Development Commission and Scottish Enterprise. But acting through the employment service and training and enterprise councils, the Department has a range of facilities and programmes available to people in rural areas, to help equip them for work and enable them to take advantage of employment opportunities as they arise.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of people that have left the unemployment register during the last 12 months by having been granted invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants have been transferred directly from unemployment benefit to sickness or other related benefit in the last two years in Wolverhampton, North-East.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No information is recorded on whether a person who subsequently claims sickness or invalidity benefit had previously claimed unemployment benefits.

  Accidents (Retraining)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has for retraining people disabled by accidents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  People with disabilities, including those disabled by accidents, have priority for places on a wide range of employment and training programmes.
  470
  New arrangements are being introduced to make additional funding available to training and enterprise councils to help buy local specialist provision for severely disabled people.

  Productivity
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the effect on employment of increasing productivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have received no such representations.

  Increases in productivity—of both capital and labour—increase the ability of the economy to create wealth. Our task is to combine rising productivity with higher employment, and thus fully realise this increased potential.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the state of industrial relations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures on industrial disputes demonstrate the healthy state of industrial relations in this country. The incidence of stoppages and working days lost in 1992 was the lowest since records began in 1891. The number of working days lost in the 12 months to the end of April 1993 was equivalent to 34 per 1,000 workers compared with an average for the 1970s of 569 per 1,000 workers. It can be no coincidence that these improvements have taken place at the same time as our step-by-step reforms of industrial relations and trade union law.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the job club scheme in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Seven new job clubs opened in the north west in May 1993 and there are now 194 job clubs in total. The number of people helped through job clubs in the north west, in 1992–93 was 31,530. There will be 35,235 job club places available for 1993–94.

  Training (TEC Funding)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now receiving training via funding by TECs in England and Wales.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at the end of March 1993 there were 375,300 people on employment training and youth training programmes in England and Wales.

  May Day Bank Holiday
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the possible abolition of the May day bank holiday.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department published a consultation document on the future of the May day bank holiday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on I December. Responses to the consultation exercise were received from a wide range of individuals and organisations.
  471
  An announcement on the future of the May day bank holiday will be made in due course.

  Apprentices
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 452 on apprentices, what is the sector breakdown of the figures given.

  Apprentices by industrial sector (1983–92)

  Great Britain (thousands)

  Number of persons of working age doing trade apprenticeship

  Industry Division

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total number of apprentices

  363

  332

  357

  318

  314

  329

  367

  352

  350

  325

  0 Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Energy and water supply industries

  18

  13

  14

  10

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  2 Extraction of minerals and ores other than fuels: manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals

  11

  11

  13

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  3 Metal goods, engineering and vehicles industries

  79

  74

  72

  64

  57

  47

  55

  74

  55

  58

  4 Other manufacturing industries

  28

  29

  27

  30

  24

  29

  35

  27

  25

  22

  5 Construction

  75

  64

  68

  54

  64

  64

  81

  77

  74

  66

  6 Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs

  55

  40

  50

  44

  47

  60

  57

  52

  49

  57

  7 Transport and communication

  18

  15

  10

  10

  —

  12

  —

  —

  11

  11

  8 Banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing

  10

  12

  13

  10

  15

  14

  19

  22

  23

  21

  9 Other services

  49

  49

  57

  53

  53

  64

  63

  48

  49

  47

  Not applicable

  —

  20

  30

  28

  24

  22

  27

  29

  26

  31

  Source: Labour Force Survey, Spring 1983–1992.

  1—Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown.

  Off-shore Oil and Gas Workers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the effects of the proposed workers time directive on off-shore oil and gas workers; and what derogations have been negotiated for such workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposed EC working time directive would have been wholly inappropriate to working patterns off-shore. As a result of our negotiations the Social Affairs Council agreed on 1 June that all work at sea would be excluded from the scope of the proposed directive. If and when the directive is adopted it would therefore not affect the working time of workers on off-shore installations, divers and workers in other related activities at sea.

  Working Week (Manufacturing)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average working week in manufacturing industry in the latest two years for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is published in table X2.1 of part A of the 1991 and 1992 "New Earnings Survey". A copy is available in the Library.

  Noel Employment Ltd.
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy on the payment of redundancy to temporary contract workers
  472
  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates from the labour force survey since 1983, of the number of people in Great Britain undertaking apprenticeships within each industry sector, are given in the table. Data for earlier years are not comparable.

  employed by Noel Employment Ltd., now in liquidation; and what account his Department takes in such decisions of whether tax and national insurance contributions were deducted by the employer of temporary contract workers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Under sections 106 and 122 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the Secretary of State may, on application, make redundancy and other payments to employees, as defined in the Act, of insolvent businesses. Each application is considered on its own facts and in accordance with the relevant case law. In determining eligibility consideration is given to a number of factors, including whether schedule E tax and class I national insurance contributions were deducted. However, the employment appeals tribunal has previously ruled that such deductions are not conclusive evidence of employee status.

  Decisions have yet to be taken on the majority of claims in respect of Noel Employment Ltd.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what conveniently available information he has on how many Iraqi nationals benefited from the work permit scheme run by his Department's overseas labour service in each year since 1984.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of work permits issued to Iraqi nationals by the Department in each of the years since 1984 is as follows:

  Number of work permits issued

  Year

  Number

  1984

  41

  1985

  52

  1986

  45

  473

  Year

  Number

  1987

  44

  1988

  33

  1989

  40

  1990

  43

  1991

  53

  1992

  62

  11993

  31

  1 Up to 17 June.

  Residential Care Workers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the conditions of residential care and nursing home workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department receives letters from individuals about pay and conditions of employment, some of which refer specifically to residential care and nursing homes. Pay and conditions of employment in the private sector are matters for employers and employees.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had, and with whom, in Malawi following the recent democratic referendum results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff).

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the result of the recent referendum held in Malawi on whether to adopt a multi-party system of government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have noted with satisfaction the view of the joint international observer group that the referendum vote was an accurate expression of the wishes of the Malawi people. We hope that there will now be an orderly move towards the introduction of multi-party democracy. It is for Malawians to decide upon the timetable for this change, and we hope that restraint will be exercised on all sides. In this context we welcome President Banda's acceptance of the result and his commitment to legalise political parties and review legislation to take account of human rights concerns.

WALES

  Schools and Colleges (Performance)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 523, if he will make it his policy to deposit in the Library, and provide to the hon. Member for Pembroke, the costs of implementing his proposals for the publication of information on the performance of schools and colleges when they are known.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Yes.
  474

  Home Helps
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of home helps employed in each local authority area in the county of Dyfed in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of people employed by the social services department of Dyfed county council is not reported at district level. The total numbers of home helps—including home help organisers and assistants—employed in the county at the 30 September of each year are shown in the table:

  Number

  Whole time equivalent

  1980

  846

  323·5

  1985

  841

  351·3

  1992

  913

  426·8

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each family health service authority area in Wales the number of general dental practitioners that are available on call for carrying out emergency treatment outside normal surgery hours.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally. General dental practitioners are obliged by their terms and conditions of service to provide emergency cover for their registered patients. It is for family health services authorities to satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of local arrangements for providing emergency dental treatment outside normal surgery hours.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what study his Department has made of the adequacy of the community dental services in meeting the needs of all children who have difficulty in accessing general dental services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is a matter for local health authorities to determine the appropriate level of community dental service provision within their areas. Returns submitted by family health services authorities in Wales indicate that a significant majority of general dental practitioners in Wales continue to provide national health service treatment for children.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to encourage adults in west Glamorgan who remain unregistered for regular dental care to use the community dental service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local management responsibility for general dental service in west Glamorgan rests with the family health services authority. Returns submitted by that authority to the Welsh Office indicate that all patients who seek general dental services treatment in west Glamorgan are able to obtain it.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how' many salaried dentists are employed by each family health services authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Approval has been given for Dyfed and Gwynedd family health services authorities to employ
  475
  a total of six whole-time equivalent salaried dentists. Both authorities are in the process of identifying suitable applicants and premises to accommodate them.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales to ensure all health staff are immunised against hepatitis B; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Hepatitis B immunisation is recommended for a number of at-risk groups including all health care workers involved in invasive procedures. This policy is kept under review, with expert advice from the Advisory Group on Hepatitis and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The health service has been asked to prepare immunisation programmes for staff exposed to occupational risk.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to improve road safety in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department and the local authorities are continually seeking ways to improve the safety of road users throughout Wales. Clwyd county council has produced a road safety plan for the county. On 8 June we commissioned the consultant, Oscar Faber TPA, to advise on a road safety strategy for Wales, including a road safety plan for trunk roads.

  Hepatitis and Dysentary
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of(a) viral hepatitis and (b) dysentery have been reported in each district health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of cases of(a) viral hepatitis and (b) dysentery notified in each health authority in Wales in each of the last five years are shown in the table:

  Health authority

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  (a) Viral Hepatitis

  Clwyd

  10

  18

  18

  42

  21

  East Dyfed

  12

  6

  5

  7

  6

  Pembrokeshire

  4

  5

  5

  3

  7

  Gwent

  37

  17

  33

  77

  212

  Gwynedd

  3

  5

  3

  4

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  12

  45

  134

  95

  Powys

  1

  4

  9

  3

  2

  South Glamorgan

  94

  55

  103

  48

  20

  West Glamorgan

  24

  7

  36

  42

  114

  (b) Dysentery

  Clwyd

  10

  27

  10

  72

  180

  East Dyfed

  6

  6

  3

  11

  14

  Pembrokeshire

  4

  0

  2

  305

  17

  Gwent

  31

  5

  0

  78

  96

  Gwynedd

  3

  4

  2

  5

  16

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  4

  39

  23

  110

  Powys

  1

  0

  0

  4

  6

  South Glamorgan

  25

  52

  166

  472

  228

  West Glamorgan

  8

  17

  13

  2

  9

  1 1992 data are provisional.

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Communicable Disease.

  Statistics—Series MB2.

  Registrar General's Weekly Return—Series WR.
  476

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department's strategy for green housekeeping includes specific commitments to extend the use of recycled paper in the Welsh Office and to reduce energy consumption by various means including the procurement and use of low-energy light sources where appropriate.

  Our general purchasing policy also gives full weight to environmental considerations in the procurement of all goods including tropical hardwoods and we seek to use environmentally acceptable alternatives to peat and peat-based products wherever possible. We are considering a policy of operating vehicles fitted with catalytic converters.

  Telephone Helplines
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to encourage all family health services authorities in Wales to introduce a dedicated telephone helpline for the community along the lines of that established in West Glamorgan.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As part of the patients charter family health services authorities are required to he accessible to those who need their advice. All authorities have published details of a telephone number and an officer who will deal with questions and give advice about family health services. The telephone number need not be a dedicated line but there are officers ready and available to answer inquiries.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales have died of AIDS; and if he will disaggregate the figures by health authority area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To 31 March 1993, 78 of the AIDS cases reported by health authorities are known to have died. Of these, 34 were reported in South Glamorgan health authority and 15 in West Glamorgan health authority. The remaining 29 AIDS cases also known to have died were reported in Clwyd, East Dyfed, Pembrokeshire, Gwent, Gwynedd and Mid Glamorgan health authorities. The numbers of AIDS deaths in each of these health authorities does not exceed 10 and for reasons of confidentiality and in line with the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 are reported as "less than 10" for each health authority.

  In addition, to 31 March 1993, 24 AIDS cases reported from outside Wales died while last known to be living in Welsh health authority areas.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to support and promote public transport in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's policies of deregulation and privatisation will help to promote
  477
  increased choice and increased competition for the provision of public transport services in Wales. Unhypothecated revenue support grant is made available to local authorities towards the costs of services including support for local public transport. In addition local authorities have received increased resources for bus priority schemes and for supporting new rail passenger services, notably in the areas of the Cardiff valleys, Maesteg and West Glamorgan.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many wind farms are now in operation in Wales; how many are planned for completion in the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are three wind farms currently operating in Wales at Mynydd Cemaes, Llandinam and Rhyd-y-Groes. A further six projects are expected to be completed within the next two years.

  Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the number of(a) days and (b) nights that the Prince Philip hospital, Llanelli was closed for the admission of accident and emergency patients in (i) 1992 and (ii) the first five months of 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Prince Philip hospital was closed for accident and emergency admissions for a total of seven days and nights in 1992 and for the same period of time in the first five months of 1993 due to increased demand for admissions combined with short-term staffing problems. The hospital is taking steps to overcome these difficulties, including measures to increase bed use efficiency.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review he is undertaking of the provision for the funding of postgraduate and post-diploma training for radiographers in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. This is a matter for employers.

  HIV
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been confirmed as carrying the HIV virus in each health authority area in Wales, for each month since January 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 1993, 164 new HIV positive individuals were reported from Wales. A monthly breakdown of the number of new HIV positives reported by each health authority would give individual figures of less than 10. For reasons of confidentiality and in line with the AIDS (Control) Act 1987, numbers between one and nine inclusive are given as "less than 10" by each health authority.

  Teenage Vandalism
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures are being taken in Wales to tackle vandalism by teenagers; and if he will make a statement.
  478
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is substantial activity across Wales which helps to reduce vandalism and the opportunities for vandalism by teenagers. Some measures, such as neighbourhood watch schemes will have a very local impact. Others, for example, Wrexham Anti Vandalism Year, cover a large area. The scheme was launched in January 1993 by Wrexham Maelor borough council with the help of local businesses, voluntary organisations and the North Wales police and involves the whole community to counter vandalism with an information campaign, education and practical events, including a schools competition.

  In addition there are schemes which encourage young people towards positive activity, for example, motor projects, crime awareness projects. Others seek to develop facilities and activities for young people. Initiatives such as "Secured by Design" and programmes to improve street lighting have their effect in reducing the opportunities for vandalism and other forms of anti-social behaviour. Comprehensive records of all the measures currently being taken in Wales to tackle vandalism are not available.

  The police, the probation service, local authorities, voluntary organisations, employers, teachers, parents and many individuals are all playing a part in the extensive measures that are being taken to help reduce vandalism and other crime in Wales. Wherever possible the Welsh Office supports local communities in their efforts to improve neighbourhoods and to reduce vandalism and other crime.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Clwyd further to reduce hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Clwyd health authority and family health services authority plan to reduce waiting times further in the current financial year while continuing to meet patients charter guarantees. Under the waiting times initiative, Clwyd health authority has been provisionally allocated £233,400 and Clwyd family health services authority £160,850 for GP fund holders in the county to help them achieve this objective.

  Clwyd health authority has also been allocated £70,045 under the 1993–94 treatment centre initiative for hip and knee replacements, cataracts, hernias and varicose veins.

  Children (Injuries)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales to help reduce the number of injuries to young children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All health commissioning authorities in Wales are developing local strategies for health. In doing so they are taking into account the advice and targets included in the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Injuries", published by the Welsh Health Planning Forum in June 1992. This offers guidance on how the national health service can reduce injuries to children, as measured by numbers attending accident and emergency departments, by 25 per cent. by the year 2002.
  479

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which class and vote covers the payment of salaries of national health service trust chief executives in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The salaries of chief executive officers of national health service trusts in Wales are paid from the income which trusts generate from their contracts to provide health services with health authorities, GP fund holders and the private sector. The provision which health authorities and GP fund holders in Wales receive to obtain services from health service providers is contained within class XV Wales, vote 8 of the 1993–94 supply estimates.

  Regional Selective Assistance: Offers accepted 1991–92

  Forecast jobs

  Travel to work area

  Offer Value (£000)

  New

  Safeguarded

  Aberdare

  25

  3

  0

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  311

  34

  193

  Blaenau Gwent Abergavenny

  2,568

  325

  97

  Bridgend

  15,633

  2,505

  772

  Cardiff

  3,810

  493

  531

  Cardigan

  35

  9

  0

  Haverfordwest

  83

  30

  0

  Holyhead

  3,500

  221

  25

  Llanelli

  1,042

  297

  102

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  7,055

  596

  712

  Neath and Port Talbot

  9,410

  316

  671

  Newport

  5,107

  268

  622

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  1,365

  438

  0

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  5,785

  603

  177

  Porthmadog and Ffestiniog

  1,005

  159

  26

  Shotton. Flint and Rhyl

  8,953

  698

  308

  South Pembrokeshire

  500

  93

  0

  Swansea

  2,397

  635

  171

  Wrexham

  8,271

  593

  524

  Total

  76,855

  8,316

  4,931

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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.

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure amounting to £5,697·71 has been identified. The latter sum includes counsel's fees and charges from the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the 38th annual report of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 38th annual report of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales has been published today. The report covers the financial year 1991–92 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made for dealing with proposals to alter council tax valuation lists.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Valuation Office agency (VOA) had received some 33,500 proposals to alter valuation lists in
  480

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much regional selective assistance was given, and how many jobs were created or safeguarded as a result, for each travel-to-work area in Wales subject to assisted area status in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not possible to provide information on jobs associated with individual payments of regional selective assistance. Information on RSA offers accepted in 1991–92 together with forecasts of job creation and safeguarding is as follows:

  Wales by 24 June, the great majority in the first month of the initial appeal period. The rate at which new proposals have been received, however, has subsequently fallen significantly.

  We expect the agency and valuation tribunals to have settled some 38,000 council tax banding appeals in Wales by 31 December 1994, just 13 months after the initial appeal period ends on 30 November 1993. Any remaining appeals will be decided as rapidly as possible in 1995.

  In keeping with citizens charter principles, the agency has set standards of service for handling appeals. On receipt of a proposal the Valuation Office Agency's objective will be:

  To acknowledge receipt of proposals within 14 days (against a statutory deadline of 28 days);

  To make the taxpayer an offer, within 60 days, to reband the property if the initial banding is clearly wrong;

  To let taxpayers know within 90 days if the agency believes the original banding is correct and that they intend to defend that decision; and

  In any other case, to make contact with taxpayers within 120 days and give them a named contact within the VOA for further discussion.

  Council tax payers should have their appeals settled as quickly and efficiently as possible, giving appropriate priority to identified cases of hardship. We shall monitor progress to ensure that this is so and keep our plans under review in light of developments.
  481

  School Meals
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average price of a school meal in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in cash and real terms in each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Robert
  [holding answer 16 June 1993 ]: The average costs of set price school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools are shown in the table.

  Cash prices (pence)

  Constant prices (pence)

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1979–80

  30

  30

  69

  69

  1980–81

  42

  45

  83

  88

  1981–82

  42

  50

  75

  89

  1982–83

  47

  55

  78

  91

  1983–84

  52

  57

  83

  90

  1984–85

  158

  159

  188

  189

  1985–86

  58

  62

  83

  89

  1986–87

  63

  68

  87

  94

  1987–88

  65

  170

  85

  192

  1988–89

  66

  172

  81

  189

  1989–90

  166

  170

  176

  180

  1990–91

  167

  175

  172

  180

  1991–92

  73

  183

  73

  183

  1Based on an incomplete response from all local education authorities.

  Source: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of people in the United Kingdom over the age of 65 years are in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that 16·6 per cent. of people aged 65 or over in Great Britain are in receipt of income support. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1992.

  2. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those countries in the European Community which do not have a universal form of child benefit/family allowance.

  Mr. Burt
  All EC countries except Italy, Spain and France have a universal child benefit/family allowance scheme. The French scheme, although universal in application, pays nothing for the first child, thus effectively excluding a significant proportion of families. There are numerous differences in coverage between countries, often varying according to the ages and number of children.

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Running costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,751

  1,628

  1,718

  1,713

  1,960

  2,156

  Capital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89

  99

  158

  301

  294

  333

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  315

  345

  384

  426

  526

  Total

  1,068

  1,234

  1,402

  1,412

  1,841

  2,042

  2,221

  2,398

  2,680

  3,015

  482

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the actions taken by his Department in support of this year's European Year of the Elderly within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hague
  We have worked closely with Department of Health which has overall co-ordinating responsibility for the year. Together we have provided funding to support the year and official representation on both the EC and United Kingdom advisory committees which oversee the varied programme of events. As part of its customer care provisions for older people, the Benefits Agency will shortly be launching a major new publication informing older pensioners and their carers of their benefit rights.

  Pensioners (State Benefits)
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioner units receive income from state benefits to the value of(a) 100 per cent. of income, (b) 75 per cent. of income or more and (c) 50 per cent. of income or more.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimates are in the table.

  The proportion of pensioner units whose gross income comes mostly from state benefits

  (Per cent.)

  Proportion of gross income that comes from state benefits

  Proportion of pensioner units

  100 per cent.

  14

  75 per cent, or more

  53

  50 per cent, or more

  72

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner units are defined as single pensioners over state pension age or pensioner couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  2. Estimates are based on data from the 1989 Family Expenditure Survey.

  3. Estimates are cumulative e.g. the figure for 75 per cent. or more includes those units with no income other than that from state benefits.

  Benefits
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the total amount of expenditure on provision within the responsibility of his 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. Burt
  The Department's total administrative expenditure for the latest available years is in the table.
  483
  Notes:

  Up to and including 1988–89 the figures included administrative costs for the Department of Health when the Department was the Department of Health and Social Security.

  A regional breakdown could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Prior to 1986–87 no breakdown was kept between current and capital expenditure.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had to correlate the payment of unemployment payments with other benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Regular discussions take place between this department and the Department of Employment on the administration of benefits for unemployment, with a view to improving the service provided to unemployed people.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of people in the United Kingdom over the age of 65 years have income support which is less than £400 per annum above the level of eligibility for income support.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available. Resettlement Agency

  Resettlement Agency
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, if he has conducted the three-year review of the Resettlement Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department recently completed a full
  evaluation of the Resettlement Agency, which has been in existence since 1989, in accordance with the Government's commitment to evaluate "Next Steps" agencies. This evaluation concluded that the agency successfully met its objectives in its first three years of operation and should continue for a further three years at which time another evaluation will take place. I have today placed in the Library copies of the agency's evaluation and framework documents.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

  Mr. Burt
  No external costs have been incurred. It is not possible to identify separately the cost of work done by the Department's own lawyers.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of' State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that, if a social fund officer requires a condemnation report when considering a social fund application for a fuel appliance, the Benefits Agency should meet the cost of a provisional report;

  (2) if he will amend social fund guidelines to ensure that the Benefits Agency should bear the cost of a condemnation report for a social fund application for a fuel appliance if one is required by the agency.

  Mr. Scott
  Guidance currently requires social fund officers to decide each application on its merits and I have 484
  no plans to change this. Where a condemnation—or provisional—report is produced the social fund officer will usually include its cost in any award made.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to respond to the recommendations made by the Social Security Advisory Committee on its report entitled "The Social Fund: A New Structure".

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 22 June 1993 at column 165.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions in Wales have been brought against people for fraudulently claiming invalidity benefit in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of benefit fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. Rod Richards, dated 28 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 Wales asking, how many prosecutions in Wales have been brought against people for fraudulently claiming invalidity benefit in each year since 1979.

  I regret that I am unable to provide all the information you requested.

  The Sector Fraud Organisation has only been in existence since January 1991 and the information you asked for has only been collated in the format requested from I April 1992. The first full year for which figures are available is, therefore, the year ended 31 March 1993.

  In that period there were twenty-one prosecutions in Wales for offences involving Invalidity Benefit. In all twenty-one cases guilty verdicts were returned.

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

  Local Offices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each Benefits Agency office that processes claims for invalidity benefit from persons resident in Pendle.

  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 Richard to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 28 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 if he will list each Benefit Agency Office within Pendle that

  485
  processes claims for Invalidity Benefit from persons resident in Pendle.

  The area of Pendle is dealt with by Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale District. Within the District there are two offices, Burnley District Office which processes Invalidity Benefit claims from persons resident in Pendle and Rossendale Benefit Office which is a "caller office" providing advice and information only to the public.

  The District covers not just Pendle itself but all the following areas. Padiham, Hapton, Nelson, Colne, Earby, Foulridge, Barnoldswick, Trawden, Briarfield, Barrowford, Whitworth, Bacup, Stacksteads, Haslingdon, Helmshaw, Rawtenstall, Waterfoot, Edenfield and Crawshawbooth.

  Statistical information is maintained for the District as a whole and is not available for individual areas.

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

  Medical Assessments
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical assessments have been undertaken at the Sheffield DHSS office this year, broken down by month.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 28 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 the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many medical assessments have been undertaken at the Sheffield DHSS office this year, broken down by month.

  Firstly, I should explain that I have taken your question as referring to the Medical Boarding Centre located in Queens St. Sheffield. This is the office that deals with medical assessments for the area.

  The information that you have requested has only been recorded since 2 February 1993. I am therefore unable to provide you with any figures for the month of January 1993. Additionally the figure provided for the month of June 1993 represents a count of medical assessments completed up to 18 June 1993. The table below sets out, by month, the number of medical assessments that have been undertaken in 1993. The numbers quoted arc in respect of Severe Disablement Allowance, Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit customers.

  Month

  Numbers

  February

  236

  March

  334

  April

  357

  May

  387

  June

  200

  I hope that this reply is helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) what guidance is given to assessment officers in applying the discretionary provisions of the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1989;

  (2) what are the relevant qualifications possessed by assessment officers determining legal aid eligibility; what
  486
  training and guidance are provided to assessment officers; and what monitoring and supervision of assessment officers' performance take place.

  Mr. Burt
  The assessment of financial eligibility for civil legal aid is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Jane Kennedy, dated 28 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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking (i) what guidance is given to assessment officers in applying the discretionary provisions of the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations and (ii) what arc the relevant qualifications possessed by assessment officers determining legal aid eligibility; what training and guidance is provided to assessment officers; and what monitoring and supervision of assessment officers' performance takes place.

  I should first of all point out that the assessment of financial eligibility for civil legal aid is performed on behalf of the Legal Aid Board by the Benefits Agency at a centralised office situated in Preston.

  Assessment officers are provided with written guidance on all aspects of the financial assessment of civil legal aid cases. This includes the application of the discretionary provisions which permit an allowance against, or a disregard of, an item of income or capital to be made where reasonable.

  The advice, however, only gives general guidelines. It encourages assessment officers to use their powers in a way which is consistent with the Regulations, that shows impartiality between the interests of the applicant, the opponent and the legal aid fund and for their decisions to be made taking into account all relevant information about the circumstances of each individual case. Such guidance cannot, therefore, be prescriptive although examples are given where it might be reasonable to exercise discretion.

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has authorised all officers of the grade of Administrative Officer and above employed in the Benefits Agency's Legal Aid Assessment Office to be assessment officers for the purpose of determining the financial resources of persons seeking civil legal aid.

  In practice most assessment work is carried out by Administrative Officers who will have the minimum qualifications applicable to the grade, unless they have been promoted from Administrative Assistant or equivalent.

  The Legal Aid Assessment office provides extensive and discreet in-house technical training for assessment officers. This consists of both classroom training and operational experience followed by support from a trained mentor. Further advice and information is provided by the written guidance given to assessment officers and supported by a section within the Assessment Office responsible for considering policy and procedural matters.

  The performance of assessment officers is monitored on an ongoing basis by their line managers. In addition, a random sample of assessment work is checked by a quality evaluation sections which is entirely independent of the operational section responsible for making financial assessments. Furthermore, civil legal aid assessment work is subject to scrutiny by both Benefits Agency Internal Audit and the National Audit Office.

  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.

  Child Support
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to commission research on the workings of the new child support scheme; and what form such research will take.
  487
  Mr. Burt
  We have consistently stressed the importance of monitoring and evaluating the effects of the new policy and there is ongoing work built in to the Department's research programme. It involves both the careful analysis of management information on the activities of the Child Support Agency and the commissioning, as necessary, of research by external experts including; a customer satisfaction survey: work on how professionals view the new system and an extension of work on lone parents, benefits and maintenance by the Policy Studies Institute.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average time taken to fill in the Child Support Agency form in the Child Support Agency tests;

  (2) how many pages are contained in the Child Support Agency form which is given to the absent parents to complete;

  (3) how many pages are contained in the Child Support Agency form which is given to the mother or carer for completion.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 9 June 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency (CSA) it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your three recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of pages in the form which is given to the absent parent to complete, the number of pages in the form which is given to the mother or carer for completion, and the average time taken to fill in the form in the tests.

  The CSA form given to the absent parent to complete is 36 pages long.

  The CSA form given to the parent with care of the child to complete is 36 pages long or, where the client is claiming Income Support, 16 pages long.

  The findings of three rounds of market research indicate that on average completion of the maintenance application form (MAF) by the parent with care of the children would take about an hour and completion of the Maintenance Enquiry Form by the absent parent would take a similar amount of time. Completion of the shortened version of the MAF (for use by clients claiming Income Support) should take less than half an hour.

DEFENCE

  Ministry of Defence Police Federation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates Ministers in his Department held formal meetings with the Ministry of Defence Police Federation during the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Defence Ministers have met representatives of the Defence Police Federation formally on the following dates during the past five years:

  10 July 1989

  3 October 1989

  2 October 1990

  1 October 1991

  20 October 1992

  488
  In addition, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence has a policy of open access for the federation if problems occasionally arise which cannot be resolved through official channels.

  RAF Boulmer
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft, of what type and of what age, are deployed at RAF Boulmer for the provision of search and rescue operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  Two Sea King helicopter air rescue mark 3 helicopters, in the search and rescue role, are deployed at RAF Boulmer. These aircraft first flew in March 1978.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rescue operations have been flown from RAF Boulmer since the cessation of search and rescue flights from RAF Leuchars to incidents in Tayside, Central, Fife, Strathclyde and Lothian regions.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not normally possible to provide statistical data by regional area without incurring disproportionate costs. Due to the very small number of rescues, including incidents such as transfer of sick or injured people from ship to hospital, however, details for the period 1 April to 23 June 1993 are as follows:

  Region

  Number of callouts

  Tayside

  1

  Central

  —

  Fife

  2

  Strathclyde

  —

  Lothian

  —

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what time RAF Boulmer received a request to provide search and rescue assistance for the rescue of Diane Robertson near Benarty woods, Fife on 20 June; and how long after the receipt of that request it was before an aircraft reached the scene of the rescue.

  Mr. Hanley
  RAF Boulmer recorded the request at 15.14 on 20 June. The SAR helicopter was diverted from a training sortie and, after refuelling at Boulmer, it reached the incident site at 16.13. The local fire brigade and ambulance were in attendance while the helicopter was on its way to the scene of the incident.

  Mr Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the last five years for which information is available search and rescue aircraft from RAF Boulmer have engaged in rescue operations with the Anstruther lifeboat or training exercises for such operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  The search and rescue helicopters from RAF Boulmer have attended two incidents in the past five years which involved the Anstruther lifeboat. There are no records of the RAF Boulmer helicopters training with the Anstruther lifeboats.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
  489
  Mr. Aitken
  Legal advice provided by the Treasury Solicitor to the Department includes, where appropriate, advice on the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme. The costs of that element of advice are not separately identifiable.

  Uranium-tipped Ammunition
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the practice of issuing British troops with uranium-tipped bullets and shells; and to what extent these weapons were used by British troops in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on 11 June 1993,Official Report, column 309.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 194, if he will place in the Library copies of (a) the health evaluation of depleted uranium-tipped shells and (b) the advice on risk in use issued to British forces.

  Mr. Hanky
  No. The documents are classified because they give information about the size and composition of United Kingdom ammunition which could be of advantage to an enemy.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 194, what general or informal information he has received from the United States Government regarding dangers to service men in the Gulf resulting from the use of shells tipped with depleted uranium.

  Mr. Hanley
  Potential risks from handling depleted uranium (DU) were well understood in the United States and United Kingdom before the Gulf conflict. Since then, my Department has monitored reports in mass media and specialist journals quoting United States officials on the subject. Most recently and authoritatively. my Department has received a copy of a United States Department of Defence fact sheet of 11 June 1993 which specifically relates to the possible health effects of DU and analyses known incidents involving exposure of United States personnel to it. These personnel continue to be monitored, but the fact sheet concludes that exposure to DU has not caused the unexplained symptoms associated with the so-called Desert. Storm syndrome (DSS). The existence of DSS and its possible causes have also been a subject of discussion between United States and United Kingdom medical officers in the course of normal liaison, which supports the Department of Defence official assessment. For the convenience of the House, I am arranging to have a copy of the document placed in the Library.

  Dockyards
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Hunt class refits are to be carried out at Rosyth:

  (2) how many aircraft carriers are to be (a) refitted before 2005 and (b) allocated to Rosyth;

  (3) if he will list for each year until 2005, the guaranteed surface ship refits allocated to Rosyth dockyard; what is his estimate of the number of man weeks, per vessel; and how many jobs he attributes to each refit;
  490
  (4) what is the proportion of refit expenditure he expects to be paid to (a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport in 1993 and in each year until 2005;

  (5) what is his estimate of the restructuring costs for (a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport under his proposals announced on 24 June;

  (6) how many (a) type 42, (b) type 23 and (c) type 22 refits are (i) allocated to Rosyth and (ii) guaranteed to Rosyth between now and 2005;

  (7) if he will list the job numbers for each year until 2005 in defence work he has estimated to be attributed to (a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport;

  (8) what is his estimate of the costs of defence refitting each year until 2005; and what is the amount he expects will be paid to (a) Rosyth, (b) Devonport and (c) other shipyards.

  Mr. Aitken
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said in the House on 24 June,Official Report, column 449, further information relating to the Government's conclusions regarding future refitting arrangements for the Royal Navy will be published in a consultative document which will provide a basis for consultation with the parties concerned. This document will be issued next week.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the construction of the nuclear storage facility at Rosyth;

  (2) when he will remove all nuclear waste from Rosyth.

  Mr. Aitken
  The nuclear storage facility at Rosyth is required to provide a temporary local integrated complex to store items and materials arising from the continuing nuclear refitting and decommissioning work at Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where the decommissioned Polaris submarines will now be stored; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to move all decommissioned submarines from Rosyth;

  (3) when he expects to move the Dreadnought submarine from Rosyth.

  Mr. Aitken
  Our present policy is that decommissioned nuclear submarines, including Polaris, will continue to be stored afloat at the location where they are decommissioned, pending eventual disposal. This policy is kept under review. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the Trident refit debate on 24 June, columns 449–58, this will be the subject of further consideration.

  F3 Tornado
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, columns 339–40, if the four F3 Tornados which had undergone fatigue index modification by Airwork Services and had been returned to operational bases, have now been returned to St. Athan and classified as to the extent of damage.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. It will take some time before the damage assessment of Tornado F3 aircraft affected by this contract is complete.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, columns

  491
  339–40, if he has received the report of the Royal Aeronautical Establishment, Farnborough, on the preferred method of rectification of the F3 Tornados modified by Airwork Services at RAF St. Athan, and damaged in the course of that modification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I do not expect to receive the recommendations of the aircraft design authority on repair schemes for several months and the Defence Research Agency will not be in a position to provide its own advice until some time after that.

  Low flying
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the operation of the low-flying management system over Cumbria on 23 June; and if he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the automated low-flying flight planning inquiry and notification system.
  492
  Mr. Hanley
  The management of the United Kingdom low-flying system over Cumbria was operating in accordance with normal procedures on 23 June. The automated low-flying flight inquiry and notification system will be introduced into service as quickly as possible.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken concerning the allegations made against MOD police officers by Ms Lindis Percy of Bradford, in a letter dated 31 May to the chief constable of MOD police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I can confirm that the chief constable of MOD police received a letter dated 31 May concerning allegations made against MOD police officers by Ms Lindis Percy of Bradford. It has been recorded as an official complaint and is now being investigated in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. A report will be forwarded to the Police Complaints Authority when the investigation has been completed.

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

Babies: Intensive Care
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether changes will be made within the National Health Service (NHS) following the recent report by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine that more than 1,000 newborn babies die each year due to lack of basic equipment and inadequate staffing in the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department of Health) Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is referring to a recent report by the voluntary organisation, Baby Life Support Systems (BLISS). That contains a reference to the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. Although the Government respect the work which BLISS does in supporting parents whose babies have experienced intensive care, they do not accept the conclusions of the report.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that in addition to the voluntary organisation BLISS, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine also undertook a survey of 80 per cent. of neonatal units? It claims that one-third of baby deaths are avoidable, and that 1,000 of the babies who are born and subsequently die, would not die if basic requirements and more trained staff were provided.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service has an insatiable appetite and it will continue to consume resources. However, in this field the record speaks for itself: the survival of babies weighing less than 1,000 grammes has improved threefold over the past 15 years. Moreover, 96 per cent. of babies weighing under 2,500 grammes (about 5.5 lb.) survive the crucial first four weeks of life.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the report in the British Medical Journal of a study by the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford which has discovered that two-thirds of babies born very prematurely suffer mental and physical disability, and that one-quarter of them suffer severe disability? Does that not give rise to the difficult question about the wisdom of resuscitating very premature babies? A fall in the death rate of premature babies may in fact give rise to an increase in disability in childhood; and, if they reach adult age, in adulthood. Is it not one of those difficult questions where one has to balance the outcomes against the expenditure, the effort and the mental trauma involved in saving extremely premature babies?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right; it is up to purchasing authorities—that is, district health authorities—to assess the outcomes of treatment. It is also an issue that the Government are most anxious should require medical audit. However, the recent research that I have seen suggests that 75 per cent. of very low birthweight babies (that is, under 2 lb. in weight) are free from significant handicap.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister share the anxiety recently expressed by the Chief Medical Officer that some of the targets in The Health of the Nation may not be met? As it is nearly a year since its publication date, will she soon make a statement on the matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in setting the targets contained in The Health of the Nation, the Government were anxious that they should be challenging targets. Indeed, we are making good progress on most of them. However, I should not like to anticipate that we shall meet all the target dates in the first year or indeed in the time set for them.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the trouble with such a Question is that it contains a statement which is simply not true? There is no evidence to suggest that 1,000 individual babies died from these particular causes. Is it really the sort of Question that should be tabled in the first place?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that there is freedom in your Lordships' House for noble Lords to ask any Question that they may choose to put. However, I agree with my noble friend. It is extremely difficult to find any evidence as that suggested in the Question.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, following the Minister's answer to an earlier question about the facts in which she referred to the growing number of low birthweight babies born in the country, I should like to ask this question. Does she agree that that number is increased by the general application and treatment with fertility drugs? What is the Government's attitude and policy on such treatment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government's policy on fertility drugs was well set out in the debate that took place in your Lordships' House when I answered a Starred Question. It is up to clinicians to decide, taking into account various, criteria, whether they think it appropriate for that drug to be given to the couple concerned.
Lord Dean of Beswiclk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, by any statistics, the inner areas of Manchester have the highest record of child deaths at birth and of those taking place before 12 months of age? Bearing those terrible statistics in mind, and recognising the fact that there has been a slight improvement, will the Minister turn her attention to the problem and see whether any further help can be given?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I recently visited that area. People in the North Western Regional Health Authority are aware of the poor mortality rates. They are setting out courageously to meet the targets set out in The Health of the Nation.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many special care baby cots exist in this country, and what percentage of those have been donated by individuals or by voluntary organisations through charitable donations?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have those figures with me; but I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the accuracy of the statement in the Question has been questioned. Is my noble friend's department in a position to say whether or not the British Association of Perinatal Medicine has stated that more than 1,000 newborn babies have died because of this lack of attention? Is that true or not?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the statement is taken from a quotation by the president of the association that we are discussing. I am happy to let my noble friend see the source of that statement. However, this is not a simple question. We believe the survey undertaken by BLISS which quoted the President of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine is based on inaccurate information. We do not believe that the survey was carried out with the normal rigorous research protocols that we would expect from an organisation that receives so much publicity.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in view of the attack that was made upon my noble friend by her noble friend, will the Minister assure us that the president of the association which we are discussing made the allegation that is contained in my noble friend's Question, and that my noble friend is perfectly entitled to table that Question?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the reference to this comes from the Daily Telegraph dated 4th December 1992. The newspaper quotes Professor Richard Cooke, President of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. The matter is still open to interpretation and that is why the department has some misgivings about the use of that quotation in the report we are discussing.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a massive credit side in the balance here; namely, that because of advances made in medicine, the perinatal period is becoming less threatening to life? That results in a great saving to the National Health Service. Each healthy child that survives that period makes an additional contribution. Research carried out in France proves that it would be niggardly to cut back on this service when great advances are being made.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of cutting back on the service. As regards the resources that have been spent, one can see that the
710
number of paediatricians has increased by 27 per cent. since 1987. Nurses and midwives employed in neo-natal units have increased by 13 per cent. over the same period. But, as I said at the beginning of this debate, it really is up to health authorities to decide where they wish to spend their resources. Indeed, I can cite a region that has good perinatal and infant mortality rates but has the lowest rate of input in terms of resources into neo-natal intensive care. That says a lot for the population, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, in connection with Manchester.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her defence of the principles of this House in the face of some people who would like to destroy those principles. The 4,000 families who have lost babies would not consider this an unnecessary Question. I thank the Minister for her assistance, and I hope there can now be some co-operation between our great voluntary organisations and the department.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of the gratitude this nation has for the National Health Service. That applies to parents, patients and other people who use the service.

British Coal: Pit Closures
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken, with British Coal and the miners' unions, in dealing with the pit closures announced by the President of the Board of Trade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, pit closure decisions and their implementation are a matter for British Coal after consultation with the unions. The Government are making available a generous regeneration package of £200 million to assist English mining areas.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the whole country revolted against the Government's pit closure proposals last October, the Government offered a subsidy—presumably that is included in the figures which the noble Baroness has just given—to bridge the gap between British-produced coal and world import prices? What has happened about that? It appears that nothing has been done about it. Is British Coal to blame; are the generators to blame, or are the Government to blame for not pushing this matter harder? Is not the real reason for the delay that the Government want pits to close? That is what is happening now.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord asked many questions. First I assure him that, as recently stated by the chairman of British Coal, we, too, wish to sustain and secure the largest economically viable UK coal industry. The financial package I mentioned seeks to create regeneration and

711
new opportunities in English mining areas. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade offered a subsidy, the aim of which is to create market opportunities. Its aim is to enable British Coal and private mining operators to be competitive where there are opportunities for extra sales. If the noble Lord wishes to apportion blame, I fear that it must be the customer who is responsible because if there is no customer there is no market.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in addition to the special aid which the Government are providing, the miners enjoy the best pension, redundancy and early retirement scheme of any industry? Does she also agree that, in addition, they have the advantage of having skills and a work ethic which should make them attractive to other industries coming to those areas?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Boardman that every effort has been made to ensure that the miners have been offered an extremely satisfactory voluntary redundancy package. The figures of miners taking voluntary redundancy are evidence of that. In addition, there is evidence that British Coal Enterprise, which works excellently in this area, has managed, even in a difficult economic climate, to place some 75 per cent. of those miners made redundant.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, in the last debate on the coal industry, on 31st March, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, stated:
"British Coal has announced that 12 of the 21 pits included in the review will continue to produce coal… no pit will close without first being offered to the private sector"—[Official Report, 31/3/93; cols. 896-897.]
How true is that today? Have those promises been kept? Have any applications been made to the coal privatisation unit?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, British Coal has so far offered 14 pits to the private sector with others to come in the next few weeks. I understand that numerous expressions of interest have so far been received.
Lord Howell: My Lords, have the Government yet considered the future of the miners' welfare scheme, which provides all the sports, recreation and leisure facilities not just for the mines but for whole communities where the pits are situated? If those close it will be a substantial setback in providing proper sporting and recreational facilities. Have the Government considered that aspect and can the noble Baroness make any statement?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we share his concern for the communities in which the mines operate. We shall certainly be taking into consideration the effect on the community and the needs of the community. That is why I am delighted to confirm this £200 million regeneration fund.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps we may take the opportunity of this Question to wish the President of the Board of Trade a quick and happy recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will welcome the return of a little style.
Is the Minister aware that when the President of the Board of Trade introduced the White Paper on 25th March and referred to the 12 pits which we were told were to be rescued, he said—and with the permission of the House I shall quote his words:
"Twelve of the 13 remaining pits will continue to produce while British Coal, with Government financial backing, looks for additional sales at world-related prices"?—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/93; col. 1230.]
Will the Minister confirm that already three of the 12 pits have been closed or their closure has been announced? Will she tell us how much of those subsidies have been committed or spent? Is it true that the answer is nil?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his best wishes to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. As he may imagine, those of us at the DTI will welcome his return more than anyone.
The noble Lord questioned whether three pits from the list of market testing pits are to be closed. I can assure him that Silverdale, which is one that he may have in mind, ceased production for a period, but production has now resumed and British Coal does not envisage closure at present. There are two pits—Rufford and Markham—where the workforce has decided to accept closure as the mines have hit geological problems. I confirm that British Coal is continuing to test the market for supplementary sales. The subsidy continues to be available, but it is difficult for us to pay it until it is requested as a result of the existence of additional sales.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness inform her noble friend Lord Boardman that miners do not receive the biggest redundancy payments? The highest figures are obtained by retired company directors, bank managers and a whole range of others.
I stand again to deal with the question of redundancy payments in connection with pit closures. Will the Government further extend the enhanced redundancy arrangements, because they have already extended them, so that no more pits will be closed before 31st December?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, well knows, that is a matter for British Coal. However, perhaps I may take the opportunity to say that that is why we thought that the miners well deserved generous voluntary redundancy deals.

Russian Commemorative Medal
2.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now reached a decision on the wearing of the Russian commemorative medal and, if so, what it is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of State (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have not yet reached a decision on whether a change can be made to the existing regulations to permit British service personnel to wear the Russian commemorative medal.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I imagine that I have to thank the noble Viscount for that response. Is he aware that I first raised this matter on 26th April, which is some two months ago? Does it take that long for the Government to arrive at a decision?
Is the noble Viscount further aware that many veterans of the Arctic campaign wore the Russian commemorative medal during the recent Battle of the Atlantic commemoration in Liverpool? They were not arrested, although they were apparently flouting a regulation which Her Majesty's Government do not seem to wish to enforce. Finally, is the noble Viscount aware that Garter King of Arms has sanctioned the wearing of a medal recently awarded by the Maltese Government? If that is the case why cannot our Government sanction the wearing of a medal awarded by the Russians?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who, I believe, had a distinguished military career himself, must be very well aware of the complications attendant upon medals and the regulations relating to the wearing of medals.
As to whether it was a discourtesy to the Sovereign to wear such medals and whether such people should have been arrested, the noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, of the reaction of Queen Elizabeth I when the first Lord Arundell of Wardour was created a Count of the Holy Roman Empire by the Emperor Rudolph II. She remarked:
"I would not have my sheep branded with another man's mark; I would not have them follow the whistle of a strange shepherd".
I point out to the noble Lord that the sheep in question spent two months in the Fleet prison and was banished from court. I suggest that we live now in a more civilised age, that the wearing of a medal against regulations is merely a discourtesy to the Sovereign and that it would not be proportionateߞin the words of the United Nationsߞto send people to prison or to arrest them for that discourtesy.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had a distinguished military career because he was in my company. Does the Minister not agree that Whitehall bureaucracy has invariably adopted a parsimonious attitude to the wearing of medals by members of our Armed Forces who, compared with those of other countries, are allowed all too few medalsߞridiculously few? When,
714
in a campaign or enterprise such as this, the great danger and hardship endured by our servicemenߞin this case of the Royal Navy, the merchant navy and the Royal Air Forceߞhas been commemorated by a foreign government, should we not in all fairness be looking for reasons to enable those who participated to wear the medal rather than for reasons why they should not?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it distresses me immeasurably when listening to cries of "Hear, hear" and cheers to find myself not only in disagreement with the noble and gallant Lord but also with the majority of your Lordships. It is only because of the very strong views expressed by your Lordships to my noble friend Lord St. Davids on a previous occasion that the review is taking place. It is perhaps a tribute to your Lordships that the review is being taken seriously. When a proper analysis has been made I shall be in a position to report to your Lordships on the results of the review. In the interim I say with due deference to the noble and gallant Lord, in view of his immeasurably greater experience in these mattersߞI am not entitled, unlike the noble and gallant Lord, to wear a single medal, whether foreign or domesticߞthat one of the reasons why British medals are so prized may be their rarity value and the sometimes idiosyncratic rules that govern their wear.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend referred to my ancestor, the first Lord Arundell of Wardour, and sheep which Queen Elizabeth did not wish branded by the emperor's mark. Is he aware that during the Suez campaign, the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, Sir Anthony Eden, solemnly had his private secretary, Mr. Philip de Zulueta, write to me as someone who would know, as to whether he, as a descendant of the said Lord Arundell of Wardour, was entitled to be a Count of the Holy Roman Empire? I wrote to Mr. Philip de Zulueta that I did not think that either he, Sir Anthony Eden, or I was entitled to be a Count of the Roman Empire.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always enjoy trips down historical lanes with my noble friend. However, I should be outside the scope of the Question if I indulged myself too far in that direction. Nevertheless, it had been noised abroad that recusants were not easily loyal subjects of Her Majesty. That was implied by a Sixtus V Bull in the 16th century. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend that anything he can say to support our position will disprove that canon.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, as the campaign was one of the most bitter campaigns of the war, very few of the medals were issued, the number entitled to wear them becomes fewer every year, and no one is likely to be misled by the wearing of the medal, would a wise Minister not decide that now is the moment when a rule should be broken?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is the purpose of the review. Your Lordships' views, in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will be taken keenly into account in the review that is taking place.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, we must move to the last Question.

East Timor
3.2 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to encourage compliance by the Government of Indonesia with Resolution No. 97 of 1993 on the situation in East Timor adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission on 4th March 1993.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we take every opportunity, including during the visit of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Jakarta in April, to urge the Indonesians to co-operate with the United Nations in implementing the resolution.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. But does she appreciate that the last two visits by British Ministers to Indonesia were perceived as being more concerned with selling war planes and maximising investment opportunity than adding Britain's voice to the virtually unanimous international condemnation of the killings and torture in East Timor? Will she assure the House that we shall do everything possible at least to persuade the Indonesian Government to be more co-operative towards the United Nations rapporteur and the International Red Cross if indeed they now have nothing to hide?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand why the noble and learned Lord poses the Question in those terms. However, as a co-sponsor with our European partners of that resolution, we have been to the forefront in seeking to make sure that the issue is high on the agenda, and is kept there.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the resolution urges Indonesia to invite to East Timor the special rapporteurs on torture and on extra-judicial summary or arbitrary executions; and the working groups on arbitrary detention or enforced or involuntary disappearances. Not only did we co-sponsor it; we have followed it up at every opportunity that we have had. We shall continue to do so.
In answer to the noble and learned Lord's question about Red Cross visits, we were very disturbed that its first attempt to resume visits on 25th May was interrupted by restrictions placed on visiting procedure. There was a further attempt on the 17th of this month but that was cut short. Along with the International Committee of the Red Cross, we deplore these continuing difficulties. We appeal to the Indonesian authorities to take all necessary steps to resolve them and to enable the visits to be carried out smoothly.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is it not a fact that Indonesia is a member of the South East Asia Treaty
716
Organisation? I assume that the point of the Question is to achieve stability in the area so that there will be a peaceful situation. If that is so, should the Minister not exercise some control in that area in league with other nations to ensure that stability is established?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. as with other areas of the world, stability in the ASEAN area is very high on the agenda. It is an issue which we shall keep high on the agenda.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give us an assurance that Britain no longer sells arms to Indonesia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I told the noble Lord at a previous Question Time, if a country seeks to purchase arms for her own self-defence and for the defence of the region, it is perfectly permissible. Were she to be buying arms for internal repression, of course we would be against it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, and given that Britain is one of the biggest arms suppliers to Indonesia, will the Minister assure the House that steps are being taken by the Government to ensure that those supplies of arms and equipment are not being used against the people of East Timor?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no evidence that aircraft sold in the past to Indonesia have been used for internal security purposes; nor have I any reason to believe that those in the contract which was concluded in May—I know that that is on the noble Baroness's mind—will be used in that way. We have made it absolutely clear to the Indonesians, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence did last week, that they should not be used for internal repression anywhere in Indonesia.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while welcoming the assurances given by the Minister that the Government will continue to press the issue, is it not clear that the human rights record has not improved since March? Has the Minister made representation about the inability of the International Committee of the Red Cross to gain access, to which she made reference, and the obstacles placed in the way of Amnesty International to gain information? Has she made particular references on those matters?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are endeavouring to do so.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill and the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill will be taken.

717
Your Lordships will also have seen from today's Order Paper that the Second Reading of the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill will not be taken today. However, it will be taken on Tuesday, 13th July.

Merchant Shipping (Registration, Etc.) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause I [Treaty on European Union]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except the following words in Article 171: "In so doing it shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances' If the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it"").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps it will he convenient at the same time for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 214 to 216, 219 to 222, 304 and 328 to 331. This group of amendments concerns the extension of the powers and decisions of the European Court of Justice and the Commission, particularly by Article 171 which gives the Court the power to impose a fine on member states to force them to comply with the judgment; and potentially, by Article 172, under which regulations may be made by the Parliament and the Council to give the Court unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties that are provided for in such regulations.
Amendment No. 213, which leads the group, seeks to remove the power of the Commission to specify penalties for non-compliance with treaty obligations. Amendments Nos. 328 to 330 seek to remove completely any power to lay a penalty on a member state. It is on that issue that I wish to concentrate. While I understand the wish—particularly of the British Government who claim credit, I believe, for this amendment to the treaty—to penalise those countries who do not comply, I believe that the difficulties are substantial. I know of no precedent—others may well do so—for a sovereign nation to be fined by some other supranational body. It is outside my experience and I have been unable to find such a precedent. I feel sure that if there is one, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will draw it to our attention when he winds up.
Interesting questions are raised by the proposition and I am sure that Members of the Committee will be interested in them. I should like to know exactly how it would work. The proposal is to fine a member state; not a person, not Her Majesty, not the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, not Members of either House, but the state. Who is the state? What is the state? Presumably we are all the state, and under these provisions we are to be fined.
First there is the difficulty of definition, but there are further difficulties. There are no provisions on the likely misdemeanours except that a member state has not complied with the treaty. Presumably, that is the only one. However, there is no guidance or definition of what will constitute a crime or misdemeanour, whatever it may be. No level of seriousness is suggested, let alone laid down. There are no minimum or maximum fines. Would we, in this country, pass a law where the fines were indeterminate and without restriction? Would we give any court the power to fine on the basis of whatever the prosecuting authority suggested? That is entirely outside our experience. The Court, therefore, has no guidance as to what parameters it should use in relation to the offence committed. The seriousness of the offence committed again receives no guidance from the treaty.
The prosecuting authority is, I believe, the Commission. Indeed, it must be the Commission, there is no one else to do it. The prosecuting authority will therefore decide the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate penalty. Under this treaty, it will suggest what the penalty is. It will demand of the Court that that penalty shall be imposed.
I am not clear whether the Court could increase the suggested penalty, decrease it, or throw it out entirely. So far as I can see in the treaty, there is no specific guidance on the issue. Will the Court be able to increase the penalty asked for? Will it be able to decrease it? We are entitled to a reply on that, unless I missed it in reading the complicated treaty.
Then there is the question of the view the Commission itself will take. For example, when it proposes the penalty, will it take into account the ability to pay? Will it say, in the case of larger countries, "Because you can afford it, you may be fined more for the same offence than a smaller country"? Will it be able to do that? If so, will it be done on the whim of the Commission or will we have a new unit fine system imposed on the Community? Is that the way it will be done? I sincerely hope not, because experience shows us that that was a complete and utter disaster. The Government are about to make amendments to the Criminal Justice Act on that system.
Then one has to ask an important question: will these proceedings, like other proceedings, be in secret or, to use a less provocative word, in private? Will they be open to the public? Will we, the taxpayers—who, after all, will have to pay the fine; no one else will have to pay it—be allowed into the proceedings to hear the arguments and to see and hear the proceedings? In other words, will the hearings be in public or private?

719
Will it be possible to see justice being done rather than hear about it after the decision is taken? I think we should have an answer to that.
Then there is the other question. Normally, a criminal or person who has committed a misdemeanour has the right of appeal. Will there be any right of appeal? That is an important question. If there is to be the right of appeal, there is nothing about it in the treaty. But perhaps someone has been discussing it and there is some private arrangement on it. If there is to be no appeal, why will there not be one? Surely there must be some higher authority—perhaps the International Court of Justice—to which an appeal can be made. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can enlighten us on that. Is there to be an appeal? If so, to what authority will it be? If there is to be no appeal, it is a serious omission.
Normally any court has the means necessary to enforce its decisions. In this country the courts are enabled, by coercion, through imprisonment, and so on, to enforce their decisions. It is legitimate to ask: what happens if a member state refuses to pay? If it refuses to pay, what can the European Court do? What coercive powers has it at its disposal to ensure that its penalty is enforced, not on a person, but on a member state? There is nothing about that in the treaty. Again, we are entitled to ask what will happen in the case of a member state, a sovereign state, which does not comply with the decision of the court. Who makes that decision in the member state? Who will decide whether the fine is reasonable and should be paid? Will it be the Government, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister or Parliament? Let us suppose that the Treasury believes the fine reasonable, although perhaps only just reasonable, but that Parliament, as it still can, forbids the Treasury to pay it because Parliament believes it to be unfair or excessive. What happens then? How is the Community to enforce its will upon Parliament if Parliament decides that the fine shall not be paid?
Let us suppose, for example, that Parliament or the Treasury has decided that the fine will be paid, but in the meantime, before there has been a chance to pay, there is a general election. Another party—the Labour Party, for example—may well say that the fine is unjust and that if it is elected it has no intention of paying. Suppose that the party puts it in the manifesto, and it—the Labour Party, hooray—is elected. It says, "We have a manifesto commitment. We cannot pay this fine". What will happen then? Will the troops march in through the Channel Tunnel? Perhaps they will come en train, in one of the high-speed French trains. How exactly will the fine be enforced? These are very legitimate questions. And these are certainly probing amendments. It is most unfortunate that Parliament does not have all the details before it, as it would with any other Bill proposing that a court be given powers to fine or introduce penalties. Unless the system is clear and we know exactly what will happen, who will be responsible, and what powers the court will have to enforce its decisions, we are once again simply passing a Bill and agreeing to a provision without knowing its full effects. We are buying yet another pig in a poke.
Many Members of the Committee have a great deal of legal experience; I hope that they will be able to help in these matters. Under normal circumstances they would be bringing their considerable abilities to bear on whether this was a proper way to legislate. By passing this treaty and agreeing to its ratification, we are legislating, make no mistake about it. I hope that we can have some discussion on this group of amendments to see exactly where we are going and how this extension of the powers of the court will work in practice.
Lord Monson: I have two questions to put to the noble and learned Lord who is to reply. The first involves a question of simple semantics. At least, I hope it is simple. The second, in contrast, concerns matters of realpolitik.
Article 171, which is the subject of Amendment No. 213, refers to,
"the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid",
or so it is hoped, by the offending member state. Can the noble and learned Lord explain what on earth the phrase means? Surely "lump sum" in this context ought to be synonymous with the words "penalty payment". However, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce explained at Second Reading that every word and phrase in the treaty has been carefully vetted by teams of experienced lawyers. So, clearly, there can be no tautology in the treaty. Obviously, in this case, "lump sum" cannot be synonymous with "penalty payment". Are the non-lump sum penalty payments to consist perhaps of payments by instalment, or might they consist of payments in kind, possibly from grain mountains or wine lakes? I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's reply.
We must face the unintended, yet almost inevitable, consequences of the enforcement of a fine upon a particular country. The government of any country who acquiesce in the payment of a fine imposed upon that country face almost certain defeat at the next general election, such will be the normal, instinctive and indignant patriotic reaction of the inhabitants—particularly if the fine is a large one. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, hinted as much in his introductory remarks.
As I asked at Second Reading, what will happen if the country—most likely, in practice, one of the slightly poorer ones on the periphery of the Community—is going through a period of economic hardship or experiencing political turmoil, with extremist parties on the left or right, or possibly extreme religious parties, waiting in the wings and gaining substantial popular support? We have seen in Serbia how economic hardship boosts the fortunes of extremist parties. However right and proper it may seem in theory (and it is right and proper) to impose a fine on such a country for a transgression of Community law—why, after all, should any one country be able to break the rules with impunity?—can one imagine in practice such a fine being enforced if to do so is likely to bring to power a government of the extreme left or right with a consequent destabilising effect upon the Community as a whole? I shall be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's reply.
The Earl of Onslow: The joyous thought of my right honourable friend Douglas Hurd in a dock in Luxembourg clutching his cap and asking for time to pay because the public sector borrowing requirement has got out of control—as we all know it has—is quite amusing. The idea behind this point has some substance. How does one enforce the rules if one has joined a club? I believe that we have rather a good record of not breaking the rules. We have a record of being a little stroppy about the rules before they are introduced and discussing them at great length and in depth. But the idea of fines, despite its superficial attraction, becomes more difficult, it seems to me, the longer one looks at it.
Let us assume, for instance, that there is fraud by the Italians on durum wheat or by the Greeks on tobacco payments. I suppose one could say that those governments are not obeying properly the European legislation by not enforcing rigid honesty in its application. The idea that they will be asked to pay or will pay beggars description. I do not query the desirability of being forced to obey the rules of a club, a society or whatever. I just find that the whole system becomes slightly ridiculous the more one thinks about it.
How much will the fine be? Will it be ten bob the first time round? No one minds that. It can come out of the Foreign Secretary's petty cash. Or will the fine really hurt? In that case it will probably have to go before Parliament for approval and Parliament might say no. If the fine really hurts, it means that public finances will be upset.
I do not know the answers. I just hope that my noble arid learned friend can provide us with some form of clarification as to how this idea, attractive in principle but becoming slightly dottier the more one examines it, will work.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: I should like to help the Committee for a couple of minutes. So far as I know, the only occasion on which a nation state has been fined has been in the case of war reparations. After what happened at the end of the First World War, it is not easy to recommend that idea.
I believe it was said in Magna Charta that no man should be fined to his utter ruin. However, in this provision it is still possible that a state might be fined to its utter ruin, which I know is reductio ad absurdum. However, it is technically possible.
In the case of war reparations, fining of cities took place in the civil war in this country. I understand that 300 years ago Glasgow was fined by the great Marquess of Montrose. But that was a fine which was decided by the conqueror who was judge and jury. The only thing that remained to be resolved was the ability of the citizens to pay. Finally, the Soviet Union plundered its satellites but did not call it a fine. That was mainly done through the Comecon Bank—a possible precursor of the European Bank.
Earl Russell: I have just two points to make. Yesterday we were faced with a similar problem. There is nothing new about the problem of dealing
722
with a state which fails to meet its obligations under international law or treaties. Yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who is enjoying a few minutes well earned rest, explained a situation in which the United States took action in a rather drastic form against a power which had failed to meet its international legal obligations. So there is nothing new about the problem. I do not wish to put words into the noble Baroness's mouth, but I do not have much difficulty in imagining which action she would find it more comfortable to defend.
The other point which was dwelt on at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was the lack of specific detail. I can see why, coming from the English common law tradition, the noble Lord felt those anxieties. Perhaps I may draw his attention to a brief but extremely lucid passage in the Renton Report on drafting legislation which draws attention to the difference in the methods of drafting between British and European legislation. In British legislation the trend over several centuries has been toward making everything more specific. The noble Lord is familiar with that method. The trend in European legislation has been toward a general declaration which is then interpreted, refined and worked out in detail through a series of stages, with the interpretation guiding it by the assessment of intent.
English legislation used to work on the European principle. The classic example of it is the Magna Charta. I know of nothing more general than the words: to no one will be denied words, to no one will we sell or delay, right or justice. The meaning has been worked out very much in the style now used inside the European Community. I do not believe that it has led to the disappearance of the rule of law.
Lord Reay: As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made plain in that part of his speech when his feet were still on the ground and before he had moved to the far fetched hypothesis with which he concluded, the principal change to the powers of the European Court of Justice which would be brought about by the Treaty of Maastricht is that the court will acquire the power to fine member states for failing to comply with Community law.
The Committee will remember that it has long been a complaint in this country, voiced frequently from all parts of this Chamber, that we are law abiding and some other member states are not. It is said that we enact and comply with Community regulations to which other member states frequently agree but then ignore and that it is much to the disadvantage of our country and our firms.
That is not merely a subjective impression. There are figures to support those claims. Between 1982 and 1989, for example, Germany was referred to the European Court of Justice for infringements of Community law on more than twice as many occasions as the United Kingdom. France and Belgium were referred on more than four times as many occasions and Italy was referred almost eight times as frequently as the United Kingdom. Over the past 10 years only Denmark has had fewer references to the court than the United Kingdom. By the end of 1989 only one European Court judgment was

723
outstanding against the United Kingdom out of a total of 80 against member states as a whole. In contrast with other member states, I believe that we have never been taken twice to the court on the same issue.
The power to fine member states will for the first time enable the European Court of Justice to back up its judgments with penalties. It should therefore help to establish the level playing field for which we have long been calling.
The other principal changes introduced by the treaty with regard to the European Court of Justice aim to reduce the court's workload by enabling the Council acting unanimously to expand the jurisdiction of the court of first instance and by giving the court additional opportunities to sit in chambers. The court of first instance was established under the Single European Act with our strong backing (if I remember rightly), with the purpose of relieving the load on the court. Surely we have enough experience of legal delays in this country not to wish them on the Community.
Further articles expand the scope for judicial review both at the request of and into the Acts of the European Parliament and the European Central Bank and into the Acts of the Commission. The changes to the powers of the European Court of Justice brought about by the treaty will, I suggest, be entirely beneficial. One of them—the power to levy fines on member states—is of great importance and forms one of the main attractions of the treaty so far as we are concerned. These are practical and worthwhile proposals which will reinforce the rule of law. They thoroughly deserve our continued support. I believe that the amendments should be rejected.
Lord Jay: Surely the argument advanced by the noble Lord is weakened by the obvious question which follows. He says that a number of non-law-abiding states have simply defied the Community and that that can be put right by fines being imposed upon them by the European court. But suppose they refuse to pay the fines? What happens then? That was the question asked by my noble friend and the noble Lord did riot answer. If that happens, the situation will be exactly as it was before. If a state can defy the Community in not complying with the first instruction, it can equally defy it by declining to pay the fine.
Lord Reay: One should not assume that states will not pay fines. Thee situation till now has meant that the European Court of Justice has had no means by which to take action against member states which fail to comply; the treaty will give it such a means. We should leave the matter as it stands and see what turns out. We have no reason to believe that fines will not be paid.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I believe that there are more difficulties than the noble Lord, Lord Reay, allows for. I am extremely anxious that a change in the law that is intended to punish our partners in Europe should not rebound on our own heads.
724
As an economist I venture with some diffidence to comment on these legal matters. However, I remember that in the Second Reading debate my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce agreed that the European court was inclined to give,
"an extended purposive interpretation of the Treaty of Rome".
Through the tuition of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in studying the Stuttgart Declaration, I discovered that the European Court of Justice is accorded an important role in the progress towards European union,
"by securing compliance with, and development of, Community law".
That opens up some rather serious dangers because lawyers do not always agree. In the Second Reading debate we had weighty pronouncements from my two noble and learned friends Lord Wilberforce and Lord Slynn. But other lawyers were involved with such reputable names as Denning, Leolin. Price and, my favourite, Howe. I do not refer to the noble Lord, Lord Howe, but to a kinsman, Martin Howe, who wrote the document Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht. He may be only a junior lawyer by our elevated standards, but in my view he presents a persuasive and worrying account.
Martin Howe takes one example dear to my heart; that is, the question of Sunday trading. A leading retailer said that it was appealing to the European Court in the hope of finding that our Shops Acts were against the Treaty of Rome and its free trading doctrines. I was asked to present myself as an expert witness—no fee was mentioned but various hints were given. Not being a lawyer I did not feel obliged to accept the commission and, indeed, I explained, first, that I thought that the question of Sunday opening should be fought out and decided in this country where it would have its main effect; secondly, that the question of whether shops should open on a Sunday seemed to be wholly irrelevant to the free trading open-market imperatives of European Community law.
Martin Howe explains that the European Court of Justice did not reject the application from a leading retailer, which seemed to me to be the obvious thing to do. Sunday trading did not seem to have any effect on international trade. But this is business; it is an opportunity for what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce referred to in the Second Reading debate as,
"an extended purposive interpretation of the Treaty of Rome".
I do not want to prolong the agony. Rejecting the appeal, the European Court said that it was a matter for the domestic court. But in so doing it entertained the possibility that Sunday opening or closing of shops was of relevance to Europe and within the ambit of the European Court. The issue turned on the question of how far it affected the flow of and quantitative restrictions on trade. The final ruling, which Martin Howe quotes, is that:
"National rules governing the opening hours of retail premises reflect certain political and economic choices in so far as their purpose is to ensure that working hours are

725
arranged so as to accord with national or regional socio-cultural characteristics, and that, in the present state of Community law, is a matter for Member States".
If we wished to change the present state of Community law then the court would be ready to apply its judgment to those matters.
A question is raised, and it is a serious question that I wish to put to the noble and learned Lord who will reply. According to the Stuttgart Declaration and the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, of the pegs that are inserted on which later large constructions are made, an important part of the declaration is the development of social policy throughout Europe.
Britain has achieved an opt-out from the social chapter. There is dispute about how effective it might be. But one effect of the opt-out will be to reduce comparative costs of British production compared with those of our European partners. It could be interpreted as a distortion of competition. If our opt-out did not work and, in the name of the Stuttgart Declaration and other Frenchified phrases which are dotted around, it was decided that social Europe required conformity with the restrictions in relation to hours of work and conditions of employment, Britain may be found to be in default of the Treaty of Rome. It would have an unfair competitive advantage and therefore may find itself arraigned before the European Court of Justice.
I wish to have a clear undertaking from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there is no possibility of Britain being arraigned before that court by our partners on grounds that we have arrangements for employment, payment, holidays or pensions that imply some unfair advantage in trading with those other countries. Otherwise, a measure that was intended to punish our competitors will come back to haunt us.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I apologise to the Committee and in particular to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon that I was not in my place for the first few minutes when he began to move these important amendments. My only excuse is one which the noble Lord will well understand—the usual problems with the English transport system.
Article 171 is the most important new power to be given to the European Court of Justice by the Maastricht Treaty. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it was included on the initiative of the United Kingdom Government? The basic issue is whether there should be real sanctions available against members of the Community which do not comply with their legal obligations.
Although I do not want to clothe this country in a white sheet, particularly because we will have fallen down from time to time in relation to workers' rights, is it not a fact that our record of complying with our legal obligations in Europe is generally rather good? As I understand it, between 1987 and 1991, Italy had 87 references to the European Court; Greece, 52; Belgium, 47; France and Germany, 34 each; Luxembourg, 16; Spain, 12; Denmark, eight;
726
Portugal, five; and the United Kingdom, a much larger country than the last two, nine only. Am I also right that other member states have been taken to the Court —this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay—have been found to be in breach, have still not complied and so have been taken back to the Court a second time? Am I correct that that has never happened to the United Kingdom? I invite the noble and learned Lord to say whether the Government consider that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that the European Court should have the right to back up its judgment with a fine?
I accept, however, that the notion of fining a nation state is a difficult one. How much? It really has to be a very large sum if it is going to hurt the nation state's Exchequer. What order of fine is contemplated? Did the Government have any idea of what was contemplated when they signed up to, and perhaps initiated, this part of the treaty? What thought was given to whether the Court's powers in this regard should be subject to an upper limit? I appreciate that under existing treaties there are powers to fine under competition policy. There is no upper limit, and that is thought to work in practice. However, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could comment on these points.
Is it a good idea for the Commission to recommend to the Court a specific fine? I appreciate that in the end it is for the discretion of the Court, but what is the point of having the Commission seeming to lean on the Court in what is essentially a judicial function—the fixing of the amount of a fine? Why is there no procedure in the treaty —my noble friend Lord Jay called attention to this point —for the enforcement of fines against member states? It would not, as my noble friend said, be a happy state of affairs if we found that we paid our fines—if, unhappily, any were ever imposed on us—but that others did not. Since there have been egregious cases of non-compliance with Community law, why should there not also be equally egregious cases of non-payment of fines?
I imagine—and no doubt the noble and learned Lord will confirm—that thought was given to a mechanism for direct deduction of the amount of any fine from payments due to any member state from the Community budget. I can, on the other hand, see that the intended beneficiaries of these payments from the Community budget might well have no actual responsibility for a failure by a member state to implement a directive which resulted in a fine.
I raise these questions and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that they are serious and call for a response. I desire to make it plain from this Front Bench that we support the general principle of these articles which are under attack by the amendments. Just as the rule of law must prevail in this country, so it must prevail within the European Community. I do not regard it as tolerable that if there is a judgment against a member state it can get away with doing nothing at all about it. As to Article 175, it seems to us that it is needed to enable the Court to fulfil its basic duty under Article 164 of the original treaty to,

727
"ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty the law is observed".
Similarly, I regard Article 173 as a welcome extension to Europe of something very closely akin to our system of judicial review. I do not think that anyone would dispute in this country that where a government department, a local authority or any statutory body overreaches itself and acts beyond its statutory powers its acts should be struck down by our courts and it should be ordered to act lawfully. Such a system is at least as necessary to ensure that the European institutions act in accordance with and not beyond Community law.
I find it difficult to understand how those who are perhaps understandably concerned by the width of the powers of the institutions of the Community should be opposed to a system of judicial review within the Community which will ensure that those institutions do not trespass beyond their powers. I can understand the position of those who would wish that we were not part of the European Community. But I cannot understand the position of those who would deny the European Community an effective legal system.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that these amendments do not seek to attack the principle in itself. We are seeking to clarify the numerous grey areas to which he himself has referred, and which he himself has questioned, and also to highlight I he difference between theory, which may be excellent, and practice, which may not work quite so well.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I do not agree with that. I have forborne from addressing the specific amendments before the Committee although it is in accordance with the tradition of the House to do so. I find the form of Amendment No. 203, for example, very curious because the sentence in Article 171 reads:
"If the Member State concerned fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the case before the Court of Justice".
That sentence remains but the rest of Article 171 goes, so that if this amendment were to pass, a case of non-compliance by a member state with a judgment of the Court would be brought before the Court without the Court being given any jurisdiction to deal with it. That amendment, in my respectful submission, makes no sense. Amendment No. 216 would take out the whole of Article 173, which is intended to give the Court of Justice extensive powers of judicial review. I am not bowled over with admiration for the form of these amendments but I accept that the questions which arise are important ones. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will endeavour to deal with them.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): It is my intention to seek to deal with the spirit behind these amendments and the questions that have been asked in relation to them so far as I can. Obviously, a number of points can be made about the form of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart,
728
explained, they are intended to be probing amendments. So long as they produce the probes, the precise form in which they are couched may not be so important.
First I want to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that the legal function of the Court of Justice is defined in Article 164 of the Treaty of Rome and has remained unaltered during all the treaty amendments that have taken place since, including, if Maastricht is ratified, that treaty as well. The provision is:
"The Court of Justice shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty the law is observed".
My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce pointed out at Second Reading that the Court of Justice was in the habit of using a purposive construction of the regulations and provisions of the law with which it had to deal. As I understand the development of the law in this country also over recent years, under distinguished leadership in this House including the leadership of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, the courts here have also tended to go much more towards a purposive construction than they may have at some times in the past. Those who practise in the law would regard that as a proper and welcome development in the principles of statutory construction.
The new provision which this treaty puts forward for the Court of Justice is the new Article 171. I shall read a little of it, beginning with paragraph 1:
"If the Court of Justice finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked: what are the misdemeanours? How serious must they be? The answer is that a necessary misdemeanour is the failure,
"to fulfil an obligation under this treaty"
That is what founds this jurisdiction. It is developed in paragraph 2:
"If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken such measures it shall, after giving that State the opportunity to submit its observations, issue a reasoned opinion specifying the points on which the Member State concerned has not complied with the judgment of the Court of Justice".
The Court of Justice itself is, of course, adjudicatory only. The reason for the Commission to have the role which I have just read out is in order that action may be initiated if there is a failure to comply with the judgment of the court. The provision continues:
"If the Member State concerned fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the case before the Court of Justice".
So it has the responsibility of bringing the matter to the attention of the Court of Justice. The provision goes further:
"In so doing it shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it"—
that is, the Commission—
"considers appropriate in the circumstances".
So in looking into the circumstances the Commission is required, having brought the precise failures to the

729
attention of the member state, to specify what the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked me a semantic question. The answer is that a lump sum is intended to deal with a single omission. The penalty payment is intended to deal with a continuing default which might relate to the amount of time for which the default continues. For example, it may be a question of putting something right which has not been put right. The court could impose a penalty based on the number of days for which the default continues. It is intended to make clear that these two forms of financial penalty are possible.
That is the Commission's role; namely, to investigate; to bring to the attention of the member state what is wrong in its failure to comply precisely; to give it a time limit within which to comply and, if nothing happens, to state—
The Earl of Onslow: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. Can he give us some idea in what range the penalties will be? Will the sum involved be £50 billion or will it be 10s. 6d? Presumably, the figure must be somewhere between those two. Can my noble and learned friend tell me what is the range and how much the penalty will be?
The Lord Chancellor: I shall come to that matter in a moment or two if my noble friend can give me a minute in which to develop what is supposed to happen. I am endeavouring to deal with the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, which deals with this aspect of the Commission's part in the matter. The Commission is supposed to indicate the form of financial penalty which it considers appropriate. It would have a knowledge of all the circumstances and be in a position, for example, to know the financial situation of the member state, and the nature of the difficulties which the member state faces in carrying out the obligations, and so forth.
The position so far as the member state is concerned is that once the Commission has made its decision the matter goes to the Court of Justice. The provision goes on to say:
"If the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment"—
in other words, the decision of the Commission on this matter is not final. It is for the Court of Justice to decide whether the Commission is right or wrong in the matter. The member state will have an opportunity of being heard. In passing, perhaps I should answer the question about the proceedings being in public.
The decisions of the Court of Justice are always given in public. Normally there is an oral hearing of the court before the judgment is given. It would certainly be so as regards this type of case. When I had the honour of appearing on behalf of Her Majesty's Government (when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister) I found to my surprise that the methods of publicity surrounding the Court of Justice were even greater than in this country. I was appearing in the Court of Justice seeking to defend a regulation
730
in relation to fishing made, I believe, by the previous government. I found myself in the court with Danish television cameras because it was a case which concerned that country. The court allowed the formal proceedings to be filmed for the interest of Denmark. I gather that the film was duly shown on Danish television. So the Court of Justice does everything possible to make sure that its justice is not only done but seen to be done, using all modern technology. Publicity and the hearing in public is part of the ordinary system of the Court of Justice.
I come now to deal particularly with the question raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow. There is no limit or prescription as to the amount either of the lump sum or the penalty payment. If I were allowed to guess the probabilities I would say that 10s. 6d, which my noble friend mentioned, is probably on the low side. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that in this country we legislate always for definite penalties. One of the functions of the independent judiciary of this country, generally speaking, is to determine the amount of the penalty. As regards fines I believe that the noble Lord will discover that it is normal to give the court power—in the Crown Court, anyway —to impose unlimited fines in many cases. So this Parliament, with all its appetite for precision to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred, does not seek unduly to restrict the courts in the discretion which they may exercise in the amount of the penalty.
I come next to answer the question on whose initiative it was which put this particular provision in the treaty. I believe that it is fair to say that it was initiated by the British Government, quite early on in the intergovernmental conference proceedings. One of the points we often hear is that we obey the rules and others do not. What has been added is the power of the Court of Justice to impose a lump sum or penalty payment. There is no provision for enforcement.
The question arises as to what the situation should be. I believe that there is a question as to how far one can go at particular stages. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about precedent. There is no exact precedent for this particular power just as there is no exact precedent for the Community itself, the nature of its functions and its constitution. These are being developed for the particular purpose of suiting the unique gathering of nation states which we are.
But there are some analogies. For example, we are participants in the European Convention on Human Rights. Where a member state of that council is found to have breached one of the conditions there is provision under which the person injured by the breach may be compensated. The experience is that those payments are made although there is no enforcement machinery available. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred to some of the issues that have been considered in relation to this, but I believe that an important additional power is being given and that it would be undesirable at this juncture to go further than give that power to the court. If it was found that it did not work, something further might have to be done. But this is an important step to mark the fact that the Community is a community under the rule of law and that it is expected that the

731
member states, along with companies, organisations and undertakings within the member states, will obey the rule of law as administered by the Court of Justice.
As I said, the precise amount is a matter that is left —wisely, I think—to the Commission in the first instance and then to the Court of Justice. It is the Court of Justice that determines this. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the Commission leaning on the Court of Justice, perhaps I may say that the Commission puts forward its proposals and indicates the area in which it considers that proper adjudication would lie, but it is for the Court of Justice unencumbered to decide what precisely the result will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and my noble friend Lord Reay, indicated that hitherto we have had a very good record in observing the judgments of the Court of Justice. I believe that to be entirely correct. Although it is always unwise to throw stones, and I do not like to engage in that particular exercise, perhaps I may refer briefly to the record of others in this respect. The Commission's 1991 report on the application of Community law records, for example, two second judgments by the court against Belgium which had still not been complied with by the date of the report, and two against Italy. The United Kingdom has, I think, never been brought before the court on such a basis. We have always complied within a reasonable time with the decisions of the Court of Justice.
I turn briefly to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. I have already dealt with what I understand to be the method of construction of the treaty provisions and other legislation which the Court of Justice uses. I believe that that is very like what is used in this country now. The noble Lord referred to the article by the holder of a distinguished name in this field in relation to the cases about Sunday opening. It is obvious that, by regulating any kind of opening by reference to the nature of the articles which are being sold in the trading, one could distort competition. If one said, for example, that no articles made in France were to be sold on any day except Saturday whereas everything else could be sold on all other days, it is obvious that that would be a way of distorting competition. So there is a basis on which, hypothetically, such a point could arise. The noble Lord said that the Court of Justice did not reject this out of hand. The Court of Justice is a court of justice and the matter came before it by virtue of a reference from the courts of this country. The matter came before the Court of Justice under Article 177 for an opinion. After considering the matter carefully, the Court of Justice came to the conclusion which the noble Lord has indicated. Therefore, it does not appear to me that that creates any difficulty in this particular matter.
My noble friend Lord Reay referred to the court of first instance. He is, of course, right that we were anxious that there should be a court of first instance to take the easier cases, and that the full machinery of the Court of Justice should not be required in every case. That was in order to secure more speedy justice in the courts of the Community than had been possible
732
previously, having regard to the total caseload and the fact that only one court was available to deal with it until the court of first instance was set up.
In my submission, therefore, for those reasons this is a wise and careful step forward. It does not take matters the whole way. One has to hope that the additional authority which is being given to the Court of Justice will be used wisely and that members states will respect it. There is, of course, no right of appeal from the Court of Justice because there is no higher court within the Community than the Court of Justice. One might as well ask for an appeal from the House of Lords in this country because, on the whole, once one gets to the top court in a system that precludes further appeals; and the Court of Justice is the top court in the Community system.
I think that I have answered most of the questions put by noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I entirely agree that this is an important matter and I think that we have addressed ourselves to the principles of it rather than to the details of the amendments. However, for the reasons I have given, I think that the Committee will appreciate that my advice is not to accede to the amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I wonder whether I may persist in the matter which I raised although I am grateful for many of the clarifications which the noble and learned Lord has given to the Committee. On the issue of the court in, as the noble and learned Lord said, its correct and acceptable basis having a case brought before it by one of our continental competitors on the ground that British abstention from many of the Community's social policies would give an unfair advantage to British producers, is the noble and learned Lord sure that we would not find ourselves arraigned and subjected to large fines?
The Lord Chancellor: Assuming the noble Lord is right, what would be his proposals? The answer is that we have taken steps to secure ourselves in that respect by the agreement of all member states to out opt-out. The opt-out is part of the total agreement that was reached. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, will be aware that certain steps have been taken under the existing treaties—nothing to do with Maastricht, but under the Treaty of Rome plus the Single European Act—which attempt to put upon this country regulations of the type that he has in mind. I am not going to forecast—it would be unwise for me to do so—what the decision of the Court of Justice would be on such an attack, but the point raised by the noble Lord arises very sharply in the present situation. I believe that the agreement to the opt-out that we have obtained from all our partners in Europe is of extreme importance in limiting the argument that existing arrangements could be used to promote the object of the social chapter.
Lord Hacking: I wonder whether I may intervene briefly. I do so offering apologies to the noble and learned Lord and to other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for not being present for the earlier part of it but, as at least the Government Front

733
Bench know, the change to your Lordships' programme prevented me and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Slynn, from participating at the beginning of this debate.
I participate briefly to draw the attention of the Committee to a point that I understand has not been raised so far. It relates to Article 173. Article 173 is the only article under which members of the Community have general access to the European Court. The other main form of access to the European Court lies under Article 177, but that is through a reference from the national court to the European Court.
There is a limitation to that access under Article 173. Under the first paragraph (or, as amended, the second paragraph) of Article 173 only member states, the Council, the Commission and institutions of the Community can bring an action under Article 173. That applies also to "natural or legal persons" provided that the measure in question is a regulation or decision and provided that that natural or legal person has been affected "directly and individually". The result is that when there has been a breach of the treaty, and when an ordinary citizen or corporation of the Community has been seriously adversely affected —for example, suffered serious damage—there is no access to the European Court. That is what distinguishes the application of Article 173 from judicial review in our own country where there is access to our courts in the circumstances that I describe.
I know that this a matter of concern to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, to myself and, I believe, to other Members of the Committee who are aware of the workings of Article 173. I do not intervene to say that that is a reason why we should not ratify the treaty or why we should disturb the Bill. But it is a matter of importance and it is worth pursuing by the United Kingdom with other member states so that there can be better access to the European Court than currently exists.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that matter. It is not one raised by any of the amendments that we are now discussing, but we have discussed them in principle, so it may be in order that we should direct attention to the point. In setting up a system of justice, as the Treaty of Rome has done, one must have some regard for the rate at which it will progress. The total workload, and so forth, has to be taken into account. This is one court of justice which has recently been added to by the court of first instance.
Access for individuals is normally through the national courts and the reference system under Article 177. There is a good deal to be said for that system. Apart from anything else, there is the sieve of the national courts having to decide that a question of European law is in issue. The national court system is required, if one is at the ultimate appeal court, to refer the case to the European Court of Justice. If one is in a lower court, the court has discretion to refer the case to the European Court of Justice. At the present state of the development of Community law, that is a reasonable arrangement. I am aware that in some
734
jurisdictions, even large jurisdictions, openings have been given for individual petition with ease and simplicity. Our own courts have that power. There is of course the question of the total number of cases that may be expected. Having regard to the present size of Europe, to allow direct application by individuals to the European Court of Justice would be to invite the clogging up of the whole system, which would be detrimental to the functioning of the Community as a whole.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps we may return to the method of enforcement. Does my noble and learned friend see any way in which the Commission, in the event of a fine imposed by the European Court, could withhold grants under the CAP or social fund? Some countries are gross recipients of money and some are gross payers. Will my noble and learned friend comment upon that point?
The Lord Chancellor: As I believe I indicated, consideration was given as to whether that would be a good method to include in the treaty. It was concluded that it would be best to leave matters as they presently are. One must not underestimate the deterrent effect of the Court of Justice having the power to impose a fine, although one hopes fervently that it may never be required to be exercised because it will have a deterrent effect. If it does not, further consideration would have to be given as to what should be done. Consideration was given to that method, but it has defects, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said. There are difficulties in following that course. On the whole it was felt that it was better at this stage to leave matters as they are.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: In view of the cautious opinion my noble and learned friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the possibility of being taken to the European Court on matters to do with the social chapter, does my noble and learned friend take the same view about the possibility of being taken to the European court on phases 1 and 2 of monetary union? There is no protocol which opts us out of that.
The Lord Chancellor: It is not wise for me to discuss the possibilities of particular cases. So long as a member state obeys the law as laid down in the treaties and the legislation properly made thereunder, it need have no fear of being brought successfully before the Court of Justice.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This has been an interesting debate. I thank everyone who has taken part in it and particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, mentioned clubs and the rules of a club. If a club has rules and it fines a member and the member does not pay the fine, the club eventually kicks the member out. I do not know whether that is the ultimate sanction in relation to the EC. If it is, then I advocate never paying the fine. That would be an excellent way of carrying on.
The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, mentioned war reparations as a precedent. I do not know that they

735
would constitute a precedent because war reparations are imposed upon the vanquished by the victor. That is a different matter. It is almost like the spoils of war.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an interesting suggestion about enforcement. He sought to show that there were means, such as those used by the United States against Iraq, which could be used. I am sure that no one has that type of thing in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, felt that I should keep my feet on the ground. I find it strange that he should think that my feet were not on the ground when I was asking some legitimate questions about the treaty we are discussing, which he discussed well and intelligently. I do not know why my feet should be off the ground when I am asking questions, whereas when he is asking similar questions his are on the ground. I can assure the Committee that the questions I asked were relevant, and some of them have been properly answered by the noble and learned Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, raised an interesting point about Sunday trading. It is interesting, is it not, because in this country there is a considerable difference of opinion on Sunday trading. Let us suppose that the European Court—this is hypothetical—decided that British law was against European law in that respect. It lays that down, and the British Government, in seeking to comply with the European directive and perhaps the court's decision, go to the British Parliament and say, "Now, you must alter your law in compliance with the European directive and the court's ruling". What if the British Parliament refuses to alter the British law? What then would be the position? The court would fine us; Parliament would say, "We are not prepared to alter the law"; so what do we do about such a situation? It is a purely hypothetical case, but of course strange things do happen. When passing legislation of this kind we should be clear about what we are doing.
My noble friend Lord Irvine repeated many of the questions which I had asked. However, he wished to emphasise that there have been many breaches of the treaty by other countries, notably France, Germany and Italy. The question still arises: if they are fined by the court and they refuse to pay, what are the enforcement procedures? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to deal with that but he did not do so satisfactorily as far as I am concerned. There are no provisions in the treaty for enforcement. Unless there are such provisions the question of imposing fines cannot be serious because fines will be paid only by those people who wish to pay them. In other words, they are voluntary fines. I do not accept that the possibility of fines will act as a deterrent. I am not sure that fines act as a deterrent against shoplifting, for example, and many other crimes. Indeed, we know that they do not.
That brings into question the level of fines, which is extremely important. It simply will not do to be told that the court has unlimited discretion. In what way does it have unlimited discretion? Will it be able to impose, and will it be wise for it to impose, on larger countries higher fines for the same offence? Will it be able to impose smaller fines on smaller countries for a more heinous offence? Those are real questions. The
736
noble and learned Lord has done his best to answer some of them, but he has not dealt with them all satisfactorily. He certainly has not reassured me as regards questions which, I fear, remain in my mind.
We have had a long discussion. As I said at the beginning, it is not my intention to press the amendment to a Division. The amendments are proper probing amendments on an important issue. We shall examine closely what was said in particular by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and we may seek to come back to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214 to 216 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 219 to 222 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningion Lord Bruce of Doningion moved Amendment No. 223
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 188a").
The noble Lord said: I seek the indulgence of the Committee in reminding it that the purpose of debates which have taken place in another place and in this Chamber is to obtain parliamentary consent for the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Owing to the nature of our parliamentary procedure, the only means whereby that may be done is through tabling amendments to the short. Bill by virtue of which the treaty will become valid and can be ratified. It may be smart for Members on the Government Front Bench, the Liberal Democrat Benches and my own Benches to pretend that that is not so and that every amendment tabled must be taken precisely on its merits, and to endeavour to ridicule arguments directed towards the provisions of the treaty by referring narrowly to the amendments on the Marshalled List.
Perhaps I may therefore make it clear that Amendments Nos. 223 to 227 and 239 to 245 are probing amendments. They are tabled purely in order to enable a discussion to take place on aspects of the Maastricht Treaty. I should have thought that they would be of considerable interest to the British Parliament. Amendments Nos. 223 to 227 refer to the provisions in the Treaty of Maastricht relating to the Court of Auditors. Amendments Nos. 239 to 245 relate to the revised financial provisions as incorporated in the Treaty of Maastricht, which are an improvement, allegedly—truthful or otherwise—on those in the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act. Therefore my remarks will be directed towards those aspects of the Maastricht Treaty.
I do not necessarily wish to criticise the articles in the treaty. They are important in particular to a country which contributes £2.5 billion a year of taxpayers' money to the Community. That figure would have been much larger were it not for the efforts of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in obtaining a rebate on the contribution that we should otherwise have had to make. But for her the contribution could have been £1

737
billion more. I have already paid tribute to the noble Baroness in public but not in this place and therefore I wish to express my thanks to her now. I trust that the Committee will not take that amiss.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am convinced that the Government negotiated these and other parts of the treaty in good faith and that they made certain assumptions in negotiating. They were aware that the institutions of the Community would inevitably become involved with the carrying out of the provisions of the treaty. They assumed that during the course of those negotiations and in the conduct of their ordinary affairs the institutions and their representatives also acted in good faith and told as much of the truth as possible in order that people could arrive at their judgments.
There must be trust somewhere. Evidently there was trust in the complete integrity of the members of the Commission. There was complete trust in, for example, the personnel of the Court of Auditors. There has even been trust in the Members of the European Parliament to perform their tasks with due diligence. Members of the Committee will recall that when the financial provisions of the treaty have been discussed, not necessarily within the context of the treaty but in the discussions which we have had from time to time upon the Community's budget, it is always assumed that the facts are available to enable judgments to be made and that in some respects the European Parliament is the custodian of the Community's finances. In other words, it has certain budgetary powers and is our safeguard in the proper expenditure of Community funds.
The first sentence of Article 188a reads:
"The Court of Auditors shall carry out the audit".
What a mind-boggling revelation that is! However, it is deceptive in its simplicity, because people look at audits in different ways. The attitude of people in the United Kingdom towards an audit—and I speak now as a professional accountant—is that it is something that really probes. It probes not only the specific legality of a transaction; it actually endeavours to ascertain whether the transaction has taken place. In addition, there has recently been a concept of value for money.
If one looks at the proceedings of the Comptroller and Auditor General in this country, one finds that the probe is very deep indeed. It includes not merely the legality of a transaction, its propriety and authorisation, but also whether fraud has taken place. If one reads the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to public finances and the deliberations that take place afterwards in the Public Accounts Committee in another place, the depth of the probe is clear. That is quite normal in ordinary commercial transactions where firms of professional auditors are employed. Those auditors do not merely pass observations on the legality of a transaction and whether it is permissible in law; they seek to find out the basic essence of the transaction itself and, if fraud has been committed, to reveal it.
738
On the Continent of Europe, with the possible exception of Holland and, to a limited extent, Germany, the emphasis is totally different. The emphasis is more on whether the transaction that has taken place is legal; in other words, whether there has been proper authorisation. That is the basic emphasis and, I regret to say, it underlies the rather permissive content of the financial regulations of the European Community that govern the conduct of its affairs.
Last year, Mr. C. J. Carey, who was the British member of the Court of Auditors until his premature resignation—indeed, he resigned before his time—had a meeting with the budgetary control committee of the European Parliament in which he explained the reasons for his resignation and made certain observations about the attitude of the Court of Auditors towards a whole series of transactions and the conduct of financial affairs by member states coming under the purview of the actions of the Court of Auditors. In his memorandum he said:
"Building a Community Court of Auditors is not like building a Community Court of Justice … There is no equivalent consensus underpinning the Court of Auditors"
similar to that underpinning the whole concept of a court of justice.
"On the contrary there are huge differences in the perceptions of the proper role of a public auditor which the different Members of the Court bring to Court discussions … The Special Report"—
I shall have occasion to refer to that in more detail presently—
"which is on today's agenda [December 1992] is a good illustration of the problem. This Committee has been angered and also, I believe, a bit mystified by the Court's reluctance to transmit officially and openly to the Parliament the detailed audit findings on which that report is based. To understand the Court's position you need to remember that there is no consensus in the Court that detailed, on-the-spot audit investigations at the level of individual operators and transactions are a proper task, let alone a priority task".
Such a concept of an investigation being out of the ambit of the Court of Auditors (or out of an audit, as we understand it) is quite remarkable. It means that the Court of Auditors as then constituted came to the conclusion that there were certain matters which it was not proper for it to investigate and which really lay outside its terms of reference.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may first pay tribute to the noble Lord for all the work that he carried out in the budgetary control committee of the European Parliament. Taking his point that the amendments he has tabled are in no way wrecking amendments, I should like to refer the noble Lord to the last sentence of paragraph 4 of Article 188c. I am sure that he welcomes that in the Maastricht Treaty. The sentence says that the Court of Auditors,
"shall assist the European Parliament and the Council in exercising powers of control over the implementation of the budget".
Does the noble Lord accept that that is something that both he and I would warmly welcome?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall return later to that point. In the meantime, I wish to refer to the special report concerning Mr. Carey, who was a very distinguished

739
official in the Treasury prior to his going to the Court of Auditors and who, as I said, retired before his time. I want to draw the Committee's attention to the two versions of that special report. The draft special report prepared by Mr. Carey and by the staff operating under him was available in October 1991 in its then form. The version which appeared and which was considered by the Select Committee of this place was published on 22nd April 1992 nearly six months later. It was on the basis of the latter report that the Select Committee prepared its own report in investigating export refunds. Moreover, it was the only document available to the Select Committee; the only document available to the budgetary control committee of the European Parliament; and, the only version available to the European Parliament itself.
What then was the original version that was not presented to the budgetary control committee? It was something totally different. I shall now cite from its conclusions. They are extremely important from an international point of view. They are important from the point of view of the whole of the European Community and from the point of view of this Chamber.
I should mention to the Committee that some three weeks ago I handed a copy of the original version of this document to the Government as I thought they should know what was happening behind the scenes. I did not ask for a reply from the Government and I make no complaint in that regard. I am not asking for a reply today. However, I am sure the Government will acknowledge that I provided a copy of the document. The original draft report was written by Mr. C.J. Carey, the British member of the Court of Auditors, on the basis of the findings of the audit teams from the Court of Auditors who investigated the matter of export refunds. The report's conclusion states:
"The findings in this report raise serious questions about the ability of the Commission to ensure correct use of Community funds, and about the quality of Member States' stewardship of those funds. The report demonstrates yet again the inadequacy of the physical, documentary and a posteriori controls operated by national authorities over export consignments and refund payments. It also demonstrates the manner in which the application of the regulations can be manipulated to maximise their income from export refunds. The evidence available to the Court illustrates how laxity in enforcement of Community Regulations, together with the complexity and imprecision of those Regulations, facilitates exporters of milk products and their associated producers and suppliers in inter alia:
—declaring a single product under more than one tariff heading (3.2, 3.11);
—claiming refunds for products (including products destined for use as food aid) which did not meet the regulatory requirements for the rate of refund claimed (3.10, 3.13–3.15, 3.36–3.45, 3.47–3.49);
—claiming refunds for the export of products which were unfit for human consumption (3.21–3.27, 3.46, 3.69, 3.76);
—overstating quantities (3.24–3.32);
—conspiring with other traders to circumvent the conditions of export licences (3.50–3.62);
—presenting full landing certificates as a basis for validating refund claims in respect of lost or damaged goods (3.72)".
That was the indictment which the British member of the Court of Auditors wanted to present to the budgetary control committee, the British Parliament and to the public at large. The Committee will find,
740
when examining the official report—that was all the British Parliament, the budgetary control committee and the European Parliament had in their possession —that all that has been excised and does not appear in the published report.
I have spoken for too long and I am conscious of that. I now conclude my remarks. The Government are composed of elected politicians arid politicians like ourselves who are summoned to serve. The Government are bound to rely and place trust in someone. In the negotiation of this treaty, and in the formulation of the various clauses that appear in the group of amendments we are discussing, they are entitled to presume good faith on the part of the European Commission and on the part of the European Parliament.
I have no time today to refer to the role of the European Parliament in all this unless the Committee is prepared to grant me exceptional indulgence and permit me to take up a further 20 minutes of its time. However, I shall not do that. Nevertheless, I give the Committee notice that I shall raise this matter again on Report. I give the Committee notice that I shall deal with the role played by the European Parliament —I have read the proceedings of that Parliament—in each of these transactions in the hope that when Members of this Chamber consider whether this treaty should be ratified they will take those matters into account and at any rate have some marginal doubt as to the wisdom of taking for granted the complete open, forthright and honest co-operation of officials as distinct from elected Members of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I wish to speak in support of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, at the same time I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that it would be crazy to scratch the Court of Auditors out of the treaty when it is our only hope. I would argue—much of the debate has concerned this point —that what we are signing up to are arrangements which are highly unlikely to work. One of the troubles that I have with the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and now with the Maastricht Treaty is that they are all engines for taking money from taxpayers, on the one hand, and giving it to worthy causes, on the other. Yesterday we were accused of objecting to the Community spending money on education, culture and other worthy causes as that meant taking money from taxpayers. The vast costs of the common agricultural policy were questioned.
The bigger the flows of money flowing between taxpayers and consumers, the greater the possibility that people will get their sticky fingers into the cash. Even the British Parliament has had its troubles in this respect. I refer to DeLorean and the Poulson affair. Even now I believe we are tackling a large scandal in Liverpool. Those are all cases of government money going astray.
There will always be crooks and the bigger the sums of money involved the more temptation there will be for crooks to seek it out. I agree with t he noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we have a firm system of accountancy in this country. However, traditions in

741
other countries are different. In the course of my career I had to handle my family's affairs in Athens. The Greeks have ingenious arrangements for organising their affairs. Here one produces one's bills and the taxman accepts those bills. However, in Greece, if one sells property as I did, it is traditional that 25 per cent. of the transaction is provided in cash. If one says as an alien, "I am an English gentleman and I do not approve of this procedure", the Greeks will not proceed as no one wants an idiotic foreigner to upset the basis on which they organise their affairs. Therefore, one is committed to following their arrangements. I am not saying that the Greeks are fundamentally a dishonest race. That is just the way that they work. The enormous quantities of cash which resulted from such procedures were carried about by girls from bank to bank. They had no fear of being hit on the head. At least, that was the arrangement until a short while ago. I should not like to carry large sums of money about in London.
One approaches the taxman in Greece and tells him a price one received for the property, which is obviously 25 per cent. less that what one received. The taxman will then say, "Oh, no! It was 50 per cent. more than that". An intriguing haggle then takes place. Greece is far closer to the Middle East than it is to Europe in that respect. If one takes the matter to court, there are penalties which stack the game against one. As a result of this haggle, one may pay 25 per cent. above or below the figure which one declared. However, that is a mistake. So one pays the extra tax and no questions are asked. On the other hand, if one breaches the 25 per cent. level, that is a felony and one pays a fine on top. That is how it works in Greece. When there are practices of that kind in a country I wonder how one can ever know what is going on and stop money filtering away.
One might also consider the position in Italy. I had a conversation with a journalist there who said that the same thing happens in Italy in relation to income tax. The danger is that if as a journalist one writes an article attacking the government and the government disapprove of it, they then open one's income tax affairs. I wonder what it would be like to be an auditor in Italy. We have seen what happens to judges who try to take on the system in Italy. One day when they are driving home there is a colossal bang and their car is turned inside out. It is not easy to enforce laws on the Italians.
Therefore, I regard this exercise with great trepidation. I believe that the right way to deal with the matter is to have less money floating about in the system, transferred from the taxpayer to the customer. I believe that the matter is virtually uncontrollable. I should very much like to hear from the Government how they consider that this measure would effectively control such expenditure in Europe.
5 p.m.
Lord Desai: I wish to discuss Amendments Nos. 239 to 235 and 339 to 344. I am in some difficulty because the doctrine of the Tebbit peg means that amendments which are put down do not necessarily
742
represent the views of those proposing the amendments. Nevertheless, I am surprised that Amendments Nos. 239 to 245 seem to be aimed at excluding articles of the treaty which impose the principle of sound financial management on the Commission, especially Articles 201 and 201a which are dealt with in Amendments Nos. 240 and 241. Those articles state that the Commission shall be prudent and shall not ask for budgetary sources which are not properly laid down and collected in advance. I would assume that sound financial management, which is a principle with which I am sure we all agree and which the Government could follow, should not be excluded.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I thought that I had made it quite clear that the purpose of putting down the amendments was to secure discussion.
Baroness Trumpington: Will the noble Lord address the Committee?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry. The purpose was to secure discussion. It is the only way in which we can discuss the treaty. It appears to have escaped my noble friend that that was the purpose.
Lord Desai: I said that I was in some difficulty because sometimes it is agreed and sometimes it is not. I shall continue to discuss the matter in any case.
I want to commend Articles 201 and 201a. Instead of being excluded they should be heralded because the principle of sound financial management is clearly something with which we all agree.
Article 206, which is referred to in Amendment No. 243, is also an important article because it gives the European Parliament a role in relation to the way the Commission spends its resources. One of the best things about the Maastricht Treaty is that it gives a greater role to the Parliament vis-á-vis the Council and the Commission in considering how the Commission operates.
Two criticisms have been laid against the European Community. The first is that the Commission is spendthrift, although the Commission's budget is tiny in comparison with national budgets. Therefore, the principle of sound financial management is a good one. The second criticism is that the Commission is unaccountable. Giving the European Parliament a role to play will make the Commission more accountable than it has been hitherto.
Amendments Nos. 339 to 344 relate to court review of the legality of actions of the Commission and a European central bank. I cannot find Articles 173a or 183a, which are referred to in those amendments, in my copy of the Maastricht Treaty. That may be because I am using a new and improved version and not the original version.
Lord Aldington: I had the same trouble myself. If the noble Lord looks very carefully at the amendments he will see that they refer to Title IV which relates to the Euratom Treaty. There he will find it all.
Lord Desai: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. One should welcome Article 173 because, to the extent that a European central bank is thought to be

743
independent and autonomous, one should welcome the fact that its actions are justiciable by the court. We should welcome that article and reject the amendments.
Lord Aldington: I have difficulty with the procedure advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but I understand that the Committee regards it as in order. However, it strikes me as very odd that one puts down on the Marshalled List a series of amendments, first, to insert and then to leave out—in this case to leave out—a number of provisions which seem to me to go to the root of the improvements made by the Maastricht Treaty to the financial procedures of the Community. That is what the first two groups of amendments propose.
Apart from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which I followed generally and support, so far the Committee has listened to two speeches which were not about Maastricht but about the position pre-Maastricht. In one case the speech concerned financial dealings in Greece. Having done some financial transactions in Greece in the old days I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell said. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, concerned Court of Auditors' reports and parliamentary procedures in the European Parliament under the old regime. The noble Lord did not draw the Committee's attention to the changes in the regime which should follow from the ratification of these articles.
The noble Lord, who is a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities, may have forgotten that in its report on the Commission's proposals for Community finances for 1992, which was ordered to be printed in November of last year, it said:
"The Committee attach the greatest importance to Articles 201a, 205 and 209a of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht".
That is because of the improvement in sound financial management.
Likewise, in another report, the same Select Committee set out the importance it attaches to the new articles relating to the Court of Auditors from the point of view of eliminating fraud. Some of the articles which the noble Lord proposes should be left out come straight from Article 206 of the existing treaty. That has happened before. We have had to deal with suggested amendments proposing that we leave out part of the Treaty of Rome. However, as it has been explained to us that those are pegs on which to hang debates I shall not repeat what I said on that subject previously.
I find it very odd that any Member of the Committee, particularly one who has had high office in a government, should have any objection to the great improvements made by the Treaty of Maastricht to the financial disciplines and procedures of the Community and to the status and function of the Court of Auditors and the treatment of its reports.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may revert to the interjection which I made when the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, spoke. First, I accept that the amendments are not wrecking amendments but are a
744
means of initiating discussion. They are very valuable, because unless one reads the provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht very carefully a great deal is missed and misunderstood by Members of the Committee who are seeking to attack the treaty. Within the Community there is fraud against the Community. One of the issues on which the Community is always being attacked is for spending too much money and wasting it. Perhaps we should remember that the Community budget as a whole last year was about £46 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will correct me if I am wrong. It is the equivalent of what the United Kingdom local authorities spent in the same year. That has been roughly the position over the past four or five years. The figure represents about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of Community GDP. Therefore we have to take that into account.
I wish to make two points. First, I reiterate that the Court of Auditors now has a duty to assist the European Parliament through its Budgetary Control Committee. The European Parliament has the task of discharging the budget of the Commission. Having all the information that it can demand from the Court of Auditors, the European Parliament will be in a better position to fulfil that role.
I wish also to draw attention specifically to a point to which the noble Lord did not refer. Article 209 states:
"The Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the opinion of the Court of Auditors shall: make Financial Regulations specifying in particular the procedure",
and so on.
National parliaments have been asked to co-operate in the work of the Community. There is a declaration in the Maastricht Treaty to the effect that national parliaments shall work together with the European Parliament. Therefore it is not beyond the wit of man to imagine that noble Lords, with all their experience of auditing, accounting and financial measures, should contribute to the Council of Ministers, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by advising on how the financial record should be drawn up. When adopted, the document will probably be one of the most important for the efficient and effective running of the Community's finances.
I recommend Article 209 to the Committee's attention. With its wide range of expertise, knowledge and experience, this Chamber could contribute to the better control of the finances of the Community.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I do not wish to pick up any of the points which I understand were raised earlier in the debate when I was not present. However, I refer to a rather narrow but important point. It is raised by Amendment No. 425, which stands in my name. Amendment No. 425 seeks to control better the use of public moneys. It provides that,
"The 1972 Act",
—the accession Act—
"shall be taken only to authorise payment out of the public funds of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the European Community as set out in the Treaties and the Community Treaties as defined in section 1(2) of that Act.

745
"It shall not be lawful to make any payment to the Community or to member states for any other or wider purposes, including the purposes of Titles V and VI, nor shall any such payment become a charge on the Consolidated Fund".
The matter was dealt with briefly last night by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter a little further on the amendment. Article K.8.2 is on page 86 of the treaty. It refers to,
"Administrative expenditure which the provisions relating to the areas referred to in this Title"
—that is Title VI—
"entail for the institutions shall be charged to the budget of the European Communities".
Of course, Parliament can if it wishes provide for such a thing in this treaty. However, as I see it, that does not of itself give the authorisation for expenditure of funds unless there is an earlier authorisation. That point was taken by my noble friend. It is worth considering what he said because it is the kernel of the question that I wish to put to the Minister. He stated:
"My noble friend"—
that is me—
"also referred to Article K.82"—
as it is reported in Hansard; it should be Article K.8.2—
"and asked whether there was a provision of domestic law which covers the payment of administrative expenses. I am bound to tell him that Article 199 of the Treaty of Rome (as amended by Title II of the Maastricht Treaty) provides for administrative expenditure and, if agreed, operational expenditure under Title VI to be charged to the Community budget. Section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 gives power to pay our share of the Community budget". [Official Report, 28/6/93; col. 697.]
It is there that I believe the matter becomes interesting. The European Communities Act 1972 is in the treaty. I shall read what it states. There is quite a long provision at the beginning of Section 2(3) which confirms the right to be charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund,
"the amounts required to meet any Community obligation to make payments to any of the Communities or member States, or any Community obligation in respect of contributions to the capital or reserves of the European Investment Bank or in respect of loans to the Bank, or to redeem any notes or obligations issued or created in respect of any such Community obligation".
Quite clearly the moneys about which we speak do not fall into that part of Section 2(3). I suspect that Ministers are relying upon Section 2(3) (a), which states:
"any other expenses incurred under or by virtue of the Treaties or this Act by any Minister of the Crown or government department may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament".
The question is not about moneys required for expenses which are caused in the carrying out of any obligations which arise under the treaties. That must clearly refer to the Treaty of Rome and the treaties which amend it. Indeed, at that time it referred to the Treaty of Rome, the treaties of the European Coal and Steel Community and the other allied treaties.
What could clearly not have been envisaged at that time was that we would be faced with a treaty—the Maastricht Treaty—which does not relate solely to the Treaty of Rome. It is a point which has been made most energetically by Ministers and by the Prime
746
Minister himself. Titles V and VI of the Treaty of Maastricht are not part of the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty of Rome does not affect them. But what is proposed is that the administrative arrangements for the implementation of Titles V and VI should be carried out by the institutions of the Community. We debated the matter last night. All the institutions are involved: the presidency, the parliament, the Commission, and even, potentially, the court.
However, let us keep our attention firmly on the Commission, because that is the nub of the argument. The Commission will be the administrative body which cares for the administration of Titles V and VI. Where is the authority for that expenditure to be incurred? It cannot be incurred under the Treaty of Rome because those matters do not relate to the Treaty of Rome.
It is perfectly fair for Ministers to say, "These are expenditures which arise. They do not arise from the Treaty of Rome, so there must be a special provision for them to be paid. That amount of money should be apportioned and decided on in some way". I suspect that at that moment it was realised that it would be extraordinarily difficult to decide the exact share of the total expenditure of the Commission, for example, which should be laid at the door of Titles V and VI and thereby invoiced in some manner to member states.
The procedure adopted was to insert into Article K.8.2 the idea that this would simply be met out of the provisions of moneys voted under Section 2(3) of the 1972 Act. But it does not seem to me that that Act gives such authority. I am still intrigued, and as yet unconvinced by Ministers' answers, as to where the authority for that expenditure arises and when the other place voted those moneys and that authorisation.
Lord Monson: This is an extremely wide-ranging group of amendments, covering many different fields. For reasons of time, I wish to speak solely to Amendment No. 427. It is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I thought that I had added my name to it but obviously there was a slip up and it does not appear on the Marshalled List. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will follow if he so wishes. However, just in case he has prepared nothing on it, I thought it essential to speak.
It is astonishing that a treaty which professes, among other things, to encourage and assist friendship and co-operation among the nation states and the different peoples of the Community does nothing to encourage those nations which make territorial claims on other member states or their dependencies or colonies to renounce those inherently unfriendly and unco-operative claims.
On the first day of our Committee stage, I drew the Committee's attention to the fact that every man, woman and child in the Republic of Ireland—a country which makes territorial claims upon the United Kingdom, which claim has recently been upheld by the highest court in that land—receives £121 a year net from the United Kingdom taxpayer. It is true that the German taxpayer gives each man, woman and child in that country almost £360 a year,

747
but that is the Germans' business. In any case, I do not believe that the Republic of Ireland makes any claims upon Germany.
So far as I know, we also give substantial sums to Spain—I do not know how much—and we are all aware that Spain makes claims upon Gibraltar and causes great difficulties for its people when they wish to cross the border.
The amendment does not seek to enforce withdrawal of those unfriendly claims; no such thing would be possible. Nor does it seek in any way to reduce our contributions to the countries concerned. All it does is require the Secretary of State to inform the House of Commons each year,
"of the United Kingdom's budget contribution under the Treaty to the European Community detailing that part of the United Kingdom's contribution spent by the Community on Member States having or making territorial claims on other Member States or their dependencies or colonies".
What it does is to allow the British voter and the British taxpayer to see where their money goes and how much of it goes to countries which, sadly, make those inherently unfriendly claims. That may encourage those countries of their own free will eventually to relax the claims.
Lord Peston: I was hoping to speak, but I am in a slight difficulty because we seem to be debating amendments when the movers of those amendments have not yet spoken. My noble friend Lord Desai spoke to Amendments Nos. 339 to 344 and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said that he understood them. They are in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who ha; not spoken to them, and I found it impossible to understand what they were about. Given our current rules, are we to assume that we ignore that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Those amendments are fairly straightforward; they mirror earlier ones. They relate to Euratom rather than the Community itself. I believe that one Member of the Committee, possibly my noble friend Lord Aldington, made that clear.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister. I did not know that they related to Euratom because I am much less of an expert than other Members of the Committee. The easiest way to deal with them is for me to pretend that they are not there and to proceed.
I entirely accept that Members of the Committee who wish to scrutinise the Bill with a view to scrutinising the treaty have to put down such amendments. I have no disagreement with them. That is the only way. Of interest to all of us from the beginning has been the contrast between the slimness of the Bill—which contains essentially nothing —and the thickness of the treaty. The treaty is what we want to debate and it is our duty to scrutinise it. Therefore there is nothing between me and both my noble friends and other Members in all parts of the Committee about this method of dealing with the Bill. We must do it that way, even though we end up with the paradox
748
of sometimes criticising parts of the treaty or suggesting that we take out parts of it when we are actually in favour of them.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington agrees that what the treaty says about auditing is a step forward compared with what was said earlier about it. However, the only way we can debate auditing is to put down an amendment suggesting that we take out what is in the treaty. Thus, there is nothing between me and other Members of the Committee on that.
I take it that the Minister will confirm that in the area of auditing and the related area of parliamentary scrutiny the Maastricht Treaty takes us in a progressive, forward direction. I think it could go further. I could devise a better treaty, but nonetheless it is a step forward. I understand that the reason why the amendment was put down in this way is that we can still emphasise that, in my judgment, the Community wastes a fair amount of money. I do not believe that Brussels has what I would call a "culture of economy", a culture scrutinising expenditure which is anywhere near what would be expected by the Parliament of this country. Therefore, I am always with those who are highly critical of Brussels in that regard. There is something in what those who refer to "a gravy train" say. I speak as one who strongly supports the Community, but I worry about its attitude to spending money. The EBRD is about as appalling an example as any of us have seen in recent times.
Having said that, I still believe that the treaty takes us forward. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce. I hope that in its work the Court of Auditors will not merely ask, "Have these funds been spent legitimately?", which is an auditing question. But, "Is there any fraud?" If they ask that question they will find quite a lot of fraud. However, there is also the equally important question which in this country the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office ask for us: "Has the money been well spent?"
I did not speak in the debate on the common agricultural policy. My noble friend Lord Eatwell did so for me. No one could devise a more stupid way of spending public funds than the CAP, and I speak as someone who knows that we have to support agriculture. The CAP achieves something which I thought impossible: it is the worst way of supporting agriculture that anyone could dream up. There is a debate as to the best way, and I believe that what we used to do in this country is probably the best. Now we have the worst way. I say that as an economist. It is the most obvious question that any first year student could answer. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Bruce will accept that I agree with him—and I speak from the Front Bench—that we must continuously look for value for money.
My noble friend Lord Desai drew attention to the wording in the Treaty of Maastricht on the principles of sound financial management. I then looked to see whether any other section in the treaty would tell me what those principles were. I do not know what is taught at the London School of Economics these days —perhaps it has a suitable course on the principles of

749
sound financial management—but I for one would like to know what those principles are. Also, if I may be a trifle acerbic, if we can be told what those principles are I should like to draw the nature of them to the attention of Her Majesty's Government. I feel that a £50 billion a year deficit is slightly wide of the principles of sound financial management.
It is important to raise these matters, but the main lesson that we learn is that we must scrutinise continuously. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to amend the treaty at this stage. I stand second to none in my criticism of the Prime Minister. Noble Lords very rarely hear me say a word in favour of the Leader of the Conservative Party. But in this area of the Treaty of Maastricht he has not done a bad job. The words stick in my throat, but he has done a good job. I promise the Committee that I shall never say anything like that again. I shall find some way of being nasty about him before our deliberations are over.
I found the later amendments, such as Amendments Nos. 413 and 416, very interesting, and I am glad that they have been raised. My reading, in particular of Amendment No. 425, which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raised, is that Article J.11 on page 83 and Article K.8 on page 86 provide the legitimacy that he seeks if he is looking at legitimacy within the treaty. If the noble Lord is asking whether further legitimacy is required within British law—in other words, whether we have to pass laws which say that the Treasury can authorise money for this purpose —first, I have to say that, even though I am supposed to be an expert in this field, I do not know the answer. Secondly, to wriggle out of it, I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will give us the answer. I take it for granted that once the Government have accepted a treaty, it follows that it is legitimate to spend money in that way. Otherwise, how could the Government ever agree to any treaties? I say that, but I do not know.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord is on precisely the right point. Quite clearly there are provisions in the treaty which make it legal in that sense. The question that I asked is: where is the authority for the expenditure of the money in the first place? It would not appear to me that the 1972 Act gives that cover, and therefore there should be some other measure, a money Bill of some kind, to make that possible.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I find solace in the fact that it is for the Government to tell the Committee about matters of that sort and not for me to do so.
On amendments such as Amendment No. 416—I believe it was spoken to, but I am not completely sure —and Amendment No. 427, which has not been spoken to but which I take it is implicit in what has been said, my own judgment is that what is in those amendments is a good idea. Clearly there ought to be a report. The amendments mention the House of Commons, but I would have thought it should be to
750
this House as well on matters of this kind. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will say that all this material may be in the public domain and opportunities may be made available for noble Lords and others to debate matters such as budgetary contributions. I say only that I do not believe that this is the treaty into which one would put that kind of amendment. But I believe it is perfectly reasonable to raise precisely that sort of point.
To the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, I say that I was puzzled as to what the large scandal in Liverpool was, unless it refers to the position of the two great football teams in that great city last season, which was, as the noble Lord rightly says, a scandal. I hope that it will be put right in subsequent years.
To summarise, this debate has brought out the benefits of this treaty. I hope therefore—and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says—that noble Lords will agree that, while we thank the critics for bringing the matter up, these amendments should not be supported but are nonetheless helpful to the Committee.
Lord Henley: Like other noble Lords, I accept entirely the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that his amendments are purely probing, designed, quite rightly, to discuss these very important matters. I accept that he does not wish to criticise the articles that we are discussing, unless he thinks that they do not go as far as possibly they might. Certainly, like my noble friend Lady Elles, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on all that he has done in the past to expose fraud in the Community, or wheresoever it might exist. I also congratulate him—I am sure that the whole Committee will join me—on his valiant fight against fraud over the years. Certainly we would welcome his support in possibly a somewhat greater endorsement of the improvements that have been brought about by the Maastricht Treaty.
I believe that the specific improvements in financial management that were agreed at Maastricht should be welcomed on all sides of the Committee. I intend to highlight some of the improvements that we have secured and, like my noble friend Lord Aldington, to stress that we are now looking forward rather than backwards, looking to the future and not to the past, and stress the improvements secured in the Maastricht Treaty, and specifically the ones secured by the UK on these particular issues. I shall of course refer to the new articles in the EEC treaty. As was pointed out when the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was speaking to some of the later amendments, those improvements are mirrored in the other two Community treaties, to which some amendments still relate. One has been withdrawn, but there are still some amendments which relate to Euratom.
We attach great importance to sound financial management of Community finances. That is why Article 205 of the treaty makes explicit the responsibility of the Commission to implement the budget,
"having regard to the principles of sound financial management".
That was certainly something that was added as a result of United Kingdom proposals. In addition,

751
under Article 201a —and I am grateful for the endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, of Articles 201 and 201a—no proposal for Community action can be put forward by the Commission unless it is accompanied by an assurance that it can be financed within the Community's agreed own resources ceiling.
The Government, and the work of this House—again, I should like to praise the European Select Committee which has produced reports on this matter that have been debated on a Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Aldington as recently as March of this year—have played a key role in formulating Community policy in the fight against fraud. Article 209a, which again was added as a result of United Kingdom proposals, makes explicit that member states should treat fraud against the Community budget with the same vigour as fraud affecting their own financial interests. I shall make a few comments on fraud later.
I turn to the European Court of Auditors and Articles 188a, 188h and 188c. I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, with his excessively detailed analysis, if I may say so, on the rather brief Article 188a. I should like to stress—and I think the noble Lord would be the first to agree with me here —that the European Court of Auditors plays, and will play, an increasingly important role in measuring the effectiveness of Community spending. The Court of Auditors uses its reports, and in particular the annual report on the implementation of the Community budget, to highlight deficiencies in controls.
Article 188c introduces a new requirement for the Court of Auditors to provide the Council and the European Parliament with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts it examines and on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. This is an improvement that has been welcomed by this Chamber, by the Select Committee and certainly by the European Select Committee in its 13th report entitled The Fight Against Fraud, a point which I believe was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aldington, who certainly commended the Court of Auditors on its role in the fight against fraud. We certainly agree that it plays an effective role in promoting the effectiveness of Community spending.
Further, the Court of Auditors will become a Community institution under the treaty. That will increase its status and its authority. As a Community institution it will be able to bring before the Court of Justice an action under Article 175 against the Council or the Commission for failure to act in breach of the treaty.
I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about the report on export refunds. The Court of Auditors produced an interim report in April 1992 which was considered by this Chamber. I understand that the court's investigations are continuing. The Council and the Commission have discussed the report, agreeing that there should be better mutual assistance and better co-operation between member states and with the Commission, which would certainly like to take a stronger co-ordinating role, including producing an audit package for use with
752
multinational corporations. These are positive steps which would not have taken place without the valuable report published by the Court of Auditors on the basis of Mr. Carey's work, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred.
The European Parliament also has a role to play in ensuring that the Commission corrects deficiencies that have been identified. Article 206 of the treaty would give the European Parliament enhanced powers to examine the Commission on the basis of the Court of Auditors' observations and request it to report on action that it takes in response. These changes to the treaty represent an important move forward in strengthening the framework necessary to improve the management of the Community's finances.
We believe that Maastricht was a very important step in the battle to fight Community budget fraud. It marked an important change of attitudes to fraud arid financial management issues. Following Maastricht there has been a clear shift in the attitude of member states and the Commission in that fight. That is further reflected by the reference in the Copenhagen Council conclusions on the importance of fighting Community budget fraud.
In the Council of Ministers we believe that the political will now exists to take on fraud. This Chamber expressed its concerns in the debate on 8th March when it discussed the European Communities Committee's report on the fight against fraud. But the Chamber also acknowledged that concrete steps have been taken.
We should be the first to recognise that more has to be done. Work has continued in the Community since that debate in March. In particular ECOFIN discussed the Commission's latest annual report on fraud on 7th June. The Council welcomed the Commission's new work programme, which is very much along the lines sought by ECOFIN under the United Kingdom presidency last autumn. The Council emphasised as priorities the simplification of legislation and the extension of risk targeting. It asked the Commission to consider how to develop further the Community's strategy against fraud.
The Commission has outlined further concrete ideas for tackling fraud which it is considering, including its intention to strengthen both its central anti-fraud unit and the other Commission services concerned with combating fraud. The Government have generally welcomed the Commission's ideas while making some further suggestions of their own and offering assistance in the extension of risk targeting techniques and with secondments. Further, the European Parliament is actively considering how the Community and member states can improve their performance.
I turn to some of the later amendments that stand on their own rather than in the earlier group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. With regard to Amendment No. 416, I believe that only the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to it and I am not aware that the mover of the Motion spoke to it. The noble Lord asked whether the amendment was necessary and whether all information would he available. I can give him that assurance. Certainly in

753
keeping with the recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee, Her Majesty's Government publish annually a White Paper on the Community's budget. That annual statement gives full details of the current Community budget, including expenditure on economic and social cohesion and the United Kingdom's contribution to finance the budget. It also gives out-turn information on previous years. We believe that that will be sufficient. We do not believe that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Belhaven was in fact necessary.
I turn to Amendment No. 425 tabled by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. The purpose of the amendment was to raise various queries as to whether payment of administrative expenses (Titles V and VI) is legitimate under the European Communities Act. The answer given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers is certainly correct. By Articles J.11.2 and K.8.2 administrative expenditure is chargeable to the budgets of the Communities and as such payment of our contribution to the budget, including such expenditure, will be a Community obligation for the purposes of Section 2(3) of the 1972 Act. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that explanation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I thank my noble friend. I take it that he rests upon the provision in the Treaty of Maastricht in the second paragraph of Article 199 (which is on page 56) which appears, as he says, to give that amendment to the European Communities Act 1972.
In conclusion, we have now established that the separate pillars which have nothing to do with the Treaty of Rome will be worked by the Council of Ministers, will be administered by the Commission, will involve the presidency, the Court of Justice and the Parliament and will be provided for under funds administered through the Treaty of Rome. I just wonder how separate they are.
Lord Henley: My noble friend is correct. I should like to rely on Article 199. The further point I wanted to make clear to my noble friend is that certainly any further operational expenditure under either pillar—at the moment we are talking only about expenditure on administrative matters—would require unanimity. On that basis, in this country we have a veto over its use. In certain instances it might make sense to use the Community budget to implement policy which has been agreed by unanimity. Certainly it is a matter that can be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is a matter on which we have a veto and we shall use our veto should it be necessary.
Lastly, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He proposed that the Secretary of State should have a duty to inform the other place of just how much we spend on other countries that happen to have territorial claims against either this country or for that matter other countries. It is difficult to see how the Government could meet the requirements that such a clause seeks to impose. As the noble Lord will know, there is no hypothecation of the Community's own resources save for one very
754
specific purpose, which is financing the agricultural monetary reserve. In other words, revenues are used without distinguishing from where they come to finance all budget expenditure. There is no specific United Kingdom contribution towards Community spending in other countries. It is not possible to say that × pounds from member state Y has been spent in country Z. That is perfectly normal and certainly in line with most United Kingdom practice as regards tax revenue, where it is used to fund expenditure without it being possible to tell on what an individual taxpayer's tax is spent.
I am not clear as to the purpose behind the new clause. It seems to imply that there are some very fierce burning territorial claims between member states. I accept that there may be one or two territorial claims that some member states have against others. But I do not accept that they are burning territorial claims and do not believe that they are so life threatening. One of the triumphs of the Community has been helping to ensure peace in Western Europe. Any war between most of our colleagues is virtually unthinkable. In fact, even if the new clause were implemented, it would highlight unnecessarily, and in an unwanted and unhelpful manner, a small number of problem areas such as those mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He says that he does not think that such territorial claims are life threatening. I would accept that comment in the case of Spain's claim upon Gibraltar. But does not the Republic of Ireland's claim upon Northern Ireland give aid and encouragement to the IRA and stimulate its members into greater acts of terrorism?
Lord Henley: The noble Lord puts his case. That point is certainly arguable. I do not want to go into the individual problems that the Irish Republic may have about certain parts of its constitution. It would be wrong for me to speculate on that. An amendment such as that proposed by the noble Lord would not add to our relations with the Irish Republic; it would not add to our relationship with any country. I was trying to make clear the point that it would highlight what I believe to be a relatively small problem in what is a much greater problem—one that has been going on for 20 years. I do not believe that those parts of the Irish Republic's constitution are necessarily the key to the problems in Northern Ireland. For that reason the amendment is distinctly unhelpful.
As I have tried to make clear, we believe that the Maastricht Treaty brings important improvements to the financial management of United Kingdom taxpayers' money. It will give the Community a clear treaty basis for tackling anxieties about waste and fraud which have been expressed today and over a number of years—for which we are grateful—by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The Committee and the noble Lord should be at one in wanting the improvements. I hope that the noble Lord—I appreciate again that the amendments are merely probing amendments—will accept that the articles are a considerable improvement and are the right way forward.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive response to the various points that I ventured to lay before the Committee. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elks, that the conduct of which I complained whereby the Commission deliberately misled, with or without the collaboration of the Court of Auditors, Parliament and the public, could happen even under the revised wording of the Maastricht Treaty relating to the Court of Auditors.
The new provisions relating to financial control, regulation and so forth, have no bearing on the disclosures that I made earlier about bad faith on the part of the Commission and/or the Court of Auditors. Nothing in the new provisions could have prevented that. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for whom I have a great respect, in the passage of time since the events about which I complained nothing has been altered in any way by the new provisions of the treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, must by now be aware that the report of the Select Committee, produced after consideration of the published report on export restitution in relation to the milk sector and so forth, and our report would have been different if we had had the original in our possession rather than the truncated copy with which we were ultimately provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I am sorry to say, fell back on the old dodge of saying of the amounts of money involved that the odd billion or so was only a small percentage of the total expenditure. That is a classic device for obtaining support for expenditure with which one agrees. When one disagrees, one always calls it taxpayers' money. When one wants support, one always says how small it is.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. He knows as well as I that fraud involving any sum is a disgraceful way of behaving, particularly with public money. If we want to talk of size, we need only look across the river where local authorities grossly misuse and abuse their powers. Therefore, whatever the sum, in my view it is fraud on the Community and the taxpayer. I condemn it as much as he does.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am glad to see that the noble Baroness is in agreement with the substance of what I was saying. We are dealing with Community funds and with the proportion provided by the British taxpayer towards the net amount that we have to pay. It is extremely important that we deal with those questions.
I took note of the noble Lord's observations in regard to the Community's priorities in relation to fraud. I have seen the various memoranda that emanated from the Commission on the whole question of how it proposed to tackle the problem. I am hound to say that it comes low down its list of priorities. I have before me the Commission's programme for 1993–94, dated 26th January this year. The battle against fraud does not feature in it. I am not saying that it does not regard it as a matter of priority;
756
it probably does. But it is not given undue emphasis in the programme that it has ventured to lay before the Community as a whole.
I want to deal with one further aspect raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in regard to the European budget and the control which, presumably, she feels the European Parliament exercises over it. At the time I sat in the European Parliament, whenever the staffing contents of the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice were discussed in the budget committee and in plenary, we all knew that there was close contact between the officials serving the budget committee, those in the Council, in the Court of Justice and in the Commission as to how those matters should be managed.
The policy was agreed informally, but we ultimately devilled it out and discovered what was happening. When the Commission came to its staffing requirements for incorporation into the budget for the following year, it would always put down a few more for staffing that it needed in order that the European Parliament could move an amendment reducing the expenditure and thus gain a considerable amount of prestige. That was common knowledge. Indeed, when it came to the budget of the Council and of Parliament, there was an unofficial arrangement between them of, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". In other words, Parliament never interfered with the Council's staffing budget and, in return, the Council never interfered with the Parliament's staffing budget.
It is a very cosy arrangement. I looked up the reports in the European Parliament covering the past year. I shall not read them because of the time. I found that the arrangement still exists and was indeed referred to. That is what goes on. The budget is not paid any serious attention by the European Parliament. I have been through all the proceedings of last year when the European budget for 1993 was discussed. The perfunctory interest expressed in the plenary sessions towards the budget was almost conspicuous by its absence. I can refer on Report, and will if necessary, to exactly what I am referring to now.
I want to make one final point about the Court of Auditors. I agree that the new responsibilities given to it are good. I am not quite sure whether it is wise to elevate it to an institution in the way that it is. It may give it nominal prestige. It can call itself a court and its members can possibly wear robes. But it will not induce it to do the investigative audit that we in this country and other parts of Europe really understand the job of an audit to be. I leave the Minister with this thought in his mind. At present, whatever powers are contained in the treaty, the Court of Auditors has no powers to interrogate. If the noble Lord can point out any part of the financial regulations, which have been brought forward by the Commission and approved by Parliament, or anything in the Treaty of Maastricht or any regulation anywhere which gives it the power to interrogate, I shall he very greatly obliged because it will save me an enormous amount of trouble. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.

757
[Amendments Nos. 224 to 228 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 237 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled list.]
[Amendments Nos. 238 to 245 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 228").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 248 in the method which we have now agreed among ourselves is a sensible way to do it, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, excepted. At the moment foreign policy in the European Community is run by European political co-operation, or EPC. It either fails or works because of an informal arrangement. I suspect that both Her Majesty's Government and probably the French would have wanted to keep it that way but in deference to others have allowed the Commission to have some say in this arrangement, but only on an informal basis. How can we have a common defence or foreign policy when Ireland is constitutionally committed to neutrality and Austria, Finland and Sweden all have a constitutional duty of neutrality?
Even under the present arrangements we have got ourselves into the most awful pickle in the Balkans. First, the Greeks are being paranoid over Macedonia and are not allowing anyone to recognise Macedonia or to call it Macedonia. It has to be called the Republic of Skopje. Far worse, the Germans made the European Economic Community recognise Croatia and Slovenia prematurely without having made sure that the arrangements would be in place for a settled post-Yugoslavia. Consequently, Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised against the advice of our Foreign Office and, I strongly suspect, the advice of the French Foreign Office, and certainly against the particularly vehement advice of my noble friend Lord Carrington. Unfortunately, the Foreign Office, and probably the French Foreign Office, and certainly my noble friend Lord Carrington, have been vindicated hut at the cost of a quite extraordinary large loss of life.
When Germany's capital moves to Berlin, which it is constitutionally supposed to do, the whole psychology of Germany will alter. It must do. It will start thinking—I am not using this term in any way pejoratively, I am just stating what I believe to be a fact—more like Prussia towards the east than it does at the moment and less like the palatinate or a part of Western Europe. Germany's psychology will move to being much more middle European than western European.
Article 228a of the treaty reads as follows:
"Where it is provided, in a common position or in a joint action adopted according to the provisions of the Treaty on European Union relating to the common foreign and security policy, for an action by the Community to interrupt or to reduce, in part or completely, economic relations with one or more third countries, the Council shall take the necessary urgent measures. The Council shall act by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission".
That shows that the Commission can propose and the Council can, by qualified majority, make all 12 break off economic relations with a third party. Will this
758
happen, for instance, over Germany's recent agreement with the United States regarding access for its businesses to public sector telecommunications contracts; or if the Council thought, by qualified majority, that the United States had been at fault were the GATT negotiations to break down, could we by any outside chance be forced to impose economic sanctions on Washington? I know that sounds a rather extreme idea.
Lord Hacking: I think it does.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sure the noble Lord thinks it does but it is within the book. That is the point. One should be careful about things that are in the book and not just think, "Oh, it is such a silly idea that nobody will do it". Silly ideas have been grasped with relish by people in this world over a long time in history.
The Government cannot leave specific reference to Title V out of Clause 1 of the Bill. We are seeking to put Title V into the Bill but the phrase on lines 10 and 11 of the Bill,
"together with the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Titles",
does embrace Title V because foreign and security policy is already covered in part in Title II of the treaty, and Title II is mentioned on line 9 of the Bill, and therefore Title V or Article J is embraced by the expression,
"together with the other provisions relating to Title II".
Article J states quite simply:
"A common foreign and security policy is hereby established which shall be governed by the following provisions".
The remaining articles then go on to amplify that. Article J.1 tells us that the European union,
"shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy … covering all areas of foreign and security policy".
It tells us that the objective of such policy is to safeguard the independence of the union. It goes on,
"to strengthen the security of the Union",
and,
"to preserve peace and strengthen international security".
It continues:
"to develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".
I wonder that it does not mention motherhood and apple pie, but it actually does not. Article J.1 goes on to say:
"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with".
In that context the Union sounds suspiciously like a state.
In Article J.3 the procedures for adoption of this joint foreign and security policy—this policy of the Union—are laid down. It can be seen that in almost all areas policy will be decided by majority vote and not unanimous vote.
Article J.4 contains the assertion that the eventual framing of a common defence policy,
"might in time lead to a common defence".
Members of the Committee will note that in Article J.5 the permanent members of the United Nations

759
Security Council of the Twelve—in other words Britain and France—will, in the exercise of their functions in the Security Council, ensure the defence and interests of the Union. In future, therefore, will not Britain's and France's permanent seats on the Security Council be used as but appendages of the Union?
I ask Members of the Committee to think back to 1982. General Galtieri was a general of Genoese extraction and Argentina had Spanish antecedents. Would it have been possible for the British Foreign Office, under even existing arrangements, to have done the superb diplomatic job that it did when it lined up the Security Council in our support if we and France had been acting as Union delegates or if we had had to get Spanish and Italian consent for its achievements?
I have suddenly thought of another idea which I am sure my noble friend Lord Hacking will say is impossible. I believe it is possible, but equally silly. It is the idea of M. Poos, or some such official, deciding that it would be in the Community's interest to get involved in Sino-British discussions on Hong Kong. I hope that that is only an impossible nightmare.
It must be noted that Title V amounts to a single foreign and defence policy for the Europe of the Twelve. The term "Union" is frequently used throughout Title V: it is used to express a single entity with its own policies. When Article J.1 tells us that the Union,
"shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy"
it also tells us that the purpose of that policy would include safeguards for the independence of the Union. Those are the words of a single political Union and a single state.
I move this amendment in a spirit of worried inquiry with the ghosts of Castlereagh, Palmerston and Bevin hovering over my shoulder. I hope that my worries are unnecessary, but I fear that they are not. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Jay: I ask the Minister to make clearer how far the inclusion of the Community in foreign and security policy is really an inter-governmental matter and not fully operated by the Brussels machine. Listening to the Prime Minister's speeches after Maastricht, I was much encouraged because they were all to the effect that foreign and security policy would be purely inter-governmental and would not be operations of the Commission involving all the paraphernalia of Brussels.
I was extremely surprised when, reading the treaty and particularly page 83 of the blue book, I came upon Article J.9. It is surprisingly emphatic and explicit. I believe the Committee should note that the article states:
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field".
Nothing can be clearer than that. I believe that it would justify M. Delors intervening in any way that he wished. He could say that the treaty says that the Commission will be fully associated. After discovering that, I was even more surprised to read the Foreign
760
and Commonwealth Office's own popular booklet. I am sure that the noble Baroness has seen it. It is about the only effort to inform the British public or what the treaty really means. The booklet is called Britain in Europe: The European Community and Your Future.
Perhaps I may quote from page 9:
"The Maastricht Treaty will help build closer cooperation on foreign policy and justice/home affairs, but on an inter-governmental basis, without the Commission arid European Court of Justice having the roles they enjoy under the Treaty of Rome".
It seems to me that that is a direct falsification of what is in the treaty, which is rather discreditable to the Foreign Office. I am not accusing the noble Baroness personally of having engaged in falsification. Even now there is such a thing as ministerial responsibility. Before the end of the debate I hope that the noble Baroness may be prepared to express some apology for those words and to see that the Foreign Office does not finance propaganda of that kind in Future. It is all the more questionable because the booklet was presumably published at the expense of the British taxpayer.
I raise this partly because there has been a long trail of deception in the whole of this story. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was here earlier but is not now with us. I do not believe that he would contradict me when I recall that in the debates in the other place in 1972 on the European Communities Act we were all assured that it was little more than a trade agreement which would be beneficial to British exports. Those of us who tried to argue, as some of us did, that it meant legislation involving bodies outside this country but which would be valid within this country, had their arguments brushed aside as being clearly a technicality and that nobody need worry about nightmares of that kind.
Later came the 1975 referendum. We were repeatedly assured that the Luxembourg compromise would solve all problems. Government publicity stated that no tax or law could be approved in Brussels without the approval of the British Government. When we reached the 1980s the Luxembourg compromise had become rather a ghostly creature hanging ambiguously in the air, rather like the Liberal Party, one might say. No doubt we shall clear up the exact status of the Luxembourg compromise before the end of these debates.
When we reached the Single European Act in 1986 we were again assured that nothing in the Act would be relevant for any purpose other than achieving a single market and there was no question of the Commission being allowed to intervene in foreign or security policy. I therefore view the whole proceedings with a little suspicion when I find the extraordinarily precise words,
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field"
and at the same time find that flatly contradicted by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office document. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will explain exactly what the scope and powers of the Commission will be in this field of foreign policy and security. Perhaps she will also explain how this falsifying document, as it seems to me, came to be issued by the Foreign Office
Lord Beloff: I think that it would be generally agreed that matters of life and death are more important even than matters of money. The clauses of the treaty which we are now considering, dealing with the aspect of defence and security policy (which are, of course, one—one cannot have a foreign policy which does not have a defence implication and vice versa) are therefore extremely important. It is certainly desirable that they should be explored and that we should have the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to the points which have been raised.
Many of the points which I might have raised have been made by my noble friend Lord Onslow, but perhaps I may put them in a more general context. It is difficult to imagine that there can be satisfactory machinery for co-ordinating the foreign and defence policies of a series of states unless, to begin with, they see their objectives as reconcilable and have a degree of common purpose in fulfilling any obligations which they may incur if those policies are put into operation. My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to the case of neutral actual or prospective members, and that is one aspect.
Another aspect of much greater importance is the constitutional position of the German Republic, because Germany is, we know, prohibited constitutionally from giving material military aid to activities outside the territories of the members of the Community. It is difficult to think of a foreign policy which does not, in some respects, affect foreign policy which is outside the boundaries of the Community, and that, in turn, has clear defence implications. I should have thought that it was impossible for the governments of countries which have no such inhibitions (and which have shown that by, for instance, their expeditions for humanitarian purposes in Bosnia and elsewhere) to accept a system in which decisions on a common foreign policy might be taken in conjunction with countries which, if those decisions were taken, might be unable to play a part in making those policies effective.
There is perhaps a lesson to be learned. I know that I bore your Lordships with history, but perhaps I may call the Committee's attention to the experiences of the former American colonies in the period immediately after they achieved their independence in 1783. The United States was then governed by the Articles of Confederation. It was less than a federal system and was certainly less intensive and less centralising than would be Europe governed under the provisions of Maastricht. Nevertheless, they lived in a hostile world and had to work out foreign policies jointly. They found that extremely difficult to do—partly for reasons of geographical spread. The southern states were concerned with the future of the Mississippi and the gulf. The New England states were concerned to preserve their trade with Europe, while others looked to the moving frontier to the west. The inability to come to common policies was one of the principle reasons why the Articles of Confederation were abandoned for a proper federal system under the constitution which was drawn up in 1787.
I should have thought, therefore, that if we accept this first stage we arc either asking for total frustration
762
and anarchy or we are saying that we shall very soon have to move to a single state because only a single state can operate a single foreign and security policy. To those who say, "Well, we don't much mind", and to noble Lords who would clearly welcome that, I can only say that the adoption of the American federal constitution did not altogether solve the problem. When the United States was confronted, like other countries, with the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, the states divided as to their possible reactions. The bulk of the states were sympathetic to the French attitude towards the maritime conflict. We would say that the New England states opted out of the conflict —although they had a much better vocabulary in those times. They set up a mini-confederation within the United States to preserve their neutrality and their profitable trade with the United Kingdom and its colonies.
So one must not think that there are simple solutions to these problems. In the light of that fact, I think that we should like to know first of all what the Government's attitude is. Do they envisage that these articles should be taken seriously? If that is the case, do they accept that they would demand political institutions of a much more rigid character than is now envisaged, or do they believe (against all the evidence of recent years) that it would seriously be possible to devise policies by unanimity in principle and then, by qualified majority voting, to implement them, which could actually help us to solve the serious problems with which we and the other members of the Community are likely to be confronted in central and Eastern Europe in particular?
It is no good thinking of these things in the abstract. The trouble is that one is so easily led away by words. It is, for instance, suggested in these articles that the WEU could act as a sort of surrogate defence Community. I think that we should like to know whether we take the French view of that—that it would be an independent pillar of European defence —or do we take what I think has been the British and probably the German view, that this is simply a territorial expansion and enlargement (for operational purposes) of the North Atlantic alliance, on which the serious questions of security must ultimately depend?
It is common ground that we cannot envisage the defence of Europe if there were to be a renewed threat from the East. I am not talking about a timescale of six months or a year —after all, even this treaty is meant to last until 1996 —we are thinking of a long period. It is common ground that only the military capacities of the United States, with its awesome technological powers, of which we have just seen an example, could seriously balance a threat from powers potentially with nuclear weapons and so forth. So it is desirable to be clear where this country believes its security lies and not to play around with concepts which are reconcilable on paper but which raise serious questions as to where we believe our future lies. Those are serious matters, and I hope that the Committee will give them serious attention.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My noble friend Lord Onslow moved Amendment No. 248 which I understand removes Article 228 from the treaty. On Second Reading, many noble Lords talked about GATT. We know only too well how difficult it was to bring the French Government into line on that issue. As I understand it, if Article 228 is removed, paragraph 7, which provides,
"Agreements concluded under the conditions set out in this Article shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and Member States",
would be deleted. That would be a retrograde step, because there is no guarantee that all the countries of the Community will find it easy to sign up to the GAIT. If one takes with that provision Article 228.1, which allows the Council to act by qualified majority in entering into agreements with international organisations, I should have thought that, as the GATT Round conclusion is so important for the industrial communities of the world, not least this country, it would be a retrograde step to allow the amendment to be passed.
The Earl of Onslow: May I ask—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should—
Lord Parry: Perhaps—
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Lord Parry.
Lord Parry: I thank the Committee. In introducing that fascinating piece of history, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was self-deprecatory. He felt that he bored the Committee. In fact, I found his words challenging and apposite to the amendment. It bore some relationship, I believe the Committee will realise, to my small intervention earlier in this series of debates when I referred to the fact that even in the USA they are debating whether the federation can hold against the strains in the current domestic, economic and, finally, military situation. It was in the Gettysburg Address that the words first appeared. Abraham Lincoln questioned whether a federated state, "so conceived" —those were his words—"could long endure". In fact the United States has long endured upon the basis of its great productive capacity. It has been able to evolve systems that withstood the strains.
It is interesting that the Committee has been debating, clause by clause—sometimes Members of the Committee have been bored by the detail into which my colleagues have gone —a Bill at a time when the general public of this country, who certainly have not read the detail of Maastricht, have had a demonstration of the incapacity of the burgeoning united states of Europe to face up to the challenges that have arisen from the disintegration of the systems under which most of us have grown up.
The people of this country at this time are not merely not particularly interested in the Maastricht Treaty; they feel deep down that Europe has failed to meet the challenge and has demonstrated the weakness of its current systems in the face of the challenges that have arisen out of the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and on the eastern edges of
764
Europe. The people who brought the Committee to examine, clause by clause, the sweeping generalisations contained in some parts of the Maastricht Treaty will be quoted in the future, as the Committee will be quoted, because of the detailed examination of the system that there has been. I shall support the amendment as I have supported the others, because I believe that it makes an important contribution to the continuing debate.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In addition to the weighty arguments that have been adduced so far on this group of amendments, there is one personal one. That is why I have been persistent in wanting to get it on the record. It is a personal one which applies to pretty well all the Government's supporters on this side of the Chamber. I want to believe the Prime Minister. He is my Prime Minister. I approve of him. He talks with the authority of a Prime Minister. He made it clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, reminded us, that on matters to do with foreign and security policy, the paraphernalia of the treaty would not be involved. He said that with the authority of the Prime Minister, I have no doubt that when he said it he meant it and hoped that it would be true.
We are then asked to pass this Bill, and Article J.9 makes it clear that the Commission will be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field. That is a completely different message from the one that the Prime Minister —whose message I want to accept—gave to us. We would not be true to ourselves if in accepting what the Prime Minister said we passed easily a treaty which includes the article which I have just read. One might. ask why we should have doubts. Surely we have enough confidence in the Prime Minister and his interpretation, and that should be one that should carry weight.
There are those of us who have been at this for 22 years now from the beginning of the Treaty of Rome. Prime Minister Macmillan made statements; Prime Minister Heath made statements; Prime Minister Wilson made statements. They made those statements in answer to questions which many of us in another place were putting to them.
What are we to think when something opposite to what those various Prime Ministers said is being put into operation? People say, "But it is what is in the Act. That is what you approved". They do not refer back to what the Prime Minister said. They refer back to the treaty that we have signed. I want to believe the Prime Minister. There is no joy in being in opposition to so much of this. I approve of the Prime Minister. I approve of his type of leadership. I have every confidence that when he said what he did he believed it. We cannot have his statement and this provision and expect the statement to be referred to in the future and not the provision that we have passed. If my noble friend can give me a satisfactory answer to that, it will give me a great deal of pleasure and reassurance. But I do not see how she can.
Lord Tebbit: Let me, first, thank my noble friend Lord Onslow for moving the amendment. I have some difficulty with my timetable today. I believe that the

765
noble Lord, Lord Jay, was a little harsh in what he said about the government document to which he referred. I do not believe that his charge of falsification stands up, though the charge of being economical with the truth does, for what is written there is literally true.
Lord Jay: Yes.
Lord Tebbit: But the impression that the reader would gain is one which is contrary to the facts which have been brought out: that the Commission is involved deeply under the treaty in questions of foreign policy.
Let me make plain one general proposition upon which I think we would all agree. The more often member states of the Community can agree on foreign policy, can come to common positions and can act in some way together, the better it is for all of us. Such tragedies as the Bosnian conflict, which was not caused by but was undoubtedly sparked off by the unilateral move of Germany in this regard, should be a lesson to us all.
Perhaps we may look at Title V, which governs these matters. It is full of what I referred to in earlier debates as "pegs". They are all there, waiting for the next inter-governmental conference when we shall be told, "There are no surprises. You agreed that this would lead to a common defence so why are you now complaining about it? If you did not want it to lead there you should have said 'No' back in 1993". Indeed, I take a little further the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I believe that these provisions are unworkable in practice. I shall, when dealing with the detail of the amendments, say why I believe that to be the case.
We shall have all signed up to the purposes of Title V and shall find that its provisions do not work. They simply do not deliver for the reasons set out by my noble friend Lord Beloff. What will the Community do then? Will the Commission throw up its hands in horror and say, "It was a terrible mistake. Let's drop all that stuff and go back to inter-governmental co-operation procedures."? Oh no! If you believe that you really would believe anything. The Commission will go forward and insist on pushing and pushing for the single foreign policy dealt with in the mainstream in the Treaty of Rome to lead eventually to the State of Europe. The Commission wants a foreign policy because it wants to be a state in the same way as it wants citizens because it wants to be a state. These are the accoutrements of statehood which it is gathering about it steadily, step by step, one treaty after another and this treaty above all.
The final words of Article J.1.4 on page 80 are:
"The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with"—
"Shall ensure"? By what means shall the Council ensure? After all, it is that:
"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
That characterises so much of our experience of the European Community. The article continues, referring to the member states:
766
"They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union".
—"any action which is contrary to the interests of the union"? Let us suppose that it is an action which is favourable to the interests of the member state. Are we signing ourselves up to refrain from actions which are favourable to the interests of the people of this nation? It would so appear. The member states will refrain from any action:
"likely to impair its [the Union] effectiveness and a cohesive force in international relations".
Such idealism! I guess that there is one country in the Community which will abide by that and we all know which one. I do not believe that it will be on the other side of the English Channel.
I turn to Article J.2.3 which states:
"Members States shall co-ordinate their action in international organizations and at international conferences. They shall uphold common positions in such fora.
In international organizations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the common positions".
One important international forum is, of course, the United Nations. To see more clearly matters affecting that forum we turn to Article J.5.4 on page 82. It states:
"Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep other Member States fully informed. Member States which are permanent members of the Security Council"—
the United Kingdom among them—
"will, in the execution of their functions, ensure the defence of the positions in the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter".
What do those last words mean? Why are they there? Do they form a get-out clause which would allow the United Kingdom, or indeed France, to exercise its veto in the United Nations contrary to a common position? My noble friend is eager to reply and shortly I shall give her the opportunity. Alternatively, is it that once a common position has been reached a permanent member of the Security Council with a veto will exercise that veto in the interests of the Community, in the interests of the Union, even if it is against the interests of the member state?
I know the reply which is already being fashioned in the mind of my noble friend. I am sure that she will refer me to Article J.8, which is there in all its glory at the foot of page 82. It states:
"The Council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions".
We shall be told that that protects us against anything which is against the interests of the United Kingdom. Let us think that through for a moment for this may well become an issue of supreme importance. Let us suppose—and it is not an absurd assumption—that were this treaty in operation today there could be established by unanimity a decision in the Council that arms should not be supplied to any of the participants in the Yugoslavian conflict. Members of the Committee will agree that that is not an absurd decision that might come by unanimity. Supposing that following a general election there were elected in this kingdom a government which had as part of their election manifesto the belief that arms should be supplied to, let us say, the Moslem communities for

767
their self-defence in Bosnia. Again, that is not an impossible situation. With a mandate from the British people that the policy should be changed the incoming Foreign Secretary would bravely go to the Council and be politely told that unless there were unanimity the policy could not be changed. Where does that leave that government? Where does it leave the electors of this nation? Where does it leave our parliamentary sovereignty?
Let us then consider the earlier provisions. That unfortunate Foreign Secretary would be required at international fora, including the United Nations, to uphold the policy which was contrary to that upon which his government had been elected. It is not a question of whether it would happen; it is only a question of on what issue and when it would happen. IF foreign policy is to be made by unanimity, it can only be changed by unanimity. Therefore, the policy of one member state being changed by a general election within that member state has to be brushed aside by the provisions of Title V.
My noble friend Lord Beloff is right. Member states will no more act in the end against their national interests than did those New England states of the young United States of America. The article under discussion is shot full of the very causes of the next step and of the argument that such matters can only be resolved, and that we can only have the common foreign policy which we all desire and have signed up for, if we take another giant step down the road. If he is still here at that time—and I hope that he will be —I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cockfield will say, "Why are you surprised? It was all written out in the treaty for you to see. You trooped through the Lobbies of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords knowing it, so don't complain now".
Lord Moran: The amendments under discussion provide an opportunity for the Government to clear up some of the thick fog that surrounds the foreign and security policies prescribed by the treaty. When the noble Baroness responds to the debate, I hope that she will do so. It seems to me that the major part of the Maastricht Treaty covering foreign and security policy is Title V—also, rather confusingly, called Article J. First, can the Minister say why there is no specific reference to Title V in Clause 1 of the Bill?
I turn now to Article J, which introduces the provisions of foreign and security policy and which begins,
"A common and security policy is hereby established".
Can the Minister say how far that process has gone, how far it is intended that it should go, and how far the Government wish it to go? That is what I should like to know.
Article J.1, which has been quoted by some previous speakers goes on to say in paragraph 4 that,
"Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly".
Can the Minister say what the word, "unreservedly" means? To what precisely does it commit us?
I should like to remind Members of the Committee of something that was said on Second Reading by the
768
noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who speaks with great authority on such matters. While talking about Yugoslavia he spoke of,
"the lack of foreign common policy and the catastrophic consequences of trying to pretend that there was one".
He made a most important point. The pretence of a common policy when there is not in fact one is very dangerous and could lead us into the sort of morass in which we found ourselves as regards policy over Bosnia. Immediately after that comment the noble Lord also said:
"There can be no common defence policy at the present time since there is a wide difference of opinion about the role of the Americans and the relationship of a European defence policy to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".—[Official Report, 7/6/93; col. 570.]
Coming from the noble Lord, I believe that those words were most important. Can the Minister say whether the Government agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and whether they accept that there can be no common defence policy at present? If that is so, it seems to me to be important.
Finally, I should like to refer to the matter raised by some previous speakers about the position of this country and of France as permanent members of the Security Council. Under paragraph 4 of Article J.5, the two countries will, according to the treaty,
"in the execution of their functions, [in the Sccurity Council] ensure the defence … and the interests of the Union".
What precisely does that mean? Does it mean that in future, if the treaty is ratified, Britain and France will have to act in the Security Council as delegates of the union and conduct their policies along those lines? As Members of the Committee know, there is already pressure from the United States to put Germany on the Security Council, despite the fact that Germany's constitution, as I understand it, prevents it from taking any active part in security measures. If that should be done at some stage in the future, there would obviously be pressure to reduce what would he seen as excessive European representation on the council and pressure for either France or ourselves, or both, to come off the Security Council. That would seem to me to be most unfortunate.
However, that pressure would be greatly increased if we were to be seen to be acting not on what we ourselves thought was right but simply representing what had been agreed by a qualified majority vote in the Council. I should be most grateful if, in her response, the Minister could reply to those points.
Lord Aldington: I should just like to refer to the attack on the good honour of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and apparently supported by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. That attack was based on Article J.9 which reads:
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the foreign and security policy field".
Certain Members of the Committee put that to us as if it was something absolutely new. As chairman of the Select Committee at an earlier stage, it so happened that I had to look at the working of the EPC— European Political Co-operation. The provisions for that are set out in the Single European Act, which was

769
enacted at the time when my noble friend Lord Tebbit was in office. In that document at paragraph 3(b) of Article 30 appear the words:
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the proceedings of Political Co-operation".
It is outrageous that Members of the Committee should impugn the honour of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and that a noble friend of mine should also do so without informing the Chamber that there is absolutely no change in what is happening now and what has been happening since 1985. That is all I wanted to say.
Lord Jay: The fact that those words may have been used earlier does not alter the fact that the Prime Minister gave such impressions in his speeches this summer. Moreover, they do not turn out to be fully confirmed in the document. That is still true.
7 p.m.
Lord Aldington: If the noble Lord had understood how EPC worked, he would know perfectly well that anyone who understood how it worked would understand those words in that document in the same way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is absolutely correct. Those words were in the Single European Act. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I sat here on consecutive Fridays pointing out that that was a peg upon which further action would follow. We were pooh-poohed. We were told we were talking nonsense and that we were trying to frighten little children in their beds. However, Article J contains the provision exactly as we predicted. In actual fact, this Chamber, the House of Commons and the people were taken for a ride because most were convinced—I was not convinced —by the Government that this really was an innocuous little phrase and did not amount to a row of beans.
I wrote an article predicting exactly what would happen, and so it has come about in Article J of Title V of this treaty. The fact is that the Commission believes that European political co-operation is not satisfactory as it is. The Commission believes that there needs to be a much closer knit Community with closer knit policies having a common aim, a common objective and a common decision. That is what the Commission wants and that is what it is about to get. There can be no question about that. Unfortunately, where the Community has attempted to act in unison as one authority—many Members of the Committee have already mentioned this—and as one state, so to speak, its actions have gone disastrously wrong. That is not a good augury for this new political co-operation that we have in the Maastricht Treaty.
When Mr. Major returned from Maastricht he said that Maastricht—never mind what he said about game, set and match—was a great prize of inter-governmentalism in foreign and security policy. The fact of the matter is that previously we had absolute independence. What we have given up to inter-governmentalism—and no doubt later on to
770
federalism—is independence in our foreign policy. Let us not be under any illusion. We are giving up an independence, which we previously had, to these institutions.
The portfolio on foreign affairs has already been issued under this treaty. There is already a foreign affairs commissioner in place as I understand it. His name is Mr. Hans van den Broek and he is a former Dutch foreign minister. That might not sound so bad but a week or two ago I saw Mr. van den Broek on television. He was disagreeing with the position that the member states had reached on Yugoslavia. Already we have a commissioner who believes that it is his duty to disagree with the Council which is supposed to be his boss. That has come about before the Maastricht Treaty becomes fully operative. That does not augur well for the way decision taking will occur under Maastricht.
I do not wish to speak for too long. However, I must refer to paragraph 5 of Article J.8 which establishes a political committee. Where have we heard those words before? I do not need to refer the Committee to the origin of those words. Article J.8.5 states:
"Without prejudice to Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a Political Committee consisting of Political Directors shall monitor the international situation in the areas covered by common foreign and security policy and contribute to the definition of policies by delivering opinions to the Council at the request of the Council or on its own initiative. It shall also monitor the implementation of agreed policies, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Presidency and the Commission".
It appears that we now have a new committee. It is a political committee which will advise the Council of Ministers. Will that make our Foreign Office redundant?
Lord Aldington: I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to mislead the Committee. He said we were talking about a new committee. Paragraph 10 of Article 30 of the Single European Act refers to the setting up of that committee. It is not very new.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Did I say it was new? It is a committee. This matter underlines the necessity to discuss treaties and Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was the chairman of the European Communities Committee and he is a great expert on these matters. However, no one else knows that that provision was contained in the Single European Act. The reason they are unaware of that is because we discussed the Single European Act on Fridays when there were very few Members in the Chamber. That is why some of us have tried to ensure that the Maastricht Treaty is dealt with in prime time when Members are present in the Chamber to listen to the debates. I hope no one will tell us again to get on with it. This discussion is necessary. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who has brought this whole matter to the surface. We must know what we are doing. I do not wish to contribute much more to this debate except to say—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: At least I have contributed to this debate. I wish that some Members

771
of the Committee who sit with smirks on their faces would take part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, is well liked, respected and known. We would welcome his contribution to the debate. Of course, there will be plenty of time for him to contribute tomorrow, on Report and at Third Reading.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I will speak in the debate if the noble Lord promises never again to say that he has the right to speak for as long as he wishes. I have now heard him say that about 14 times. I accept he has that right, but if he promises not to mention it again we shall probably save a couple of hours' time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As I have never said that I have the right to speak for as long as I wish, I am happy to give that undertaking. I do not believe I have the right to speak for as long as I wish. However, I have the right to speak for as long as this Chamber will hear me and in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Chamber.
I shall sit down now, because there are others who wish to speak and we want to hear the Minister's reply. I simply want to emphasise once again that here we are handing over another part of our sovereignty and another part of our independence. I urge Members on all sides of the Committee to recognise what they are doing, to understand what they are doing and perhaps—although I am aware that it will not happen—to try to slow it all down.
Lord Reay: The Treaty of Maastricht seeks to strengthen and extend something that has in any case been developing rapidly in recent years—namely, European Community foreign policy co-operation under European political co-operation, or EPC as it has been called. The aim now is to establish a common foreign and security policy. No doubt, as often tends to be the case in these matters, the title runs somewhat ahead of the reality. Nevertheless, the goal is one which I believe we should strongly support.
Foreign policy co-operation is one of the areas in which we as a country bring a great deal to the Community, with our worldwide experience and interests, our seat on the United Nations Security Council and, not least, our special relationship with and understanding of the United States. I believe that on our own we would count for very much less than we can as a leading member state of the Community, able to play a formative role in Community foreign policy.
Indeed, I would go further and say that the field of European Community foreign policy co-operation provides us with a creative outlet which we ourselves need. More than anything else, it helps to give us a constructive role in the world—something which otherwise we have been without, probably since the days of empire.
Similarly, I support the coverage by the treaty of security issues and the provision therein for the eventual framing of a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence, in view of the safeguards in the treaty which the British Government
772
sought and obtained: first that any new arrangement should be compatible with NATO: secondly. that defence issues should be dealt with by the Western European Union and not by the Community; and, thirdly, that the Western European Union should not be subordinated to the European Union.
Of course this chapter, (CFSP), as we wished, will continue to proceed on an intergovernmental basis outside the scope of the treaty. The Commission will be present, "fully associated" in the treaty wording of Article J.9, as it is entirely sensible that it should be, given its responsibilities in foreign trade matters. Incidentally, I believe that the words "fully associated" are those which exist at present to describe the Commission's position within EPC.
The European Community has come under much criticism for what it has done or failed to do in Yugoslavia. I should like to say a word about that. Horrific and deplorable though the events in Yugoslavia are, and lamentable though it is that no one has been able to put a stop to them, I believe that the situation would be very much more alarming if no attempt had been made to forge a common European policy. The fighting has not been ended in former Yugoslavia, but it has not spread outside former Yugoslavia. We have only to think back to the last time Balkan nationalism was loosed upon the world as the Turkish empire collapsed. As everyone here knows, the events that followed played a major part in engulfing Europe in war.
In some ways the collapse of communism has produced in the Balkans a situation similar to that produced by the Ottoman collapse. Once again. Balkan nationalism has been unleashed. The greatest efforts need to be made to achieve a common European policy for that part of the world and to avoid a situation once again arising in which outside powers ally themselves with different client groups and. once again the fate of a wider Europe comes to depend on what happens in the Balkans.
So far we have largely been spared that, and for that we can be thankful that Community foreign policy co-operation. imperfect though it is, has developed as far as it has. I welcome attempts to extend it. I believe that the treaty seeks to take a modest step forward in what is entirely the right direction. I congratulate the Government on all they achieved in the negotiations and I hope that this evening the amendments will not be proceeded with.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: There is no reason why should not say a few words at this stage of the proceedings. My view of this matter is the same as that of Conor Cruise O'Brien, who drew a distinction between nations and states. He took the view that a union of nations may be a possibility but that a union of states was a much greater possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointed out that in the early days of the United States great difficulty was experienced, and they even had to have a civil war before the United States of America could be established. As Conor Cruise O'Brien said, a union of nations is a different kettle of fish altogether. He begs leave to

773
doubt—and I believe that he may be right—that it is possible to form the sort of organisation which we are trying to create in these proceedings, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is being foisted upon us.
The Government have issued a little booklet to make everything clear to everybody. It has a foreword by the Prime Minister, which is not as obscure as the rest of the booklet. In that foreword he tells us that the treaty is quite simple if one looks through it and, as has just been said, we can play the role of a leader in the European Community. The booklet goes on to suggest objections which might be raised, such as:
"We thought we were joining a common market. Now we are to have a European union. Aren't we on a slippery slope to federalism?"
The answer given in the booklet is "No". Tell that to Ted Heath. Tell that to a large number of enthusiastic federalists. In their view we are on a slippery slope. They regard it as an admirable slippery slope; they want to slide down it towards federalism.
What other purpose is there in forming a common defence and foreign policy if not the simple purpose of creating a state? How can any common policy among a group of nations be other than for the purpose of expressing the views, opinions and actions of the state to be formed? That is what we are moving towards. Anyone who says that that is not the case is blinding himself to the fact that it is certainly a slippery slope.
A nation is very different from a state. If it would take a civil war before we can become the united states of Europe can we be confident that what we are embarking on here will not lead to a European disaster of one sort or another?
What about the formation of a common policy in relation to nuclear arms? There are wide differences between states. The policy of this country, little as I like it, is different from—and I would say worse than —that of America. Is that a good argument for becoming involved: that everyone else can share the British nuclear and defence policy? So far as I am concerned the answer is no. Other people may take the view that it is. That presents us with a problem.
The final point that I want to make—and I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time—is that, if there is one thing that the world needs at present, it is clarity. In the old days of the two super-states the situation was trying and dangerous. But it had the virtue that we knew where we were. We knew that the European Community had been formed to be the economic background to NATO, and NATO was the organisation which was going to do the fighting. It was a Western organisation. It existed for the purpose of defending or, as the Russians saw it, for attacking.
We are now saying that the economic background is to take over and to become the policy-making organisation which will control NATO and will determine defence policies. Why do we want a defence policy? So that we can have a European collective decision. The idea that once we have achieved that objective we can still conduct our own affairs and our own policies beggars belief. Surely people cannot believe that we are going through this complicated
774
procedure in order to achieve—what? Nothing? Is that the objective? If we are not going in that direction, where do we stop?
Is not one of the purposes of the provisions to which we refer—it is one of our objections to them —that we end up with the state of Europe having an armed foreign policy? Despite the fact that we are in such a state of confusion, I believe that we must not try to solve the confusion in this way. To do so would lead to worse than confusion; it might lead to a European war. For that reason we must support the amendment.
Finally, it is difficult to find impartiality. The issue is not an inter-party matter. However, within parties differences of view are widespread. The nearest that one gets to an impartial statement is contained in one of the House of Commons Library publications. What is its conclusion on the common foreign and security policy? After stating how difficult the situation is, the final sentence states:
"What is clear, however, is that the European security system is in a state of flux and it is difficult to foresee its development over the next decade".
That is not an issue with which we wish to become involved.
Lord Swinfen: I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 281, in particular Article J.1.4. As the Committee will be aware, the Argentines still lay claim to the Falklands. Argentina is populated by descendants and relatives of Italians and Spaniards, all within the EC. Article J.1.4. states:
"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action that is contrary to the interests of the Union"—
This is the important part—
"or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with".
If an invasion of the Falkland Islands were to take place, and we, quite rightly, went to their defence, we would not be supported by Spain or Italy and possibly other countries in the EC, one of which (if memory serves me right) sent weapons of a very effective nature to Argentina during the last conflict. That would very definitely impair the Community's effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. How do my noble friend and the Government overcome that problem?
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may say a few words about the debate to which we have been listening for an hour and a half. Let me say at the outset that I marvel at the ingenuity of Members of the Committee on both sides of the Chamber to find plots where I do not perceive a plot to exist, to find dangers where I do not see dangers, to find rocks where on the whole I believe that the water is smooth, and to find implications where the wording seems to me to be at least reasonably clear. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has tried to persuade us this evening that where the Council must act unanimously it means exactly the opposite. I have another similar example; I have forgotten it at present.
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I may—
Lord Richard: With respect, perhaps the noble Lord will let me get launched first. I listened to the noble Lord quietly and peacefully when he made, in my opinion, some quite outrageous statements about the way in which the Community and the Commission work.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as I am sure he will, to compare Article 228 in the new treaty with Article 228 that it replaces. The noble Earl spoke about the way in which the Commission was to become involved in trade negotiations and economic relationships. He seemed to see a great danger in that. If he will consider the Maastricht Article 228 which replaces the old Article 228, he will find that in the old version the power of the Commission was much greater. It was expressed in much broader terms. It was much less circumscribed. If the objective of the exercise of the noble Earl was somehow to corral the Commission—I may not share that view but it is the view that came across from him—so that it cannot act independently, he may care to consider the old and the new versions. The new version is infinitely more restrictive of the way in which the Commission can act than the previous version.
Article J.9 states:
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field".
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, finds that sinister. Not only that, but he thinks that the Prime Minister lied about it. I leave to the judgment of the other side whether the Prime Minister lied. If one can put aside for one moment whichever side of the fence one is on, and whatever prejudices one has, it is impossible to read Article J objectively as giving more power to the Commission in the foreign and security field. Under Article J.1 it is the Council that is to do it.
Article J.2 states:
"Member states shall inform and consult one another within the Council. Whenever it deems it necessary, the Council shall define a common position"
and so on. The initiative is with the Council. The power is with the Council. The power to take decisions is with the Council. The power to act is with the Council. In the phrase on which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I disagree, the Council shall act unanimously.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He must not ascribe to me views and expressions which I do not have and did not put. In fact I very carefully read—at a moment when perhaps his attention had lapsed on some more important aspect—the provision of Article J.8.2 and emphasised that the Council shall act unanimously.
Lord Richard: In that case there is no difference between us. If the noble Lord accepts that on these issues the Council shall act unanimously, that would seem to be to most people reading it a great safeguard so far as concerns the national interests of any individual country.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may intervene
Lord Richard: With great respect, I think not. The noble Lord can come back as much as he likes. If he had been present from the beginning of the debate I might have been more inclined to give way to him.
I have remembered the other phrase to which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred. It was,
"without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter".
Again, it seems to me that anyone objectively reading Article J.5.4 would come to the conclusion that those words had been inserted deliberately to preserve the powers of the French and British for freedom of action in the United Nations Security Council. Inevitably one can only give certain evidence based on one's experience.
At the time when I had the privilege of holding the British veto in the Security Council, the fact that we were a member of the Community and that I could discuss and try to co-ordinate the British and French positions with the other members of the Community was a positive advantage in the job I was trying to do. The idea that somehow or other I was diluting my independence of action is, frankly, nonsense. Being a member of the Community and able to co-ordinate policy in such a way gives us two enormous advantages. One is that it can give you cover in situations when you need it; otherwise you can be picked off one by one. It also gives you infinite additional clout. Whether one likes it or not, on the international stage one needs cover and clout.
One last point is that what slightly depressed me about the debate was the thread running through it that somehow British interests in the future will be radically different and divergent from the interests of our Community partners. I do not believe that that is true. It seems to me that if one solemnly sat down, as perhaps Foreign Office mandarins or their minions are inclined to do from time to time, and tried to draw up a list of British interests at the moment and then tried to draw up one of the French or German interests, on the whole I suspect that the lists would he pretty similar. If that is so, I believe that most people would agree that foreign policy is based upon interests which, one hopes, have a certain moral force and moral backing. If there is a greater identity of interest between the members of the Community, it seems to me to be a logical and sensible step that we should try to co-ordinate our foreign policy to the maximum extent possible so that those interests may be better safeguarded.
I read all parts of Title V, Article J as being a step towards the greater co-ordination of foreign policy in which, at the end of the day, the individual member states preserve their eventual freedom of action. If I am right about that, it seems to me that a great deal of what has been said in the past one-and-a-half hours about the implications of the article is not justified.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This group of amendments, which I support, proposes to leave out Article J of Title V of the Treaty on European Union. Amendment No. 283, to which I speak particularly, would exclude Article J.3. I have already referred

777
twice to the possible dangers of Article J.3, first in a debate in your Lordships' House on 17th February and then when I attempted to sum up, in the early hours of the morning of 8th June, the Second Reading debate which started on 7th June. I confess that on the latter occasion I was not repeating a worry which had been expressed by another noble Lord but I wanted to repeat the question I put to my noble friend on 17th February when I did not receive a reply.
I regret to say that I was no luckier on 8th June, so I fear that I must put the question again now. I expect it is only some clarification which I seek from my noble friend. In order to elicit that, I refer the Committee to Article J.3 and the relevant clauses which state:
"The procedure for adopting joint action"—
I shall come back to joint actions—
"in matters covered by the foreign and security policy shall be the following".
It then states how the Council should decide and so on. Article J.3.2 states:
"The Council shall, when adopting the joint action and at any stage during its development, define those matters on which decisions are to be taken by a qualified majority".
We can skip a few paragraphs in order to reach my point, which is to be found in Article J.8. I refer particularly to the second paragraph of Article J.8.2 which states:
"The Council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions and"—
this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, missed—
"in the case referred to in Article J.3(2)".
So perhaps when adopting a joint action, but certainly at any stage during its development, the Council may define those matters on which decisions are to be taken by a qualified majority.
I ask my noble friend to tell the Committee exactly what "a joint action" is to be. Is it to be any form of military action involving the use of British troops? If so, do these clauses suggest that British troops could be committed to military action, perhaps by a unanimous vote of the Council, but that the ensuing action could be prosecuted by a qualified majority vote of the Council, even if it was against our will? I should be most grateful for my noble friend's reply on this occasion.
I say "perhaps by a unanimous vote" because the quality of that unanimity must be in some doubt. I draw the Committee's attention to the declaration on voting in the field of common, foreign and security policy which Britain has signed and which states:
"The Conference agrees that, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, Member States will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision".
I understand that declaration to put considerable pressure on us to agree to a unanimous decision with which we may not agree when a qualified majority vote may exist against us. I ask my noble friend to let me know on this occasion whether these worries are well founded.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Having listened to the debate with great care, as I have done to each of the debates, I wish to state a few facts about the
778
provisions on a common foreign and security policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty. I hope that it will not be too damaging to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to say that I believe that he was absolutely right in the way he approached the subject some moments ago.
There is already close co-operation among member states on many foreign policy issues under the existing arrangements —the European political co-operation to which my noble friend Lord Reay referred. The Maastricht provisions will build on that co-operation and make it more effective. They will not, however —I repeat not—undermine our national sovereignty over our foreign policy or ability to protect our own British interests.
Perhaps I may give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who brought in a comment about the Falklands, but it could have been anywhere else in the world. There is nothing in the common foreign and security policy that prevents Britain from acting alone. If we had to re-fight the Falklands war, which was the example given by my noble friend, we would be able to do so. We would have agreed by unanimity on the common positions and joint actions, the common foreign policy. I shall come back to that when I go through Title V. Clearly, we would not be doing so in a way which would prevent the UK defending its overseas dependent territories, should that prove necessary. It is misleading to bring up such matters when it is absolutely clear.
The lead amendments in this group—Amendment No. 248 to Article 228 and Amendment No. 251 to Article 238, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Onslow—relate to the Community pillar (amendments to the Treaty of Rome) as opposed to the common foreign and security pillar. The difference is fundamental between Amendment No. 248 and Amendment No. 251 and the rest. Whereas action under the Treaty of Rome is on the basis of proposals within the Community treaty structure and legal order, the common foreign and security policy pillar is outside that Community treaty structure and legal order and so is inter-governmental in its nature. That is the answer to the question posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asking why Title V was not included in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 248, which was moved and which refers to Article 228 of the Treaty of Rome. Article 228 sets out the procedures for the negotiation and conclusion by the Community of agreements with third countries and international organisations.
Just as it did before—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—the Council approves a negotiating mandate, on the basis of which the Commission conducts negotiations in consultation with the member states. The Commission then reports back to the Council, which, after consulting the Parliament, decides whether to approve the result of those negotiations. But if an international agreement carries important financial implications, then it was agreed at Maastricht that it would be appropriate (in view of the budgetary involvement) for the European Parliament to play a fuller role in the process. That is why European Parliament assent will be required in

779
such cases and where the agreement would entail amendment of a measure adopted under the new negative assent procedure. If the agreement is about trade and falls under Article 113, there is, as before, no EP procedure, not even consultation.
Let me now turn to Amendment No. 251 which focuses on Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome. Under Article 238, the Community may establish an association with a third country or an international organisation. But the changes agreed to Article 238 at Maastricht do not alter the previous long-standing arrangements. It is on this basis that the Community has signed agreements involving reciprocal rights and obligations with many countries over many years, including, for example, Turkey, Cyprus and Malta. Most recently we have concluded agreements with Hungary, Poland and the former state of Czechoslovakia. It was by these means that the Community demonstrated its encouragement to those countries' eventual membership of the Community when they are ready by offering generous trade concessions to help their fragile economies at a time when they are struggling to adjust to the new and challenging demands of the post Cold War world. It is this aim that is at the heart of the United Kingdom's determination to see the enlargement of the Community without delay. I wanted to mention that because, given these amendments on the Marshalled List, I believe it right that we should understand exactly what removing the articles would do.
Perhaps I may also say that anything agreed at Maastricht does not change the way that Article 238 will be carried out in the future. The Council has acted and will continue to act by unanimity. That is exactly the point that we sought to make.
I now turn to Title V—which is not part of our Bill but very much a part of our debate—and the inter-governmental provisions on the common foreign and security policy. The British Government fought hard to secure in the negotiations that foreign policy co-operation under the CFSP pillar would remain an inter-governmental process, outside the Treaty of Rome. CFSP will not therefore take place under the Community's normal rules and the European Court of Justice will have no jurisdiction in these matters. Because it is a separate pillar outside the Community, the Commission has no monopoly of initiative in CFSP. That is covered under Article J.9. I shall come back to the articles in a moment because a large number of the questions relate to them.
The Commission will be fully associated with CFSP, as it is with foreign policy co-operation today. My noble friend Lord Aldington made quite clear where that occurred in the Single European Act. That full association has been, I must tell the Committee, very useful indeed in situation after situation. I shall come to individual instances in a moment. It is a sensible arrangement. It helps us to ensure that there is coherence between the economic issues covered by the Treaty of Rome and the political issues quite separately covered by European political co-operation at the moment and under the Maastricht Treaty by the separate pillar of CFSP. Of course there will be an overlap between the responsibility of the Community
780
and the responsibility of member states in intergovernmental co-operation. One cannot put political and economic matters into watertight compartments. The most obvious example is that of sanctions. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that full association does not mean parity with member states. The Commission can initiate and participate in the debate, but the decision-making and the decision-taking will continue to be for the 12 member states.
In this debate we have heard a number of comments about the former Yugoslavia. I should like to leave that question for a moment and concentrate on other earlier comments that were made and the questions that have been asked.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls referred to the question of full association. I have already made clear that the Commission has been fully associated with European political co-operation. That full association is in no way equality with member states. I know that sometimes foolish things are said, as I must admit; and perhaps foolish things will always be said by members of the Commission. But to participate in a debate, or to share the right of initiative with member states, does not mean that the Commission is dictating. The CFSP will remain an inter-governmental process. Decision-making will remain a matter for member states. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Jay, my noble friend Lord Tebbit and others to a booklet which is rather fuller and uses the full language that a popular booklet could perhaps not use. On page 16, under section 114, it explains most clearly:
"The Commission's role remains as under … Political Co-operation: it is 'fully, associated' with Common Foreign and Security Policy".
This has been available and it is quite clear. It gives the Community the ability to initiate, but not an exclusive right; nor the watch-dog role on implementation. That is the CFSP.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Jay: Would it not be rather better if that language had been used in the other pamphlet also?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: When trying to explain a treaty which is as complicated as Maastricht —I have never made any bones about the fact that it is intricate, as all treaties are always intricate, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, knows—one cannot explain in, a pamphlet for the general public every detail in such explicit form as in that booklet, or indeed in the treaty itself. If the appetite is whetted by the booklet from which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, read, then people will perhaps go further and wish to refer to Command 1934 on the treaty. There it is laid out in full. Article J.5 also makes clear that the presidency and riot the Commission will represent the 12 nations in CFSP matters.
A number of questions have been asked, so let me now turn to those. My noble friend Lord Onslow, when he moved this particular set of amendments, talked about the problems that he saw, and said that we would have to agree common positions. Article 228a does refer to a common position and joint action. Yes, indeed, we would need to agree common

781
positions and joint actions but we would have to do so by unanimity. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, it is important that there should be coherence between EC external policy and the inter-governmental process of CFSP. I have already mentioned sanctions as an example of that.
But perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who made a number of comments about having seen Mr. van den Broek on television, that it is not surprising that there are different views. Mr. van den Broek was for a long period the Foreign Minister of Holland. He has his own views. But the views that count when it comes to CFSP are the views of the 12 member states. Of course there is no reason whatsoever why from time to time the commissioner —he is not the only commissioner for foreign matters because other commissioners also have an interest in various aspects of foreign matters and they will have views and will express their views—should not express his views, provided that decision-making rests where it should rest.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We are all in favour of free speech, but surely it must be understood that there will be a Council position—a position reached by the Council. Is the noble Baroness saying that there can also be a Commission position which will be expressed by the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs while the presidency is expressing another position? We have to get that matter absolutely clear. Surely you cannot have one organisation speaking with two voices.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: We should not have one organisation speaking with two voices. Before a decision is taken it will be quite clear that different views will be expressed, perhaps among different member states. Once the decision has been taken by the Council and the decision taken on CFSP, as on EPC, it is the decision of the Council which runs and not the decision of the commissioner. I know that some commissioners find that difficult to take but it is one of the safeguards that has been built into Title V, the J articles of the treaty.
I shall continue with the other questions that have been asked by going as quickly as I can through the provisions of this title. Several Members have indicated that perhaps the obligations of Title V are too strong and impinge on UK freedom of action. I have already answered my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I believe that this text meets three key objectives which we set ourselves. One was to keep CFSP outside the Treaty of Rome as an inter-governmental process; the second was to ensure that all significant decisions are taken by unanimity—that is a key safeguard for us. The third was to create a stronger European foreign policy through stronger commitments to common positions.
Another comment hinted at by some Members of the Committee was that somehow our policy will be absorbed into European Community policy. The question before us in CFSP is not one of absorption; it is of co-ordination. That is why effective
782
inter-governmental work under CFSP will strengthen the case against absorption and in favour of co-operation.
A number of Members questioned Article J.1—the principles and the objectives. EPC already covers all foreign and some security areas. It was we, the United Kingdom, who advocated that the CFSP should be extended to cover more security areas. The security policies of the Union must be compatible with the common security and defence policy established in NATO. That comes up under Article J.4.4.
I know that my noble friend Lord Tebbit was very anxious about whether we should try to support CFSP unreservedly. Perhaps he thought that it would not be in our interests. He mentioned Article J.1.4. The more that member states can co-operate the better. It goes back to the point I have mentioned more than once already; namely, that this is an inter-governmental process, with all the major decisions taken by unanimity. We simply were not prepared to agree and certainly would not agree to a policy which was not in the UK national interest. It makes sense that, if we can get an agreed policy with our partners, we are stronger, which is the very point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the time when he was the United Kingdom's permanent representative to the United Nations.
With regard to other articles of Title V, particularly J.2.3 —co-ordination in the international fora—my noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about our independence and French independence in having to defend positions and interests of the Union within the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Onslow failed to read the rest of Article J (in other words, Article J.5.4) which goes on to say that such representation shall be:
"without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter".
It is quite clear from reading the whole of Article J that our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council is acknowledged by the treaty and allowed for. The same is true for the French. Perhaps I may say that in other international organisations of which we are members we seek to uphold common positions and joint actions. But by the same token others are also obliged to follow agreed lines that we altogether have helped to form.
With regard to a question raised earlier—I am not sure whether it was raised this evening but certainly it has been raised on other occasions—matters of the international financial institutions and the G7 are in no way covered by the common foreign and security policy.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend. She used a form of words concerning the United Nations Security Council which clearly had been prepared for her. But she did not say that there will be no requirement whatsoever under this treaty that the views expressed in the United Nations Security Council or the use of the veto by a permanent member of the Security Council will not be affected in any way by this treaty. Those are the words that I want her to say.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I hope that my noble friend will possess himself with a little patience as I seek to hurry through. There is no problem. If we needed to use the veto, we could use the veto in the United Nations.
Lord Tebbit: It would be contrary to the policy.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It would indeed perhaps be contrary to the policy of some others, but it certainly is not the problem that my noble friend seems to think it is.
Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who asked me about being forced to take military action that we might oppose because we were bound by joint action, we have a double veto over the use of qualified majority voting under Article J: first, we put the subject into joint action under QMV only if we all agree; and, secondly, in agreeing to use that qualified majority voting. In any case, qualified majority voting can apply only to second order decisions.
We want to make the common foreign and security policy work. We see an advantage in being able to speed up some of the decision-making through the use of qualified majority voting, but only in carefully chosen circumstances to which we subscribe. The text now allows for that. But there is no question of qualified majority voting applying as a general rule, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That is covered by Article J.3.2. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My noble friend has said no less than six times in her speech that the Council can only act by unanimity. We must read the words from Article J.8.2, which states that,
"The Council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions and in the case referred to in Article J.3(2)".
Article J.3.2 clearly says that that comes into play when the Council is adopting a joint action, which I must assume includes military action and British troops and,
"at any stage during its development, [when it may] define those matters on which decisions are to he taken by a qualified majority".
The wording may be even more abysmal than is usually found in the documents in front of us. But that is what it says. It is not a matter for unanimity; it is a matter for qualified majority voting.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Let me try to explain again in simple words. Before we ever reach qualified majority voting under Article J we must have a unanimous decision to do so. Therefore, if we are not prepared to use qualified majority voting—as we are not on matters military and defence—we do not decide to use qualified majority voting by unanimity, as we would have to.
I am sorry that my noble friend cannot see how the two articles apply together. He asked me the further question as to whether joint action could commit British troops. The answer is no. If he cares to look at Article J.4.3 he will find that it says,
"Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article shall not he subject to the procedures set out in Article J/".
I do not believe that that could be clearer.
784
My noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Tebbit and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about the specific responsibilities in the Security Council. Article J.5.4 safeguards the UK's ability to fulfil its responsibilities effectively as a permanent member. That was the answer to the question put by my noble friend Lord Tebbit when he referred to the words "without prejudice" in the last phrase of Article J.5.4. I believe that I have covered that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked particularly about the Political Committee. In all these debates I have rarely seen him enjoying himself so much as when he put that specific point to me. He was grinning from ear to ear and thought that he had landed on something new. However, my noble friend Lord Aldington put him right. The Political Committee is in Article 30.10 of the Single European Act. Article J.8.5 —and it was a UK proposal—establishes the role of the Political Committee in the CFSP pillar. The article merely says that this is without prejudice to COREPER's role. COREPER will continue to function, preparing Councils, as part of the single institutional framework.
The political directors, to whom the noble Lord referred with great suspicion, meet to prepare work for the European political co-operation. They have been doing so for my seven-and-a-half years in the Foreign Office and do a good job of ironing out some of the non-political but basic wording. When it comes to the policy points, it is the Ministers who are involved in the EPC committee—we have always called it a committee—who decide what goes on. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is a short point. She seemed to believe that I was unaware that that article was contained in the Single European Act. I was perfectly well aware of that, but I am obliged to her for explaining exactly what it means. That is what the debate is about.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I do not object to explaining. However, I know that there are one or two people who have noted that it has already gone eight o'clock and wish me to hurry towards my concluding words.
My noble friend Lord Beloff expressed anxiety about references to defence in the treaty. He went into some detail. I shall not answer in such great detail. It is clear that under CFSP the Western European Union, and not the 12, will be responsible for elaborating and implementing the decisions with defence implications. Our Government and this country have long accepted that the Western European Union should be the defence component of the union and the key is that WEU is free to take its own decisions with defence implications. The treaty also clearly states that the union security policy should be fully compatible with NATO security and defence policy.
One specific question asked by my noble friend Lord Beloff was in regard to the German constitutional position. The German constitution must be a matter for Germany and not for us.

785
However, I should note that the whole question of Germany being able to deploy troops outside the NATO area is currently before its constitutional court. Germany's current position will not prevent the Germans playing a full role in CFSP, just as they have done in EPC. Any common defence policy is for the future, as the treaty makes quite clear in Article J.4.1.
My noble friend Lord Beloff indicated that he felt that the treaty was damaging to NATO. That is not so. NATO remains fundamental to European security, and relates quite clearly to the WEU, as I have just outlined.
My noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Tebbit, along with other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Parry, talked of Yugoslavia. I do not believe that tonight is the time to go into a long debate on Yugoslavia. I simply say that it was under the British presidency of the Community that we brought together the London conference. It has been a great help to be able to work with our partners in the Community to try to solve the problem, but the problem in the former Yugoslavia is frankly only soluble when the parties to the conflict decide that they, perhaps with help from outside, will stop fighting and start rebuilding that poor, poor land.
We have had a long debate. I am conscious of the time. All that comes under the CFSP pillar is what we sought to achieve; it is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, before he went to Maastricht, put to the House of Commons. It is what he put to its Members when he came back, and it was approved. Your Lordships' House had a similar debate and also approved what we had done in that respect. Should the amendment be pressed, I urge the Committee to reject it.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, got it absolutely right. He said, "I see no rocks; I see no storms; I see nothing but peace, quiet and co-operation ahead of us". By implication he is accusing those of us who have doubts of imagining hobgoblins and elves all over Brussels and Luxembourg. I remind him of a small town not far from the Hellespont, where, 2,000-odd years ago a war was fought. Cassandra warned: nobody took a blind bit of notice of what she said and Troy fell.
Those of us who are worried about the issue have no objection and would actively encourage the sort of diplomatic effort that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was making in the United Nations. He was co-operating; he was talking to his European counterparts and producing a common policy. That does not need a written set of rules on how to do it. That is what we are complaining of and what we are worried about. It is the need to have a written set of rules which lays out something which, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit said, when it is found not to work, will be replaced by something else.
Two minutes is all that I can allow myself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I have been asked to refer to the rest of the
786
group of amendments linked with Amendment No. 248, which has been withdrawn. I take it that the following amendments will not be moved: Amendments Nos. 249 to 279 en bloc; Amendments Nos. 280 to 292 en bloc; Amendments Nos. 293 to 303 en bloc, and Amendments Nos. 304 and 305.
[Amendment Nos. 249 and 250 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 252 to 279 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 280 to 293 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 294 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 295 to 304 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 305 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 9.10 p.m. and not before.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.10 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Finsberg, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Clark of Kempston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill
8.11 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In introducing the Bill perhaps I may first congratulate its sponsor, my honourable friend Sir John Hannam, and its supporters in another place on its successful passage there. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, was to have presented the Bill but unfortunately he has been prevented from doing so by illness. We wish him a speedy recovery.
The purpose of the Bill is simply stated. It is to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 in such a way as to enable physically disabled people to qualify as approved driving instructors so that they may give paid instruction in the driving of cars. I am glad to say that the Bill has the Government's support and also cross party support. It is welcomed by many disabled people and organisations which represent the interests of disabled people.
Disabled people face many obstacles—in education, housing, transport, employment and several other areas. While there has been a great deal of progress in recent years towards removing those obstacles, there is still a long way to go. The Bill

787
represents a small but important and constructive step forward. By making provision to enable physically disabled people to become driving instructors, approved by the Department of Transport, the Bill removes an obstacle to employment which currently faces disabled people. The removal of the barrier on disabled people becoming driving instructors will offer the opportunity of a greater degree of financial independence for those able to take advantage of its provisions. For years there has been a demand for a change in the law. For years the Department of Transport and disability organisations have received many representations from would-be driving instructors who are currently excluded from that source of employment.
It may help your Lordships if I briefly discuss the existing legislation which governs approved driving instructors in order to illustrate exactly why a change in the law is needed. At the moment the law requires someone who wants to become an approved driving instructor to hold a current unrestricted driving licence. That is a licence which enables him or her to drive cars fitted with manual or automatic gear boxes. Any approved driving instructor must therefore be able to offer instruction in cars fitted with either automatic or manual transmission. Those driving Licence requirements and the expectation that approved driving instructors should be able to give tuition in all kinds of cars act as a barrier to would-be disabled driving instructors.
Under the existing legislation most physically disabled people who are restricted by their driving licence to cars with automatic transmission can never hope to obtain an unrestricted driving licence and therefore can never aspire to become an approved driving instructor. That discrimination against disabled people is an area of employment the Bill seeks to remedy.
Your Lordships will have an opportunity to study the Bill in much more detail at Committee stage. I shall restrict my remarks now to the Bill's key features. It will enable physically disabled people who hold current restricted driving licences to become approved driving instructors and to give paid tuition in vehicles of a class covered by their restricted driving licences. In practice that will mean the giving of instruction in cars with automatic transmission only.
A great part of the Bill's text merely repeats what is said in existing legislation, with suitable amendment to reflect the nature of disabled persons' driving licences and restrictions which need apply as to the kind of cars with automatic transmission in which they could give paid instruction. That is the gist of Clauses 1 and 2, which insert "mirror" sections, specific to physically disabled people, immediately after the corresponding sections in the Road Traffic Act which apply to non-disabled people who hold unrestricted driving licences.
However, in Clause 3 the Bill introduces a new and very important concept—the emergency control assessment and emergency control certificate. With your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to say a few words about that. No noble Lord would disagree that physically disabled people can, and do, drive safely.
788
But we cannot assume that every disabled person who might wish to become an approved driving instructor could safely take control of the vehicle in an emergency while in the act of giving instruction. For instance, a disabled person who is more than capable of exercising emergency control of a vehicle while driving it may not have the same dexterity to take emergency control from the front passenger seat while giving instruction. He or she may not be able to lean over and quickly take control of the steering wheel. There is a key road safety issue here. It will be a condition that any physically disabled person who wishes to be registered as an approved driving instructor must possess a current emergency control certificate and the registrar will not register a disabled person who does not possess a current emergency control certificate.
Clause 3 provides the framework for the assessment of emergency control ability and the issue of the emergency control certificate. The Bill makes it a requirement for a would-be disabled driving instructor to satisfy an assessor, appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, that he or she could exercise control in an emergency while giving instruction. A successful demonstration of that emergency control ability will lead to the issue of the necessary emergency control certificate.
The Bill recognises that, for the purpose of exercising the necessary emergency control while giving instruction, the vehicle may need to be modified for that purpose. For instance, it may be necessary for the vehicle to be fitted with a hand operated throttle and hand operated brakes. The emergency control certificate will specify any required modifications. It will be an offence for a disabled person to give paid driving instruction in a vehicle not equipped with the modifications specified in the certificate.
The Bill also recognises that not every disabled person's physical condition will be stable. In some cases the condition may be one which deteriorates over a period of time. So the Bill provides for the assessor to include in the emergency control certificate recommendations that the person should undergo further emergency control assessment at the end of such period as may be specified.
As an added road safety safeguard, Clause 3 contains powers for an emergency control certificate to be revoked in the event that the disabled person is no longer able to meet the necessary emergency control requirements. Revocation would be effective almost immediately and it would be an offence to continue to give paid instruction without a current emergency control certificate, even if the person's name had yet to be removed from the register of approved driving instructors. Revocation is most likely to occur in cases where the person had notified the registrar of a worsening of his or her physical condition, as the Bill requires, and the registrar had ordered a reassessment, as the Bill permits.
The Bill also allows a person to volunteer for reassessment of emergency, provided a specified period had elapsed since the previous assessment. That provision is most likely to benefit those who had failed to obtain a certificate on the previous occasion.

789
It may also assist those who hold a valid and current certificate and whose physical condition had improved since the most recent assessment. A reassessment in those circumstances may, for example, mean that some or all of the modifications to the vehicle need no longer be specified on the certificate.
So the Bill's introduction of the concept of the emergency control certificate is a key safeguard of road safety. While it is necessary for road safety purposes to place this additional requirement on disabled people, it should not act as a disincentive to those disabled people, who want to qualify as approved driving instructors. Nor is it proposed that this requirement should impose any financial penalty on disabled people. I am assured that the Government do not propose to charge applicants for the emergency control assessment and certificate, and I welcome that.
I mentioned earlier that Clauses 1 and 2 do little more than mirror existing legislation in this area governing non-disabled people with suitable adjustment. I have just described the emergency control assessment and certificate provided for in Clause 3. That is the key clause in the Bill.
Clause 4 deals with the obligations placed on a disabled person who is an approved driving instructor to disclose to the registrar any previously undisclosed physical disability or worsening of a disclosed disability. The obligations are no different to those placed on able-bodied instructors under existing legislation.
Clause 5 deals with offences. The Bill makes it an offence to give paid instruction in a vehicle of a class not covered by an emergency control certificate and/or to give paid instruction without a valid emergency control certificate.
Clause 6 introduces the schedule of related and consequential amendments to existing legislation and Clause 7 provides the "Short title, commencement and extent". Commencement would be by order of the Secretary of State for Transport. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland although elsewhere in the Bill there is provision to recognise a similar Northern Ireland scheme should one be introduced there.
Finally, I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a useful Bill which removes an area of discrimination in the giving of paid driving instruction and which, in doing so, also ensures that road safety interests are not threatened. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
8.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has given a very full and enlightening description of the Bill. All that remains for me to say is that I wholeheartedly welcome this measure, which I believe is very sensible. It is removing an area of restriction on the lives of disabled people where they are, with the aid of technology and a little understanding, capable of doing the job correctly. Surely that is something that should be done
790
at every available opportunity. With those few words I hope that this Bill receives a very swift passage through this House.
8.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for his very lucid introduction of this Bill on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I speak as a qualified Army driving instructor with approximately 14 years experience training TA soldiers to drive heavy goods vehicles and also some experience in civvy street teaching people to drive heavy goods vehicles.
I welcome the Bill. It has limited application. There will not be that many people who will wish to take advantage of it. I am sure that those who do will be very grateful for it. I can assure the House that there are no physical problems with disabled persons giving instruction. My own personal view is that it would be technically possible for them to give instruction on manually-controlled vehicles, but I understand the reasons for restricting the provision to automatic vehicles.
The reason for that view is that when one is teaching someone to drive a vehicle it is mainly a process of communication. In the main, word of mouth is used and diagrams are drawn. There is very little actual taking over of the vehicle. Provided that one can stop the vehicle and possibly steer it, that is quite sufficient. The emergency control certificate will be the safety guarantee in this Bill.
I note that disabled instructors need to be able to control cars in an emergency. That is fair enough. However, it is interesting to note that a father, say, may teach his son in an ordinary private car which has a handbrake lever on the son's right hand side. In an emergency it is very unlikely that the father would be able to stop the vehicle. Perhaps we ought to think about the future and whether we should continue to allow unqualified people to give driving lessons.
I understand that there is no right of appeal as regards the granting of an emergency control certificate. It seems to be one bite of the cherry, but I accept that that is fair enough. I hope that the assessors are fair and sympathetic.
I have a few questions. Do we know how many assessors will be authorised to conduct emergency control certificate tests? Where will they be located? Will they be able to travel to far-flung parts of the country or will the DoT authorise a fair number of assessors so if one is in Aberdeen, for example, one will not have to travel to MAVIS to get an assessment?
I look forward to the speedy passage of this Bill through its remaining stages. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to the Committee stage. I hope that there will be not too much detail at that stage.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord McColl for his very clear explanation of the purposes of the Bill, which I support. In each case it is clear that the individual conditions will be separately considered in

791
the light of the kind of disability, or combination of disabilities, the personal and other factors. I suggest that foremost the safety of the public must be considered.
That agreed, there is no reason why a disabled person, with suitable attributes and unquestioned ability to control a car when a learner is in the driving seat. should not become a qualified instructor. Indeed, such an instructor in due course could be especially successful with learner drivers who themselves are suffering from a minor disability of some kind. I also believe that once they become qualified to drive disabled persons are often less likely to take risks and to have accidents than the general public.
An organisation concerned with disability suggested that I should speak in this debate in support of the Bill, presumably because I have been a disabled driver for 46 years. I have been greatly dependent on wheels during that period and have had cars specially adapted. As I am expected, therefore, to say something about driving with a physical handicap, I shall contribute a few words on the subject.
When I was able-bodied before World War Two, I had a full driving licence. I emerged from hospital more than a year after the war still not able to walk. My parents then produced a car with a hand clutch —this was before the days of automatic gears—and in 1947 I started to drive it. Of course, I had to have a provisional licence again, and then to pass another test in order to acquire a full licence to drive a motor car only. During the war, I had been driving a wide variety of vehicles from tanks and heavy lorries to motor bicycles.
The unlikely consequence was that within three years I was successfully teaching my wife to drive. I mention that only because it is notoriously difficult for husbands and wives to teach each other to drive except, of course, for backseat driving, which is often unstoppable. And this was happening in New York —not an easy place in which to learn to drive —as that was where my work required me to live at the time, making it a doubly improbable event.
I am not myself severely disabled, but I speak with some personal experience over many years. The Bill is to be welcomed in general because it prevents automatic discrimination against disabled people. An application will be dealt with on its particular merits. The Bill does not open the door to every disabled person, however enthusiastic. To give an extreme example, I very much hope that someone whose disability is very defective eyesight will be kept off the roads altogether.
I support the Bill. I hope that the Government and others will find similar ways of dispensing with automatic, blanket discrimination against disabled people in other activities and occupations.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for whom I have a great deal of affection and with whom I share many common interests,
792
particularly relating to the environment. The noble Lord spoke with a great deal of personal authority and I thought his short speech most interesting.
Like other noble Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for his careful explanation of it. Perhaps I may say at the outset of what will be a very short speech that I wish to say on my own behalf —I think that we can speak only on our own behalf on Private Member's Bills—that I am delighted that my old friend Sir John Hannam (I think that we entered the House of Commons on the same day in 1970) has been successful in piloting the Bill through another place. I do not think that there will be much difficulty about its progress through this House in the capable hands of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Even if the noble Lord were incapable, I think that he would be able to get the Bill through the House—even more so because we are quite unused in this place these days to receiving any sensible transport legislation. So he can be doubly reassured on that count.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Ashley is not here. He would have wished to introduce the Bill. We all admire him so much and, on behalf of this side of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for what he said about him. We wish my noble friend well. He has recently had a bout of difficulties with his health but, with his usual fortitude, I am sure that he will weather it and be back here by the autumn.
This is an extremely important Bill. I t is not world shattering; it is nonetheless extremely important and takes the cause of disabled people that little bit further. It is right that time should have been found for it. It is helpful that certain anxieties expressed about the Bill have been allayed. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, dwelt on that in his introductory speech. It is extremely important that those anxieties have been satisfied. I wish the Bill every possible success. It will bring relief and opportunity perhaps to only a small number of people, but however small the number, that is important. On behalf of my noble friends as well as myself, I am delighted to welcome the Bill.
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to lend the Government's support to the Bill, especially as it commands such widespread approval. The Bill's sponsor and its supporters in another place are to be congratulated on their handling of it. I hope that it will obtain a similar smooth passage through your Lordships' House as it deserves to reach the statute book, and I have every reason to believe that it will.
I should like to take the opportunity to echo the regrets which have been voiced around the House that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is not able to be here this evening to move the Second Reading. I add best wishes from these Benches for his speedy recovery. He must, however, be greatly reassured that the Bill is in the safe hands of my noble friend Lord McColl.
The Bill is a limited measure, but it is no less important for that. As the noble Earl. Lord Attlee,

793
and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, it is unlikely to benefit a great many people. But those who want and are able to take advantage of its provisions should have the opportunity to lead a more financially independent and satisfying life as a result. The Bill removes an area of discrimination in the area of the employment of disabled people, and on those grounds alone it is to be commended and deserves your Lordships' support.
The concept of the emergency control assessment and certificate in Clause 3 of the Bill is a good one. It ensures that road safety interests are preserved. I am sure that this House would agree that the Bill should do nothing which in any way threatens road safety, which is a major concern of us all.
We are confident that disabled people appreciate the need for an assessment of emergency control in the way that the Bill prescribes. We are pleased that it was agreed in another place that no charge will be made for the assessment. Apart from the need to obtain, and keep current, the emergency control certificate, disabled people who wish to become registered as approved driving instructors will be treated no differently from their non-disabled counterparts. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and trust that it will be given its Second Reading.
8.37 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It only remains for me to hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.38 to 9.10 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 306 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 307:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("and IV") and insert ("IV and VII (except Article Q)").
The noble Lord said: Provisions designed to move towards a single currency and the third stage of monetary union are stated to be irrevocable. The Treaty of Maastricht is said to be irrevocable. What surely must be the shortest article in the treaty (Article Q) asserts simply:
"This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period".
This place, one of whose functions is to protect our unwritten constitution, should remind the Government that no Parliament can bind its successor. The Bill may well be passed by this place, with or without amendments, and move on to Royal Assent, but there is nothing to stop a future Parliament or, for that matter, even this Parliament from passing a further European Communities Bill
794
which would alter the matter yet again. There might even be a Bill to repeal this Bill and all previous Bills on the subject. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
Indeed, if the Government persist in steamrollering through what are clearly unacceptable provisions in the treaty they may well reinforce popular reaction against not only Maastricht but the whole concept of the Common Market. That would be a pity. It is not impossible to imagine political pressure welling up during the next two or three years, in particular if the recession continues, which will require the Government of the day to abandon Maastricht and to revert to a genuine common market which embraces all of Europe and not just selected parts of Western Europe.
Under the British constitution—unwritten though it is—nothing is irrevocable or irreversible. Any Parliament can amend or reverse previous legislation, including this Bill. It would be dishonest of the Government to ratify the Maastricht Treaty on the terms that it is irrevocable. The Government do not have the power to deliver such a promise. Therefore, talk of moving to the third stage and to a single currency as being irrevocable is wishful thinking—thank goodness!
What then of Article Q of the treaty? It states:
"This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period".
I suppose that historians would say that all the great treaties of the past—the Treaty of Vienna, the Treaty of Versailles and so on—were concluded by the participants of the day for an unlimited period. In practice, that means until they were broken by one or more of the parties or by mutual agreement replaced by some new treaty. Those treaties did not actually state that they were concluded for an unlimited period but the aim was implicit in each and every one.
What then do we make of a treaty which specifies in one of its articles that it is for an unlimited period? The treaty is explicit in stating that there is no explicit period for the life of the treaty. That does not mean that the treaty will go on for ever; it merely asserts that it will go on for a period of time which at this juncture cannot be specified.
Why is it thought necessary to write such a truism into the treaty? Elsewhere in the treaty provision is made for this "irrevocable" move to the European system of central banks and to the third stage of monetary union. But it also provides for all the participants to come together for a conference in 1996 to reassess the whole matter. Article Q might well mean, therefore, that we hope the Maastricht Treaty will not fall apart at that conference in 1996; or, more realistically, that we know that the treaty will fall apart at that stage but with luck not before then.
It would be helpful if the Minister would explain, first, exactly what Article 2 is to mean and, secondly, why it was written into the treaty at all. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to use this occasion to protest against what is nothing other than a manifest abuse of the process of this House. A series of prerogative amendments had been tabled. They were Amendments Nos. 407, 408, 414 and 306. They were fundamental amendments which affected the

795
Monarch, the principles on which constitutionally our Parliament conducts its affairs and the way in which under the existing system adopted under the European Treaty the heads of state have conducted their affairs.
All those issues were brought into question and I was asked to come here to speak to the amendment. I arrive and I find "not moved"! Who are the noble Lords who set their names to Amendment No. 407? Let me name them. The first is my noble friend Lord Onslow; the second the noble Lord, Lord Jay; the third my noble friend Lord Beloff; and the fourth my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
I protest at the gross abuse of the procedures of this House in tabling an amendment of that kind, of that order, of that importance and of that consequence and then just not moving it without any word at all.
Baroness Trumpington: I have to say that I am totally in the hands of the Committee over the matter. If the noble Lords who tabled the amendments have not moved them, I believe that it is within their gift to do so. Indeed, according to information that I have just received, I am right in that assumption. All I can do is say that I am very sorry from the point of view of my noble friend. There is nothing else that I can say on the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I totally accept the position. I ask for no corner, comfort or consideration: all I do is protest with all the power that I have at my disposal against the way in which this Chamber has been treated.
Lord Beloff: If I may, I should like to apologise to my noble friend. l was a minute late coming into the Chamber or I should certainly have moved Amendment No. 407. I did not realise that it would be taken as "not moved" if I was not present. I was, in fact, detained on the telephone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): Before speaking to Amendment No. 307, I should say that it would of course he quite proper for any Member of the Committee to move Amendment No. 407 when we reach that stage. Perhaps in a few moments that opportunity may arise.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very much obliged.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that that may resolve the difficulty in which the Committee has found itself.
I should like briefly to speak to Amendment No. 307. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the amendment seeks to include within Clause 1(1) of the Bill Title VII (the final provisions) except for the one particular article—in this case Article Q. The final provisions of the treaty are already included within Clause 1(1) of the Bill to the extent that they relate to the amendments to the Community treaties in Titles II, Ill and IV. It would be undesirable to include them lock stock and barrel within the Bill as that would blur the distinction between the inter-governmental pillars arid the Community.
I turn now to deal with Article Q with which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, found some difficulty. The article says that the Treaty on European Union is
796
concluded for an unlimited period, as he pointed out. He then made certain points about the position as regards our future generations and future Parliaments. However, I must point out that it follows a precedent of the Treaty of Rome. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to Article 2.40 where the words are exactly the same. The article reads:
"This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period".
The other treaties establishing the European Community, including the Single European Act, have not changed that position. I believe that the noble Lord also wondered whether the UK could withdraw from the European treaties. I think he may feel that that is a position with which we may need to deal. It has been the position of successive governments that, despite the absence of a specific withdrawal clause in the Treaty of Rome, it remains open to Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 arid to withdraw from the Community. Of course, it would follow that it would be necessary to negotiate the terms of any withdrawal with other member states. I hope that that explanation allays the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation. I must admit that I was unaware that there was one precedent—one only—but still it is important for including words such as,
"This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period".
On the face of it, that sounds rather defensive and, indeed, defiant. But, as the precedent exists (although in a limited sense) it would perhaps be silly to try to labour the point too much. I am reassured to have the noble Viscount's confirmation that Parliament could decide to withdraw. Of course, anything else would be unthinkable because of the fact that no parliament can bind its successor. Nevertheless, it is good to have those words of confirmation. I hope that it will not be necessary, but it is nice to know that the power is there should we ever need it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 308 to 327 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 328 to 331 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 332 to 338 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 339 to 349 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 350 to 375 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 376 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 377 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 378 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 379 to 386 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 387 to 391 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 392 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause I agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

797
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask why the House is being resumed and why this Committee does not continue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It may be for the convenience of the Chamber if I explain that I know my noble friend would like to speak to Amendment No. 407. However, before we reach that amendment there are other amendments on the Order Paper to which other Members of the Committee had expected to speak tomorrow. If we were to move across those amendments now and go directly to Amendment No. 407 to enable my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to speak, those Members of the Committee who were not expecting their amendments to be moved until tomorrow would lose the opportunity to move them. I believe that that is why my noble friend Lady Trumpington sought to resume the House. I hope that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will accept that explanation even if he is not happy with the outcome thereof.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wholly accept the explanation and I am wholly satisfied with the outcome. However, one cannot expect Members of the Committee on these Back Benches just to accept things without an explanation. Now the explanation has been given, I find it wholly satisfactory.
Baroness Elles: I wish to ask the Minister a question. Will those amendments which have not been moved because Members of the Committee have not thought fit to be in the Chamber when their turn came be allowed to be moved on another occasion?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I believe I am right in saying that if we have not reached those
798
amendments on the Marshalled List they could be moved subsequently by Members of the Committee interested in so moving them. What we were seeking to do was not to spring what might be called in some places a fast one on those Members of the Committee who are not here and who had not expected amendments following on from the clause stand part debate, which we are now past, to be moved tonight. That was why my noble friend Lady Trumpington sought to resume the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Agreed, but Amendment No. 306 has not been moved and cannot be moved. Amendments Nos. 407, 408 and 414 have not been moved. They should be moved. They should be considered by the Committee tomorrow. Amendment No. 306 cannot be considered because it was not moved. Is that right?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Perhaps I may explain the position again. I did not in any way intimate that those earlier amendments, which we are now past and which have not been moved, should be moved at some time in the future. Only Amendment No. 407 and the subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List which we have not yet reached may be moved if Members of the Committee so wish when we reach them. But that should be tomorrow and not tonight.
Baroness Trumpington: The House should now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Allied Irish Banks Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

  CHINA: LORD HOWE'S VISIT
  CHINA: LORD HOWE'S VISIT
  MALAWI: REFERENDUM RESULT
  MALAWI: REFERENDUM RESULT
  EC CONSULAR CO-OPERATION
  EC CONSULAR CO-OPERATION
  ENTRY CLEARANCE APPLICATIONS
  ENTRY CLEARANCE APPLICATIONS
  EC COMMON POLICY AREAS: MEMBER STATES' FREEDOM OF ACTION
  EC COMMON POLICY AREAS: MEMBER STATES' FREEDOM OF ACTION
  BAIL. ACT 1976: MAGISTRATES' TRAINING
  BAIL. ACT 1976: MAGISTRATES' TRAINING
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN COUNCIL HOUSING
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN COUNCIL HOUSING
  BEER: EFFECT OF NEW DUTY SYSTEM
  BEER: EFFECT OF NEW DUTY SYSTEM
  BEER: PUBLICISING OF EXCISE DUTY
  BEER: PUBLICISING OF EXCISE DUTY
  HONG KONG: PASSPORT ARRANGEMENTS
  HONG KONG: PASSPORT ARRANGEMENTS
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS: JAPANESE UNDERTAKING
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS: JAPANESE UNDERTAKING